Conversation started May 23, 2012 James Damiano 5/23, 10:32pm James Damiano UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey CHAMBER OF UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE JEROME B. SIMANDLE ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA DISTRICT JUDGE PO BOX 888 December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ 08010 (856) 757-5167 In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder stated the following Moreover, this Court has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for his repeated postings on the Internet of confidential discovery materials from this litigation, in violation of confidentiality orders that were entered in this case... Mr. Snyder also stated Defendants expect to cross move for futher sanctions, more sever than the money judgments that clearly have failed to deter Damianos contempt, for his continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process against Defendants. At the 1995 Grammy awards Dignity was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year. At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem to be at an all time low, it has been published in the media that the integrity of the United States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level that it is unable to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit. This motion not only supports that allegation it conclusively documents, to the record the validity of the statement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey CHAMBER OF UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE JEROME B. SIMANDLE ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA DISTRICT JUDGE PO BOX 888 December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ 08010 (856) 757-5167 ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769 Mr. James Damiano Route 46 Mine Hill, NJ 07803 RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS) Dear Litigants: This will reply to Mr. Snyders letter of December 18, 2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr. Damianos motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20, 2003. Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyders letter, his request is granted. In my preliminary review of these motions, I have noted that they do not conform to the requirements of the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions has also been exceeded. Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and in light of Mr. Damianos pro se status, I will not dismiss the motions and require rebriefing. as I would do if an attorney filed these papers. I will, however limit the length of defendants opposition to the 40-page limit of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that special attention be given to the motion to vacate the protective order. That motion may not be timely to the extent that it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive order regarding the use of confidential discovery materials. Although the defendants must address all of the pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is given by defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current status of the confidentiality order. The issue arises whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials will continue to have the heightened degree of confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier years. If not, is the future continuation of the injunction against use of the confidential materials warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the court re-examine the continued validity of the protective order against his use of confidential discovery materials, and the court is willing to do so after all parties have had a chance to be heard. In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants opposition will be due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damianos reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving defendants opposition papers. Mr. Damianos reply is also limited by L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all submissions have been received by the court, I will determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damianos recusal motion and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral argument or decide the matter upon the basis of the papers received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P. Very Truly yours, JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge JBS/mm cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire 900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412 Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903 Motion link: geocities/proposal112000/James_Damiano.html UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS) against SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/17/2002 and BOB DYLAN Defendants PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLES MEMORANDUM OPINION OF FINDING JAMES DAMIANO IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF JUDGE JOEL B. ROSINS [Sic] CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE [Sic] PROTECTIVE ORDER PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND BOB DYLAN. This motion not only supports that allegation it conclusively documents, to the record the validity of the statement. JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS) against SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/7/2002 and BOB DYLAN Defendants DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #1 James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that: 1. The materials facts contained within this motion conclusively, refute this courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Bob Dylan as pursuant to Rule 56 ( c ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. In all major decisions of this litigation, this court continuously chose to honor the opinion of Bob Dylans counsel Orin Snyder as opposed to plaintiff Damianos true material facts. 3. This motion is based on part, and in light of that all decisions made by this Court in favor of Bob Dylan, were based on the opinion of Bob Dylans attorney Orin Snyder and that these opinions were held as truth over plaintiffs true material facts, which conclusively reveal the opposite of Judge Simandles findings. 4. This motion documents to the record the obvious and blatant validity of plaintiffs allegations. 5. This motion read in its entirety lawfully exonerates plaintiff, (James Damiano) from all judgments, rulings and decisions arriving from this lawsuit. 