Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the many-eyes dept.

The Courts 411

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."

cancel ×

411 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NYCL FTW! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777751)

That is all.

Re:NYCL FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778401)

You mean TIA.

I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain this (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777763)

Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (4, Insightful)

FataL187 (1100851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777851)

2 Words... Jack Thompson!

They need to disbar all the RIAA lawyers.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777867)

You would think so. But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce. If you don't believe me, look at how long Jack Thompson has been toying with the system.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778059)

But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce.
Well yeah. Charging a lawyer for ethics violations is like charging a wolverine for "failure to adhere to vegan principles."

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778279)

Imagine a coin. Good is one one side and bad is on other. Then there are lawyers, which are opposite to both sides. They are greater than both good and evil, able to walk on edges between good and bad. And there is NYCL, he is in oppsoition to lawyers, and he is one of them. The most mythical man of all dimensions. He is the one which trims the edges, uncovering thruth before our eyes. He is the son of justice.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Funny)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778389)

And there is NYCL, he is in oppsoition to lawyers, and he is one of them. The most mythical man of all dimensions. He is the one which trims the edges, uncovering thruth before our eyes. He is the son of justice.

Starring Wesley Snipes, as Blade 4: Music of Blood

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777911)

There really should be bad consequences for even "forgotten" things. If I build a bridge and it collapses, I'm responsible. If a lawyer ruins a person's life by forgetting to share key evidence with the defense or some other thing, they should be held accountable too.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (0)

lyml (1200795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778151)

No you're not. Unless the collapsing thing was a designed feature.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778227)

Yes you are, if you're the PE who signed off on it.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778339)

No you're not. Unless the collapsing thing was a design failure.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (5, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778243)

It it collapses because of your deliberate mistakes, then yes, you can be sued over it. The suit against you may not succeed, but you damn well can be taken to court over it.

Likewise, these RIAA lawyers should face some form of penalty or review before an ethics board. Will they? Probably not. But they should.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778307)

Today's oxymoron is "deliberate mistakes"

Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (2, Interesting)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778433)

Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?

It is easy. Lets hope a judge does hear the case. Maybe go like this.

Judge: Defense, I would entertain a counter suit for harassment.

Defense: I can have one on your desk tomorrow AM.

Judge: Good, we reconvene tomorrow, 1PM.

Next day...1pm.

Judge: Before I dismiss the claim, I pronounce the defendants all receive 1M plus legal fees. This is compensatory damages for harassment. If this is appealed, or comes up a again I would like to add the notes to double the awards.

Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice.

i want to kill myself (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777769)

The world is wrong, I've been depressed for years and I've finally decided I want to kill myself and I'd like some people to give me recommendations on the method most likely to succeed. And I'm posting here because NYCL is precisely the kind of self-absorbed cunt that makes the world so unbearable.

Re:i want to kill myself (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777793)

I advise old age. That's how I'm planning to kill myself.

Re:i want to kill myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777887)

**Hug**

Re:i want to kill myself (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778211)

This is just a puff piece. NYCL is trying to claim that, had it not been for his heroic move, the courts would have had nooooo idea of what was going on.

Really, the best I can offer you is to tell you that you're not alone in your opinion on NYCL. The world can seem depressing when the idiots are the ones with the loudest voices. I dislike the RIAA and it's unfortunate that people have rallied around such a weak excuse for a "savio(u)r". By convincing people that this should be turned into a battle of legal details, he's dragging his cheerleaders into a game that only lawyers win.

The problem is the excess of mutually benefitting unnecessary law and lawyers. But carry on fighting fire with fire, guys. NYCL is your enemy, not your friend.

Call on line 1 from an early '80s "Richard M. Stallman" - he points out that if you don't like an existing framework, you build something better rather than getting drowned in fighting the existing one on their terms. He says it's a long shot but he hopes that within a quarter century he might have a couple dozen developers and perhaps even a Uni or two using software developed via his philosophy.

we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (4, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777779)

just to make sure he's safe from any shit riaa may try pulling.

now, which of you geeks want to take on this duty ?

