Why? Well, let’s see some of their major reasons:

(2) Plaintiffs would be victimized a second time if they had to pay her fees now because if they did so, it might be tantamount to having them pay her fees at the end of the matter;

Let me translate this to English. The RIAA has already lost too much money; paying for this guardian would just cost them more. Besides, they might lose, in which case they would have had to pay for it (the girl’s family would only pay them back in the end if the RIAA won).

Oh, I’m sorry, you mean you want somebody else to pay for your meaningless, bullying legal battles? Cry me a river.

(4) There is no reason at this point to believe that Defendant could not pay the fees herself, as neither Defendant nor her parents have indicated that she lacks the resources to pay for the guardian ad litem;

Just how much does a guardian ad litem cost? Well, a quick Google leads to the rules of the supreme court of New Hampshire (http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/rules/scr/scr-48-a.htm), where the costs are set at $60/hr, max $400/day. How many families do you know that could afford to pay $400 per day? I don’t know any families that even make $400 per day! Considering the cost of the battle these civil terrorists have already made the family deal with, $400 a day would be enough to put them over the edge.

But hey, it’s not their responibility because,

(5) The parental responsibilities of Defendant’s parents for their daughter’s actions outweigh any responsibility to pay for her defense that Plaintiffs have and Defendant’s parents have the means to pay for such defense;

Since when are the parents responsible for these fees? There’s nothing in the supreme court rules that stipulates this.

(6) In some states, parents that are financially able are required to reimburse the court for the cost of guardian ad litem services (interestingly, the only cases cited are those involving child custody or visitation cases where no third party is involved);

Oh, I see, so because “some” states require it, it should be required here. Of course, “some” states are Michigan, and as it says, this has only been in cases of child custody and visitation, where it’s the parents arguing over it in the first place, not some third party that makes a few hundred million dollars more per year!

So all in all, the RIAA wanted to charge their daughter (since they failed against people who could defend themselves), and to do so at the parents’ expense because it was their responsibility, and they could afford it. Yeah, right! It’s the RIAA’s responsibility to only charge people that have committed crimes (of which they have reasonable proof). In fact, dragging out court battles about non-existant crimes in an effort to destory the defendant is illegal! But why would that ever stop the RIAA?

Maybe, just maybe, this will take a tiny bit of wind OUT of the sails of the Nazi RIAA, et al!!!!! We can only hope

The RIAA should really get pirate tatoos, because they’re the real pirates.