6. This motion is lawfully conclusive in deciding that Judge Simandles decision to dismiss this lawsuit is unlawful, illegal, adverse to and inconsistent with the facts of this case. 7. That all statements contained in this motion are true. EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF __________YEAR OF 2002 IN___________________James Damiano _________________________ New evidence, which is pertinent to the outcome of this lawsuit, has been released in the media whereby plaintiff has become aware of allegations that Bob Dylans attorney Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman have been accused of falsifying evidence and lying in the Selletti Vs. Carey lawsuit. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS) against SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/17/2002 and BOB DYLAN Defendants MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS FRCP rule 36 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36 The facts expressed within this motion will be conclusively deemed as truth within 30 days of August 3, 2000, should they be left disproved by Defendants Bob Dylan and or Sony Music Entertainment Inc. or by any other party involved or not involved in this matter as, pursuant to FRCP rule 36. At such time said admissions and facts expressed within this motion will be deemed as truth, entered upon the record of this court and docketed with the clerk. The fact issues expressed within this motion concerning Defendants eleven year association with Plaintiff and all fact issues expressed within this motion concerning defendant Bob Dylans solicitation of Plaintiff James Damianos songs, will be deemed admitted and acknowledged as truth after thirty days unless defendants deny and contest the forgoing with specificity, pursuant to FRCP rule 36. James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff stipulates that he has produced to the court this same motion for admissions during his contempt hearing, at which time it was entered upon the record of this court as per order of Judge Simandle as exhibit A. and that defendants Bob Dylan and or Sony Music have never answered or denied the motion. EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF 2002 IN James Damiano ____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS) against SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/17/2002 and BOB DYLAN Defendants DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #2 . James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that: 1. No unbiased facts, no unbiased evidence or no unbiased testimony exists to support Judge Jerome B. Simandles decision to dismiss Plaintiff James Damianos lawsuit against Bob Dylan for copyright infringement case Number CV 95- 4795 (JBS). 2. The United States District Court District of New Jersey has disregarded eleven years of material facts regarding Bob Dylans solicitation of James Damianos songs and has granted summary judgment dismissing all counts of this lawsuit to Defendant Bob Dylan in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 3. That all statements contained in this motion are true and correct. 4. This document motion 321 standard size pages. Text size is 12, 14 to16 size on headings in IBM compatible Microsoft word pad document EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF 2002 IN James Damiano ____________________________________ A CD Rom of this motion and a four-hour videotape of segments of various depositions taken during discovery have been produced to the United States Marshalls Service. After reviewing plaintiffs materials The United States Marshalls Service commented in Plaintiff James Damianos favor, stating that plaintiff Damiano should have won this case hands down. From United States District Judge. JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION: [*625] JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) Judge Simadle cited rule 56( c ) A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). [Emphasis added] …no genuine issue as to any material fact. Judge Simandle also found that James Damiano has created a genuine issue of material fact Plaintiff asserts that the bulk of his lifes work was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982.(Complaint. At 2) He also alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has produced evidence that after these concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano Declaration. At 2, 5, ; Deposition of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104: Deposition of Brad Wright at 105-112). Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work. [Emph.added] …plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact… A comparison of Judge Simandles ruling: …plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work. A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). NEW EVIDENCE It is judicially conclusive that Judge Simandles decision to dismiss this lawsuit violated standard law procedure as pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Throughout the litigation and discovery of this lawsuit and after the dismissal of Plaintiffs reconsideration motion Bob Dylans lead attorneys Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson engaged in unlawful, unscrupulous illegal and unethical practices. Mr. Snyders, as well as Steven D. Johnsons, unlawful and nefarious behavior is documented in this motion. Plaintiff has learned of allegations that Mr. Snyder and or other associates of Mr. Snyders law firm have committed this same unlawful and unscrupulous behavior in another lawsuit. In James Damiano Vs. Sony Music Inc and Bob Dylan Judge Simandle wrote in his decision … Thus, there is nothing for the court to reconsider because plaintiffs amendment argument was raised for the first time in this motion for reconsideration. See NL Industries, Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516 (Reconsideration motions . . . may not be used . . . to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.). Plaintiff stipulates that the following evidence did not exist until after the dismissal of this lawsuit. This evidence also did not exist until after Plaintiff filed his last reconsideration motion thus could not have raised these issues prior to summary judgment. It has been recently reported in the media, that the lead attorney representing Bob Dylan in this action Orin Snyder has been accused of falsifying evidence and lying in a lawsuit. Mr. Snyder retained Mary Jo While as legal counsel. Plaintiff notified Mr. Snyders attorney Mary Jo White via Ms. Whites E-mail address. See document below. RE: James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) Infringement Debevoise & Plimpton