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777811)

I heard they were gonna put a severed horse head in his bed, but it turns out that's copyrighted.

dont think thats a problem (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777921)

since their overlords basically own all copyright in practice.

oblig. (0, Offtopic)

Facetious (710885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778359)

Luigi: He (Homer) gave me a bad review. My friend put a horse head in his bed, and he ate it and gave it a bad review.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (5, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778397)

Makes sense. With the new summer movies coming out, this move might be used to promote the Get Smart movie:

RIAA:Would you believe that "making available" is copyright infringement?
Judge Robinson:No.
*Refiles and puts on disguise*
RIAA:How about now?

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (4, Funny)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777859)

NewYorkCountryLawyer has been kidnapped by RIAA ninjas.

Are you a bad enough dude to rescue NewYorkCountryLawyer?

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777945)

might be, if im allowed berserker stance and go avatar.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (0)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778079)

N00b.

Ursan R9 LFG to save NYCL. R8+ only!

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777899)

Do we get cool black suits and guns? Lotsa guns?? ;)

no (2, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777973)

we use unearthly vengeful avatar magic instead. we bend space/time, shift densities, put shear force on souls, and do force pushes.

Re:no (3, Funny)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778019)

But the suits ar still okay, right?

im sorry avatar (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778145)

suits dont go well with magic.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (4, Funny)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778063)

Yes to the black suits. Not because they look cool, but because black is very slimming.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778301)

And as geeks who spend all day on /., we really, really need that slimming effect (myself included)

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778399)

Yeah, I personally was glad when they came out with that "blackest black" material.

Layne

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (2, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777999)

Or maybe just list the names of these lawyers.. Is that possible? Maybe we could make then a Caramelldansen animation.

wont work (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778157)

lawyer names are irrelevant. filth are done via proxies.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778257)

now, which of you geeks want to take on this duty ?

Yes, because of when I think of effective bodyguards, I think slashdot geeks. Though I suppose theoretically if one took a bullet for NYCL, his pocket protector might intercept the bullet.

Re:we gotta assign people to protect NYCL (2, Funny)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778323)

if one took a bullet for NYCL,

What kind of mod points does one get for that?!

How can they get away with this (4, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777803)

Either their lawyers are incompetent or crooks or both but this is ridiculous. What were they expecting? That nobody was going to find out? Thanks to NYCL we get a little bit of fairness in the crooked justice system. How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?

Re:How can they get away with this (5, Interesting)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777839)

Hopefully the lawyers involved will be disbarred. Probably they will not, but one can hope.

Re:How can they get away with this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778177)

Yeah. The sooner we disbar Ray Beckman the better. Or at least cancel his slashdot posting rights.

Re:How can they get away with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777929)

Hmm.. crooks or incompetent....?

I'll go with crooks. This is outrageous to the point of being comical.

If someone doesn't get disbarred for this, then I will officially lose what little respect I have for the American legal system.

Re:How can they get away with this (4, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778033)

How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?

I do it all the time. I have a folder under my bed labelled "Secret Lawsuits".

Re:How can they get away with this (4, Informative)

Rurik (113882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778111)

Not a real secret lawsuit. They refused to disclosed its relevance to the current case, which kept it secret from the ruling judge. They were hoping to slip it through the cracks and basically start from scratch with another judge that they thought would be sympathetic to their needs.

Hang'em high. New law needed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777807)

How does 10 years for using lawless lawyers sound?

Re:Hang'em high. New law needed. (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777959)

How does 10 years for using lawless [imdb.com] lawyers sound?
What does Lucy or any of her lawers has to do with anything?

Re:Hang'em high. New law needed. (2, Funny)

Blitz22 (1122015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778361)

Boooooooo!!!!! Hisssssss!!!!

It's hard to believe. (2, Interesting)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777821)

It's hard to believe these people actually attended law school, or are they just grabbing more money from RIAA by making it look like they're doing something?

It sure seems ridiculous from an outside point of view, but I wonder what actually goes on. Any theories?

Not innocent enough! (5, Funny)

DarkLegacy (1027316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777823)

When's the RIAA going to stop suing families and finally go for the homeless people? ;)

Re:Not innocent enough! (2, Funny)

DMoylan (65079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777971)

homeless people don't have any way of paying the money that the riaa want.

if however they had a law were you could legally harvest their organs i wouldn't put it past these vultures.

