p2pnet - rss feed: 1st RIAA trial: victim to defend herself
p2p news / p2pnet: Laws were written to protect people, not to give huge, multi-billion dollar mega-corporations a way to terrorize them.
Will the law work equally well for an ordinary person with no heavyweight legal team and no unimaginably vast financial resources behind her?
Patricia Santangelo will find out as she represents herself in the first of the 17,000 or so Organized Music p2p file sharing cases to actually go to trial.
Santangelo, the mother of five children, was the first person to dare to stand up to Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI, the Big Four members of the Organized Music cartel. And up until now, she’s had the New York firm of Beldock Levine & Hoffman working for her.
But to everyone’s shock, judge Colleen McMahon recently denied Santangelo’s appeal to have the case dismissed.
“I’m very nervous about it,” Santangelo told p2pnet. “But I still feel it’s got to go forward and I’m sure that even though I’ll be representing myself, there are so many people out there who are willing to help me and give me advice on how to do it that I’ll be OK.”
The cartel has been, and still is, using formulaic boilerplate complaints to force anyone and everyone named as a defendant to defend each case on the merits. And as Ray Beckerman, who’s been working with Santangelo told us, this in turn means every person sued will, “inevitably incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs for the pretrial discovery, and then a summary judgment motion and/or a trial”.
Whether or not there’s sufficient basis for the case doesn’t enter the equation.
Meanwhile, obviously, the money has to come from somewhere and just as obviously, few law firms can hope to carry that kind of burden forever, a reality Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI are fully aware of.
In fact, they’re counting on it to allow them to continue to victimize and terrorize - not too strong a word - their customers.
“Patricia Santangelo and her lawyers, Beldock Levine & Hoffman, have agreed that Ms. Santangelo should be substituted into the case as her own lawyer, in Elektra v. Santangelo, and submitted a stipulation and proposed order to that effect to Judge Colleen McMahon, who on November 28th had denied Ms. Santangelo’s motion to dismiss complaint,” say her former lawyers on their Recording Industry vs The People site.
“In his affidavit submitted with the stipulation and proposed order, Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Santangelo’s lawyers, said:
[I]t was jointly decided by defendant and by her counsel that it would be in defendant’s best interests for defendant to be substituted as her own counsel, and to proceed pro se.
4. Additionally, (a) defendant does not appear to have the financial resources that would be required for the pretrial discovery, and summary judgment and/or trial work, that lay ahead, and (b) it is clear to the undersigned that the plaintiff’s case is frivolous, so that it would be unwarranted for defendant to go to extraordinary means to finance her defense of this case.
Now, when Santangelo faces the Organized Music cartel’s legal teams, she’ll be doing it by herself. There will be no lawyer watching her back.
But this first landmark trial will be a trial by jury and we’ll finally find out if Big Music can abuse a group of ordinary citizens in the same way it’s been abusing the law.
The cartel wields its so-called trade organizations around the world to bludgeon ordinary men and women, and even children, for the awful offence of sharing music with each other online.
The Big Four call file sharers thieves and imply that every day, millions of people like Patricia Santangelo or Britanny Chan or Tanya Andersen deliberately and consciously set out to rob them of their rightful dues.
But file sharing means exactly what it says.
Sharing.
Nothing has been physically or digitally removed from its owners, depriving them of what’s rightfully theirs, and no money changes hands. And more importantly, neither Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI nor any of the countless record companies they own has ever been able to prove that a file shared equals a sale lost.
“It’s very important to me,” Santangelo told p2pnet. “I still feel people shouldn’t give in to them. Normal people can’t afford to go through this, but I’m going to give it a try.
“Nothing has changed since I first received the papers.
“It seems like they’re attacking people every day and they’re getting away with it.”
This case will directly affect what happens to Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI victims yet to come, not to mention the continuing prosperity of the labels themselves.
p2pnet will be organizing a fund raising site for Santangelo, based on FightGoliath.com, contributed by Canada’s Sandro, the first volunteer in this effort.
We’re still working out how we’re going to put it together, but we’ll need help, and lots of it.
So if you want to get involved as well, please stay tuned.