Mary Jo White 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Ms. White: I am the plaintiff in James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) I am acting pro se in this matter. You have not responded to my last E-mail to you so I am resubmitting it to you once again. I have learned of allegations that Bob Dylans attorneys Jonathan Liebman and or Orin Snyder lied to the court and falsified documents in the Selletti Vs Carey lawsuit see article below. Mariah Hero Sued For $20 Mil Mariah Carey has a legal case that wont go away. On Friday, I was faxed papers showing that Christopher Selletti is suing her again over the song Hero. He wants $20 million in damages. Selletti is also suing Careys attorneys, Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman (now with Brillstein Grey Entertainment) and her songwriting partner Walter Afanasieff. He accuses them of falsifying evidence and lying in the Hero case. Selletti has tried suing Carey before over Hero, only to have his case dismissed. But, as I first reported six years ago, there is a lot of questionable stuff in this case. Enough to warrant a real trial with real testimony presided over by an objective jurist but Judge Denny Chin has consistently done strange things regarding this case and these participants. In the 60-plus page document, Sellettis attorney Jeffrey Levitt cites many of Chins odd decisions. I am sorry to say that this is precisely what Orin Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder did in my lawsuit after learning that my copyright registration predated Bob Dylans copyright registration. Exactly what they did was produce what they claimed to be Bob Dylan creation materials which were analyzed by my expert Dr. Green, a musicologist from Harvard who concluded that the Dylan creation materials did not at all provide, any evidence, as to the independent creation of the Song, Dignity. I am requesting that you send me all documents relevant to the above allegations. I will be filing an ethics complaint with the office of attorney ethics against Orin Snyder. I will also be submitting this motion, as an exhibit . I am also requesting that you forward the following E-mail which contains a link to my Motion to reverse the courts decision to dismiss to Orin Snyder and Parcher and Hayes. I was surprised to learn Parcher Hayes and Snyder do not have a website for their firm. In the near future or when time permits Mr. Damiano will be visiting the Manhattan Court where this matter is being adjudicated to read a copy of the complaint and review the pleadings . After doing so Plaintiff Damiano will submit a copy of that complaint to this court. The following information is a summary of what occurred in James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan through the eyes of an American filmmaker, a director and the plaintiff James Damiano. Please be assured all statements are true and correct Sincerely James Damiano James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 JBS Few artists can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter, James Damiano. Twenty-two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that has become a paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System. As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit, we learn that CBS, used songs and lyrics, for international recording artist Bob Dylan. Bob Dylans name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit with Bob Dylan. To our knowledge there has been only one article written about this suit and released by the press. The article was written by Larry Hicks and published in New Jerseys Morris County Daily Record on October 3, 1995, when the headline Mount Olive composer sues Bob Dylan appeared on the front page. Patricia Keil a spokeswoman for Sony commented on the allegations We dont normally comment on pending litigation but we know Bob Dylan wrote all of these songs. It is now six and a half years later and we have this to say: After thirty-five hours of video taped depositions, and after three and a half million dollars have been spent on this litigation, defendants Sony Music and or Bob Dylan still to this date September 18th 2002, have never filed a counter, slander or libel suit against Damiano. Defendants have been aware of James Damianos public statements made against Bob Dylan for over ten years.. Defendants also refuse to answer, deny or refute material questions regarding Bob Dylans solicitation of Damianos songs and music. The lawful time allowed for the filing of such motions is well passed. In 1979, James Damiano met Mikie Harris. Mikie introduced James to the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond Sr. James eventually auditioned for Mr. Hammond with an acoustic guitar. This is a story of music industry corruption and intrigue, of the little guys daunting struggle against big business and a legal system that not only failed to work for justice and fair play, but also allowed itself to be manipulated for unprecedented vengeance. In an unbelievable, but true story, we relive Damianos seductive times with top, music industry artists and agents. In a chilling chapter of this saga James meets the highly acclaimed and legendary bass player Jaco Pastorius. Jaco takes a liking and personal interest in James and his music. Eventually James moved into Jacos apartment on Jones Street in Greenwich Village and Paul Butterfield came to stay for a while. We watch as James intrigues the industry with some of the hottest Rock and Roll tracks ever to be recorded as Jaco coaches . After his twenty-five year rise to the top we then suffer with James at the malicious indifference and arrogant abuse of top industry officials. Finally we rise with him to fight back in a court system covertly manipulated by powerfully sinister forces yet James, in the course of the lawsuit establishes access through the courts ruling. Judge Simandle ruled in his December 1995 opinion Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work. Judge Simandle also ruled This court will accept as true, Plaintiffs allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated for his work if Dylan used it. Even motive for the basis of the lawsuit is established through a 1988 Associated Press article by Kathryn Baker who interviewed Bob Dylan. Ms. Baker writes …he didnt have enough material of his own for an album. Ms. Baker was deposed however her testimony remains confidential information That is only available to the court and not to the general public. Bob Dylan filed a motion for all discovery materials to be designated as confidential and was granted