Re:Not innocent enough! (1)

multi-flavor-geek (586005) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778225)

They go after families and college students because it is easy, it is once you are out of college and into the higher ranks of the corporate world that they don't want to know who you are because then you have the resources to fight them. What fun would that be? On the other hand I think that in five years we may be seeing the RIAA as little more than the SCO of the record industry, will have to wait and see.

At this point... (4, Informative)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777827)

It seems like the RIAA is throwing all the shit they can think of at the wall to see what will stick. Seems a little desperate to me.

Re:At this point... (1)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778331)

I wonder if they know Darl McBride & friends.....

Sure, "Forgotten", right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777835)

How are these underhanded lying scumbag tactics even legal? I know they're lawyers but come on.

Don't lawyers have a certain standard they have to hold themselves to, working for the RIAA clearly lowers a persons too far to remain practicing.

Re:Sure, "Forgotten", right (5, Informative)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777975)

"How are these underhanded lying scumbag tactics even legal?"

Because forum shopping isn't illegal.

And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.

HOWEVER, because of the preceeding cases, every venue they pop up in should get their case shot down again, and again, and again.

Think "whack-a-mole".

But things like neglecting to attach case history is stuff that can get these fuckers censured and possibly disbarred.

Here's hoping!

Re:Sure, "Forgotten", right (4, Insightful)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778347)

Because forum shopping isn't illegal. And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.
Sure but they are limited to only those courts that have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, which should be only one or two courts.

Dirty Pool (4, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777841)

A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?

Re:Dirty Pool (2, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777963)

Follow-up questions: Could the actions of these lawyers cause them to be disbarred? And if not, shouldn't they be?

Thanks, NYCL.

Re:Dirty Pool (3, Interesting)

bitflip (49188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778077)

I'm not a lawyer, but I've hired a few over the years.

Frankly, I want my lawyers ready and willing to sue their own mothers if that's what I want them to do.

I regard lawyers (mine or not) as instruments of the client's will. It is the RIAA that is the scumbags, because they're the ones asking for, or at least not blocking, their tactics.

Re:Dirty Pool (5, Interesting)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778181)

I should let NYCL answer for himself... but if you look at his comment history [slashdot.org] , you'll find that he re-iterates that the RIAA lawyers are indeed using unconventionally dirty tactics. He says they are unethical and/or stupid, and sometimes implies that their actions are outright illegal and they should be disbarred.

Example: [slashdot.org]

It's the RIAA's lawyers that are missing something. I'm not sure what they're missing, but I've got it narrowed down to 2 things: (1) brain cells, or (2) integrity. Or possibly some of each.
Another example: [slashdot.org]

what they are doing is totally illegal. In federal practice ex parte relief is only granted as a last resort. In these cases the RIAA lies through its teeth to get the order, falsely saying that the ISP or University will destroy the records if they are given notice of the application. It amazes me that there is any judge in the U.S. who would sign such an order. I think you'll be seeing more and more judges refusing, as news of the RIAA's lies spreads.
Another: [slashdot.org]

How stupid can these people be?....
Good question. I don't know the answer to it. Each time I think they've reached the mountain top, they come up with something even better.

It's as tough as the other question I keep wondering about with these characters:

"How mean and how heartless can someone who was born of a human mother be?" Each time I think I've seen how low they can sink, they find some way to sink even lower.

These questions are simply unanswerable.
I think it's safe to say that NYCL has a low opinion of their tactics both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal practice standpoint.

Re:Dirty Pool (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778287)

I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients
No, you don't know.

Lawyers represent thier client, but they are first and foremost Officers of the Court. Their first duty is to the court, and then to their client.

Disbar the RIAA lawyers (4, Interesting)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777849)

Seriously, if they're gaming the system this way, they deserve to lose their licenses. This is clearly unethical and deceptive.

Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.

Jeez, that's some scummy shit.

Re:Disbar the RIAA lawyers (2, Funny)

Ang31us (1132361) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778199)

"They're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve dimemberment anyway."

There, I fixed that for you.

RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punc (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777853)

Way to try to justify illegal piracy, you thieving little cocksuckers.