Also read:-
dare to stand up - RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, December 6, 2005
recently denied - Santangelo appeal dismissed, November 28, 2005
Britanny Chan - Britanny vs RIAA hearing date, December, 2005
Tanya Andersen - The ‘We’re Not Taking Any More’ club, September 17, 2005
December 7th, 2005 at 1:43 am
Why not start a boycot of the label (record company) and it’s artists.
The label are Warner, which owns Atlatic which in tuern owns Electra, the suing company.
Atists of the label should be boycotted in concerts and record purchases. The artists should not sit idle while their label to abuse their fans.
Hit them where it hurts.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:25 am
It’d probly help if the artists were actually told what’s going on too. I’m sure a lot of them are blissfully unaware of it all.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
There is a boycott going on. It’s called p2p. I will NEVER buy or rent another movie or album that has the cartel’s label on it until they drop these lawsuits and pay back the money extorted by the cartels. In order to get me to buy Sony products, Sony will have to pay to have everyones computer who was infected with their malware disinfected upon request.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Also think Vivendi Universal (France), Warner Music (US) and EMI (UK).
Cheers!
December 7th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Although I truely hope that Patricia Santangelo wins her case, I suspect Beldock Levine & Hoffman and Ray Beckerman do not have the same feeling. To say and I quote” Meanwhile, obviously, the money has to come from somewhere and just as obviously, few law firms can hope to carry that kind of burden forever”. As I have heard of time after time In such a high profile case as this, any monies invested by a law firm would be returned 10 or 20 fold from future cases of all types if they win. So unfortunatly, I see the Law Firm thats representing Ms. Santangelo, oops I mean thats back out from representing Ms. Santangelo, does not have any confidence in a good outcome in the case. Losing a case like this would have a negitive impact on the Law Firm and they know it. I suggest Ms. Santangelo gets herself a Law Firm that honestly believes she can win, that will step up to the plate and reap all the benifits from winning such a case.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Go Patricia, go!!
Mike Dallos
December 7th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
I’m lovin’ this………Patricia, how can I help??
December 7th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
I will not buy from any of them. But i meant that especially about Sony. I will no longer even buy electronic quipment from that company. I would really love to see their U.S. division bankrupt and not allowed to conduct business here. That will very well set an example for all of these other companies that think that they can screw their customers with impunity.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
“There is a boycott going on. It’s called p2p.”
Maybe p2p is a boycott for some, but for many sharing is just human nature, generosity or a need. Anywayy p2p does not cover personal and television appearances. Boycott television by turning to anothe channel when RIAA artists show up. Boycott concerts.
Support only non RIAA artists.
Maybe www.boycott-riaa.com web site can pick up this idea?
December 8th, 2005 at 12:27 am
I don’t like it that she is defending herself. I’m worried those corporate blood-sucking RIAA lawyers will twist and pervert reality and snow the jury. This is THE precedent setting case. To have “average mom” defend against that pack of wolves, er, I mean those high buck lawyers is bad. Why is there no legal fund that we can donate to in order to help?
Well, good luck Patricia. Hope you won’t need it.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Do you know that the artists don’t know about this?
I don’t they want to sue their own fans the people that gave them the fame to begin with. The artists need to know. Its just the label thats behind all of this.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:08 am
I stopped buying music the day the first lawsuits were started. I will never buy another piece of music as long as I am treated as a criminal for being a customer. Why pay to be called a pirate when I can be a pirate for free?
The last two albums I bought were purchased after downloading songs from the albums, and were bought because I liked what I heard. As a matter of fact, over the past 30 years, I have purchased hundreds of records and tapes and cds, partly because of music I have recorded from the radio, tv, and internet. Now I’m treated as a criminal after spending thousands of dollars to support the artists I like, because I’m doing the same thing I have been doing for 30 years, recording, purchasing, listening to, and sharing my music.
Just because it’s digital doesn’t make it different. Music sounds the same to me and you can’t make me believe the media it is transported on, makes it any different from what has always existed.