Isn't this well into sanctionable territory? (3, Interesting)

spazmonkey (920425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777861)

I would like to know how this sort of thing works within the boundaries of ethics rules. Sanctions? Disbarment?
Anyone have knowledge to input?

Re:Isn't this well into sanctionable territory? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778171)

I suggest disembowelment, myself.

Estoppel (5, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777873)

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some kind of estoppel that prevents a party from dismissing a suit that isn't going well and then refiling it?

Re:Estoppel (4, Interesting)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777991)

It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.

Re:Estoppel (5, Funny)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778089)

It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.
Well, then everything's fine. There was a procedural problem with their second suit; they were going to lose.

Re:Estoppel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778391)

If it's a copyright case, then it's Federal Court.

Re:Estoppel (1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778423)

It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.

estoppel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778053)

Yeah, that's what I say - call in the gestapo!! That'll fix those bastards!!

Re:Estoppel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778105)

I don't think estoppel is quite right, though it's a similar concept. Res Judicata ("The thing has been judged") maybe?

Re:Estoppel (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778165)

Res judicata doesn't apply until the judge makes a decision on the issue. That's exactly what the Plaintiffs were trying to avoid.

Not a smart move (5, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777885)

I don't think this is a smart move. Given that the first case is still active, and that the new case involves the same acts and the same defendants, can't the defense move to have the new case reassigned to the first judge and consolidated with the first case? I'd think that would be a lawyer's worst nightmare, to have tried this kind of end-run and wind up back in front of the judge you tried to evade anyway. He's sure to be none too thrilled about it, and now has a reason to crack down harder.

Double jeopardy seems unlikely... (4, Informative)

aredubya74 (266988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777895)

...since there was no actual trial for the defendants in the initial case, but how is this remotely legal? IANAL, but if someone here actually is, how is it legal, procedurally, that a plaintiff is permitted to drop a claim and then immediately file an identical new one? This seems like blatant judge shopping, as it seemed possible that Judge Robinson would dismiss the charges with prejudice (so they could not be refiled), leaving precedent for dismissal of "making available" cases.

So what did the judges say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23777913)

Any response at all?

Sanctions? (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23777919)

I'm genuinely curious - doesn't the RIAA risk facing sanctions or worse? If not from the courts, there has got to be something from the Bar Association that prevents unethical behavior like this... and if not, then maybe all you geeks out there need to see about lobbying state/provincial legislators to have some sort of stronger enforcement against unethical behavior put into place. It seems a bit too loose from my POV.



I don't just mean the RIAA, either. SCO v IBM stands out as another really big example where lawyers get to screw directly with the things that we in geekdom make a daily living from (e.g. the RIAA spewing mistruths about how the Internet works, corps claiming rights they do not have over code, etc).


As a bonus, maybe keeping the less scrupulous lawyers among us honest will at least make things a little easier for all of us.


Even coordinating a letter-writing campaign couldn't hurt, y'know?

/P

Pathetic (-1, Troll)

Rydia (556444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778035)

Sending a letter to judges to tell them what is going on in their own courtroom? When you are a party to neither case? Clearly because you have a bone to pick with one of the parties?

Contemptible. Reprehensible. Absolutely pathetic. If I were either judge I would send I nice letter to this lawyer to come down for a nice chat where I tell him to stay the hell away from cases pending before my court.

There is nothing more sad than an attorney putting their own moralistic crusade over propriety and- yes- ethics. You're not a party, it isn't an appellate case where outsiders get their voices heard, so the ethic thing is to keep your nose out of the court's- and the parties'- business.

Re:Pathetic (5, Informative)

Holi (250190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778167)

You should really look up Amicus curiae.

An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.

--Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

Re:Pathetic (1)

Rydia (556444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778385)

Amicus briefs aren't relevant at this point. Also, the rules for the district court are at issue, not the supreme court. Unless they're going straight to the supreme court, which would be quite interesting!

Re:Pathetic (5, Informative)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778201)

I can't tell for sure, but there is some indication, if you follow the links back, that NYCL, you know, Ray Beckerman, is Counsel for the Defendants, and as such would of course have standing to address both judges. And if I'm wrong, well see my sibling post re: Amicus Curiae briefs.

Re:Pathetic (-1, Flamebait)

Rydia (556444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778421)

No, you seem to be correct. At that point, however, he seems to be trying his case on the internet, which is just as reprehensible.