Everyone will be considered a pirate by the music companies, until the day they can get a quarter, every time a musical note passes over your eardrum.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:26 am
I wish there was a way we could contact her, there are several things that would be good to bring up in this trial like:
-How much money does the artist get out of all the “settlement” money that has been collected by the RIAA?
Stuff like that
December 8th, 2005 at 2:31 am
How about it Jon …..Do you know of any fund available to donate to, to help people like Patircia, Britanny and Tanya and I’ll assume others will be before this is over (If Ever)that are fighting the RIAA or will be not only on their own behalf but on all file sharers behalfs. Just imagine the millions it would generate from just $1 from every file sharer. Because I really think it’s going to take millions to fight these people. All file sharers really need to come forward and donate to a Fight The RIAA Fund, because these people are fighting for ALL OF OUR RIGHTS not only theirs …….Rescue
December 8th, 2005 at 2:36 am
The sad part about this is that the cartels are doing what they can to influance the legal system that they are right, regardless. Since they haven’t yet proved beyond accusation that what they say is the truth, it is all allegation and nothing more. However for a business in it for the money to be made off the case, there is nothing other than the recognition of their name for a payoff. That’s probably not much return on the theretical expense that is expected by what the cartels will do to drag this on unless she is unsupported.
What makes mockery of the idea of justice in this is that one side is well funded and well represented (almost to the point of over representation) while the other side struggles with principal and the knowledge of not being guilty. The shame here is that the not being guilty will most probably be buried in an onslought of motion and appeal while the victim is hapless to respond in a meaningful way that counts in court, being a total novice to court procedure and methodology. It is the very hope of the cartels that this is a groundsetting case and that they can isolate the intended victim into that very position while firing salvo after salvo of legalese, without responce by the victim to set them in the bad light they deserve.
While the judge may be sympathic to the mother that is the proclaimed victim, there is little she can do to help the victim without the victim providing the necessary stimulas to bring about a favorable decision. This one has all the stink of a set up provided by the cartels to set precedence to go the way they want it to go. In the end I fear that court procedure will stink to high heaven in the aftermath while reporters do the armchair quaterback stunt from the sidelines.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:54 am
I was under the impression that the lawyers were not going to quit so soon and were working pro bono, so this surprised me. Also I think that even though the judge denied the motion to dismiss the case, that was just the beginning and shouldn’t have been portrayed as the end of the road and as a major defeat by the lawyers.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:59 am
The artist recieves absolutely none of the settlement money. It was so stated at the start of the sue’em all campaign by the RIAA. There was an article I believe was put on here that the RIAA intended to use the money to finance the campaign.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Here we must ask the question, why did her lawyer quit.
As a person who has been involved in 10 lawsiots, all releted to music composed by my father and music whose rights to exploit my family now owns, I have experience in lawyers quitting cases. 19 times, 10 in federal court and 9 in local courts.
First lets get the facts right: Lawyering is for most lawyers a business. Most lawyers are in the business for the money and not for the sake of justice. Additionally when lawyers are hired by inexperienced (in legal matters) clients, there is no way to know anything about the lawyer’s track record, such as how many cases the lawyer has litigated, and how many it has completed and what were the end results. The appearance of the office is the only thing the lawyer presents to prospective clients. Then again, when a lawyers is recommended by another lawyers, it is because the two lawyers are friends.
Here is my list of reasons, in no particular order, why lawyers quit:
1. The lawyer was paid off. The lawyer was actually working for the other side. This is common when the lawyer is working for an individual and the other side is a corporation.
2. The customer has run out of money. Then as a buisness, the lawyer has no reason to want to continue working.
3. Pressure from the customer. When lawyer customers see that the case is not working out, that there are the ever present cost overruns, that the lawyer talks about not having time, the lawyer recommends that a new lawyer be hired, and quits.
4. The lawyer has made fatal mistakes and one way to supress them is getting out of the case before it ends. That way the results are said to be the resposibility of the new lawyer or of the client.
5. The lawyer determines that he/she will loose the case and does not wish to be part of a loosing case. The old addage “everyone deserve a legal representation”, while true, in practice is fiction.