I am, however, still filled with shame that I missed that.

Re:Pathetic (4, Informative)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778365)

Sending a letter to judges to tell them what is going on in their own courtroom? When you are a party to neither case? Clearly because you have a bone to pick with one of the parties?

So you like your lawyers to do a half-ass job? His interest here is that the parties being sued were his clients, not strangers. He's doing his job. DO read TFA next time...

I don't understand (4, Interesting)

Yurka (468420) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778069)

why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.

Dude! you rock. (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778075)

That's so awesome. I wish more lawyers were as cool as NYCL. I certainly hope these douchebag RIAA lawyers get what's coming to them.

Subversion of Justice Workshop. (5, Funny)

splutty (43475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778085)

We are very proud to announce our new workshop called Subversion of Justice.

We think this is the new trend in law at this moment, and have already found 4 speakers that are more than willing to state their case.

Our thanks go to Mr Bush, Mr Thompson, An anonymous person from the Scientology church who wants to go by the nomicker of 'Tom', and one or more speakers from an organization calling themselves RIAA for being this fast in giving their assent to speak at this great event.

Please stay tuned for more details.

disbarment needed (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778115)

This clearly looks like an attempt by the lawyers to game the system. There are clear rules they should know. At some level lawyers for both parties are supposed to be agents of the court.

Fines to recover the courts cost for all actions are needed on top of disbarment of the RIAA's lawyers. The message "Don't Game the System" needs to be sent.

Re:disbarment needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778369)

I heartily agree that disbarment is the way this should go, for all the reasons .-1 mentioned, PLUS the mere fact that there is the perception of blatant misbehavior on the part of the lawyers.

I wonder if they took lessons from Mike Nifong...

Disbar them (2, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778141)

Maybe I'm wrong, but to be a practicing attorney, you are legally obligated to be ethical.

Re:Disbar them (5, Funny)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778305)

I work for a bar association, and we indeed host continuing legal education (CLE) seminars entitled, Avoiding Ethics Mistakes in the Legal Profession, but that title doesn't fit on our room signage so we just go with, Avoiding Ethics.

Thanks Ray (1)

j0hn7r0n (948565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778189)

Ray Beckerman, you're my hero. Thanks for all you've done.

Does 1-4 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778209)

Mind you, as they filed it with "Does 1-4" they *could* claim that the never new that those Does in the new suit are in fact the Cassin family.

Advocates may not be the most honest of people, but they have enough intelligence *not* to put themselves over a frying fire if they can help it.

A fitting captcha : disguise.

An old legal maxim (4, Funny)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778213)

There's an old legal maxim that say if you can't win under the law, argue the facts. And if you can't win under either, well, there's always lying, cheating, and stealing.

These are the people you buy media from... (5, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778223)

This is the direct result of all those dollars you and I have given the parent companies over the years. Next time a new CD, DVD, etc hits the shelves, consider buying it used first. Wait a month or two, until someone else gets bored of it, and support a local business instead of these vampires.

Why is the RIAA immune from... (2, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778275)

Contempt of court citations?

Seems to me that what they did here was clearly an action in contempt of court, since they ostensibly refiled the same case, hoping to get a free "reset" button with a new judge.

This is one of the real illustrative reasons why we need a "loser pays" system in the courts (where the initiating party would be liable for all legal and court expenses if they lose), since it would discourage megacartels like the MAFIAA from using their financial advantage to manipulate the legal system.

What the defendants should do is immediately file a contempt motion in the original court.

Two words... (3, Insightful)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778291)

If they can't be nailed on ethical practice, just two words - "IRS Audit". (if they are prepared to risk gaming the system, then there's (illegal) money involved).

Andy

It's not about justice (1)

jcookeman (843136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23778303)

The law isn't about justice any more -- it's about winning -- and even worse -- ideology. The sooner the US public figures that out and starts voting with some sense the better.

Sanctions Are In Order At A Minimum..!!! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23778393)

Sanctions are in order that's for sure, & I'm also sure there are other remedies that the judge could impose. These sort of tactics are getting out of hand & the courts have got to be getting really sick & tired of these childish tricks by the RIAA Lawyers..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>