6. The lawyer is overworked and has to unload some work. This happens because the workload of a given case is unpredictable. Judges and judge changes have to do a great deal. Cases that can be terminated in minutes can take years.
6. The lawyer has realized the mistakes made and is scared of being sued by the customer. If another lawyer takes over the case, the facts over the case get confused over time and the lawyer is harder to sue.
Then no matter what the motivates a lawyer to quit there is the problem of the courts accepting the resignations of lawyers. Lawyers frequently lie to the court when giving their reasons for quitting. Then the court looks sideways so as not to see the damage done to lawyers’ clients.
The worsr and saddest part is that the lawyer clients usually have little knowledge about what is happening on his/her case, with court motions being totally inintelligible to the client. Court decision are even worse, totally unintelligible. This is added to the facts that the case’s applicable laws are also unintelligible and not reasoned at all. This is why in a nation of minor copyright infringers, 100 percent of the the lawyers and judges being infringers, only a few selected by RIAA are taken to the slaughterhouse courts.
Court reform is needed. If Amercans do nothing, they are doomed.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 8th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
“4. Additionally, (a) defendant does not appear to have the financial resources that would be required for the pretrial discovery, and summary judgment and/or trial work, that lay ahead, and (b) it is clear to the undersigned that the plaintiff’s case is frivolous, so that it would be unwarranted for defendant to go to extraordinary means to finance her defense of this case.”
Some comment about the lawyer resignation document submitted to the court.
The system is wrong, too the point of stupidity. Clearly it was designed by the same folks that designed the Constitution that came out with the result that slavery was legal even though the constitution said “all men are created equal”. Another result was that income paid no taxes. A predictable result if the constitution was written by the wealthy and their lawyers . Note: America income tax and (partial) freedom from slavery are relatively recent phenomena. Contrary to the belief of many, the “forefathers” were not men of wisdom but ordinary people who made many self-service mistakes.
Don’t get me wrong. In my country (Puerto Rico) we have no “forefathers”, the closest thing were the Spaniards that came here to ransack the natives. Then they rewrote history to say that they came to christianize the natives they mostly wiped out. So in a sense our “forefathers” were the equal of the American forefathers. That is why we do not mention them lately. TheAmerican courts love to wizdomise the forefathers.
To the point of why discovery (and court cases in general) is too expensive.
Discovery is a guessing game, where the one that will decide the issues never say to anyone: “This is the information and proof I need to see to decide”. Clearly this is what the person or persons if there is a jury should state at the beginning. But no, what discovery is required is decided by persons who will not decide who has the reason, the plaintiff or the defendant lawyers, in civil litigation.
Because discovery is a guessing game, where the litigating lawyers have no idea what the deciders want to see as proof or evidence, the solution is t obtain all the proof and evidence there is. Most of the discovery (I have determined from my experience with many cases and lawyers is that is almost a total waste of time and money. It is only good for the lawyer business.
A tip to Santangelo: Ask the court what proof or evidence the court (and the court should have the input of the jurors) needs to have to decide the issues and that the court order the plaintiffs and the defendants to come up with the proof or evidence. You may be told that the courts do not do that. You can argue that you need this in order to get a fair trial and a fair trial cannot put you in a guessing mode as to what the court need to know to decide. Tell the court: “Yo need to say what evidence and proof you want to see and you cannot abdicate that responsibility”.
If the court speaks, hardly any discovery, if any, will be required.
The system needs reform. It needs logic. Justice is not a buisness. It is a natural right.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 8th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Father gets a call from his son, an Amrican soldier stationed in Irak
Father: Son, today a picture of you, with a bazooka in your shoulder, appeared in Time magazine.
Son: Can you send me a copy. I will show it to my buddies. I am really proud.
Father: Gee, I would like to send you a copy, but just a few days ago I was sued by RIAA. Remember that computer you installed in the basement? They say I used it to copy a few hip-hop songs. By the way do you know what is hip-hop?. They say I am a thieft.
Son: Father, how can they call you a thief, you being a decorated Army General?
Father: They though I was my unemployed cousing of the same name.
Son: And all the time I thought I was defending our democracy. Don’t worry. I will pay RIAA a visit with my bazooka.
Father: Don’t do that. I am already getting my tanks ready. I will handle it. It is quicker than the courts that way.
Any more RIAA jokes out there? Shame RIAA out of existense.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I’m going to try to get something happening …….
Cheers!
December 8th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
“forefathers” should be “Founding Fathers”.
Que pasa, Rafael?
December 8th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
What nees to be done is something that people are not willing to do. People in the P.S.A. are not willing to look at candidates from political parties other than the Democrat-republican Party. People keep complaining about the state of the government in America, yet they refuse to invest a little bit of time into researching ALL political candidates for each race they are voting in. I would say that most Americans who are aware that alternative political parties exists yet do not pay attention to them DESERVE to live in a police state.
These people who continue to vote for the lessor of two evils deserve to be screwed by the politicians they continue to elect to office. Every election day, I go to the polls and vote for a positive change. I do this by not looking at the candidates political party, his or her advertising campaigns, nor what they SAY, but rather I go by what they have DONE. I still wonder why many of my fellow American voters remain stupid enough to do the same thing over and over yet expect different results. To me, this is the utlimately form of stupidity.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Unfortunately alot of people may not be trusting enough to donate after the whole “loki” incident.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:43 am
Did you hear about the Rose Industry Association of America?
A recent study has indicated that amateur gardeners are are now propagating roses by using plant cuttings from existing plants and not buying plants from commercial producers. This is the result of the propagation of web plant-cuttings to plant (P2P) sites that show gardeners how to grow rose plants from cuttings, a piracy that is costing RIAA members loses in sales of several billion dollars per year. Because of severe P2P theft, sales of roses have dropped 10 percent since a year ago, claims RIAA spokesperson Vito Hoover.
RIAA has announced that it will work with the Justice Department to eliminate all P2P sites. RIAA clams that that too many Americans, instead of buying all the needed rose plants at the nursery or in stores are simply using cuttings from a purchased plants. As a result one plant is sold and the buyer of that single plants winds up with many copies of the plant. Some people are even sharing their plants, allowing others to take cutting from original plants to produce fake copies of RIAA roses. The copying of roses infrings the rights of RIAA members to be the only growers of roses.
RIAA has aked the Departments of Agriculture and Justice to intervene. As a result Rose growers are now packing roses with an FBI warning that growing rose plant from cuttings is illegal and could lead to criminal charges.
TheJustice Department has published a policy guideline indicating that rose P2P will be treated as a new crime category: Rose piracy. President Bush has indicated he supports this initiative to wipe out rose piracy here and abroad as part of his anti terrorism campaign.
Mr. Hoover also announced that Congress is working on a RIAA supported bill to authorize FBI agenst to, without a court order, inspect rose gardens and request proof-of-purchase recepts from the gardener. If the gardener fails to prove he/she purchased all the rose plants in the garden, a summary arrest can be made and sentenses of up to 10 years in jail may be seeked.
When asked about what protection is being given to other plants to prevent their infringement, Mr. Hoover said that the RIAA is only concerned about roses.
RV
December 9th, 2005 at 8:21 am
I was a Loki victim, and I said b4, I’ll donate if Jon is running a fund. Lets help the woman, she is fighting for ALL of us, not just herself!.
Jon (imho) is a man of integrity, and I’d rather trust him with a fund that could equal many thousands of dollars, than any bloody Shark-oops-Lawyer.
Bri
December 9th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
It would be my best guess that Rafaels first language is
NOT english.
So What ?
I understood the point he was trying to make EXACTLY, regardless
of any grammatical error, or misuse of terminology.
The universe does not rotate around American English.
Anonymous COWARD,
If you want to pick nits, hang out in the monkey cage.
Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA
December 9th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
That’s a pretty good piece of work you came up with there. I would like to post it on another website. Do I attribute it to the author “RV”?
December 9th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
RV = Rafael Venegas
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 10th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I too, would not take issue with Rafael Venegas’ postings. He does well and before one critizes his usage, prehaps trying it in a language foreign to your own may well demostrate just how well he does do.
I have no problems with understanding just where he comes from while putting together his own thoughts into text, in a language not his native tounge. I wish I could do as well in another language.
He also brings many points that are missed by others here at the site. I have nothing but respect for Rafael Venegas with his attempts to right a wrong done to him and his family through the cartels.
Best of luck, RV.
December 10th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
http://www.dionysians.org/forum/showthread.php?t=955
I got rid of the typos when I reposted it. Let me know if anything needs to be changed.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Pat,
The world has its eyes on you, but don’t be nervous. Before you walk in there just remember one thought - you have everyone on your side, even God hates the RIAA. You will not go out of pocket, I for one will pledge up to 100 bucks into your defence fund as, when, and if needed, and like thousands of others will be watching the case closely. But frankly I think you’ll win this one. I hope you get to really rub the bastards noses in it. Once they start to crumble show no mercy, put the boot in and enjoy yourself. Also remember there are 16,999 people less brave than you are. Good luck.
Joe Producer
December 10th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I checked your reposting. Everything is ok.
RV
December 11th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Top rose grower George Michael has just signed a multi-million dollar deal with the Monsanto corporation, who will help him promote & distribute his newest roses this Spring…
To view the new roses, a special pair of glasses are required, or they appear blurred & indistinct.
Following a recent decline in sales, Monsanto will require that before the glasses work, a session key will have to be downloaded from their website, which will unlock the glasses long enough to let the wearer enjoy the rose-viewing event for three-&-a-half minutes.
Extra minutes can be purchased online, or paid for by sms text message.
A spokesman for Monsanto earlier today said “George & ourselves have designed these roses, & we’re bloody well going to be damned if we’re going to let some bunch of kids on the internet encourage people to enjoy them while depriving us of the money we need to buy more fuel for our motorboats.”
George Michael fans have yet to react to news of this latest deal.
December 11th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Monsanto has a good point.
Why should anyone see their roses for free?
Why not optimize and invest,ments income if you can?
In today’s world everything costs money, even the surgery that will leave you dead (that is why the surgeon’s and hospital’s payments are in advance).
December 11th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Judge: Tell me son, is it true that RIAA sends threatening extorsion leters to alleged downloaders who are also RIAA customer?
RIAA Lawyer: Your honor, my customer sends imformative letters to proven thieves who illegally download songs.
Judge: Are you calling the customers thieves.
RIAA lawyer: Sir, anyone who copies anything without the owner’s permission is a thief. RIAA only sends letter to proven thieves.
Judge: Son, I am going to have to send you to jail, for 30 days.
RIAA lawyer: Your honor, what have I done?
Judge: You have just called me a thief.
Remember that a few days ago you filed a motion requesting
a gag order so no one would talk to the press. You remember that the motion had a copy of a newspaper article?
You have called me a thief. Just this morning I told my assitant to copy all the news story
December 11th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Judge: Son, have tou ever copied anything from the internet to your hard disk without the copyright holder’s authorization?
RIAA lawyer: No your honor. I have never done that.
Judge: I’m afaid I will have to give you an additional 30 days in jail to you, my son.
RIAA lawyer: Your honor, what have I done?
Judge: You lied to the court and took me for a fool.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Judge: Son, have tou ever copied anything from the internet to your hard disk without the copyright holder’s authorization?
RIAA lawyer: No your honor. I have never done that.
Judge: I’m afaid I will have to give you an additional 30 days in jail to you, my son.
RIAA lawyer: Your honor, what have I done?
Judge: You are always guilty unless proven innocent.
Unless you have enough cash, you will always
be guilty. Never forget that.
Fixed that for ya, shill
December 12th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
I would say it is more like the ultimite form of brainwashing, courtesy of the media. Every time the issue comes up there is sure to be some pundit blathering on about how you are “wasting your vote” if you vote for the third party candidate. They usually follow this up with poll numbers. They also go on about how even if the candidate does get elected he/she will be ineffective because no one in the two main partys will cooperate with them. All in all the media puts on a very effective dog and pony show and it is not surprising why it is so hard for any third party candidates to get elected in the U.S.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
I doubt it. I present Metallica as evidence.