the request by Federal Magistrate Judge, The Honorable Judge Joel B. Rosen. Bob Dylans publicist Elliot Mintz who had been soliciting James Damianos music for years is present at the Dylan Baker interview. Mr. Mintz reviewed the article for accuracy before it was submitted to the Associated Press for final release. In other words Elliot Mintz who solicited James Damianos songs was well aware that Bob Dylan (in Ms. Bakers words) did not have enough songs. During the course of the investigation Damiano stumbles upon some interesting facts, all of which support his claims. He learns that the melody line for Knocking, On Heaven Door is almost an exact clone of Neil Youngs song Helpless. Knocking of Heavens Door is released years after Helpless was played on the radio. Again learning that yet another Dylan song Shelter From The Storm seems to be another exact melodic clone Foggertys Down Around The Corner which was released before Shelter From The Storm As James learns of allegations about Masters Of War the melody line written by Jackie Washington Please note there is a website on the Internet website which has been left uncontested stating that Jackie Washington wrote the melody line for Masters of War Another songwriter Eric Von Schmidt who personally knew Bob Dylan published his allegations in a book released by The Cambridge Press that he wrote Baby Let Me Follow Down. Von Schmidt also published his allegations in the Cambridge press. As the table starts to turn and Eleven Years enters the genre of mystery and comedy as the big fifth avenue corporate machine becomes helpless in defending against the true documented facts. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Damiano learns of allegations that, Steven M. Kramer (the attorney who represented him in this lawsuit ) was previously employed by Parcher & Hayes. Parcher & Hayes is the same firm who represented Bob Dylan in this lawsuit. Judge Jerome B. Simandle ruled: Indeed as Defendants themselves profess, plaintiff may exercise his first amendment right to speak about his claims with whomever he so desires, he is only prohibited from exploiting the discovery materials obtained during the course of this litigation for publicity, profit or collateral gain.. Finally, the limited nature of the 1996 protective orders does not preclude Damiano from publishing his own version of reality to whomever he chooses, so long as the materials and testimony that came to Damiano under the discovery process in this case are not themselves disclosed. James has been associated with the most influential entertainment industry producers, all of his songwriting career. Besides working with John Hammond Sr. James is the brother-in-law of Richard Frankel a two-time Pulitzer prize winner and the producer of many award winning Broadway plays including The Producers. The Producers made history after winning twelve Toni awards, one more Toni than Hello Dolly. James has contacted Ben Elliot, Grammy Award winning music producer/engineer for Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, etc. to produce the his next album. Based upon his factual experiences documented in the account 11 Years and leading up to his eventual copyright infringement suit with Bob Dylan, Sony Music and CBS Records this issue becomes not only the most compelling stories of generations and the rock and roll genre but it also becomes a paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System. Damiano has Dylan beat at every stage of the game, from Dylan not being able to deny the allegations of Dylans solicitation of Damianos songs, to motive and finally to the credentials of the music experts. Damianos musicologist graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. This E-mail was sent to me from one of the most prominent intellectual property Attorneys in the country: Please review. Thank You. RE: James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 0547 (JBS) James Thanks for the disclaimer. I think in general, all you need to show for Copyright infringement is access and substantial similarity. To avoid summary judgment against you, the plaintiff, there would have to be some dispute as to any material fact. In your case, it would seem that all material facts are in dispute and no judge should grant summary judgment in favor of Dylan. Further, the moving party has the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exist. So, yeah, it seems like there are a thousand facts in dispute in your case and were I a judge, Id never award summary judgment in favor of the other side. END OF E-MAIL On June 18th James Damiano E-mailed the following E-mail to Bob Dylans attorney Steven D. Johnson Hecker Brown Sherry and Johnson LLP 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2769 Telephone: 215-446-6264 Fax: 215-636-0366 900 Haddon Ave Suite 412 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108-1903 Telephone: 856-796-9000 Fax: 856-796-9006 sjohnson@heckerbrown heckerbrown Dear Mr. Johnson You are beyond the date returnable to answer James Damianos motion. In fact you are more than sixty days late. You cannot hide from this matter anymore. There are witnesses that you have been served. You must notify Orin Snyder which Im, sure you have done. I spoke to the US marshals service and they wanted to know when you were served initially. I told them you were served through E-mail in June 2002, We are out of courtesy sending it to you via your E-mail address at sjohnson@heckerbrown once again. Dear Mr. Johnson: Please find enclosed a link to Plaintiffs motion to vacate Judge Joel B. Rosens order for confidentiality, Motion for Admissions, and other motions RE James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for Copyright Infringement CV 95-4795 JBS. Bob Dylans suppression of the truth (The confidentiality order) is adverse to the truth being a defense for libel and the first amendment, (Freedom of Speech). Judge Simandles decision is in conflict and adverse to the first amendment . Basic and simple: In every deposition of this lawsuit the witnesss were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel yet, all depositions were designated confidential by Judge Joel B. Rosen. Damiano was found guilty of contempt for posting the truth on the Internet. He was unable to protect himself with depositions that incriminate Bob Dylan. He was unable to protect himself with the truth. That concept is un-American. Judge Simandles ruling to hold James Damiano in contempt for disseminating deposition materials on the Internet in violation of the courts confidentiality order designating all discovery materials confidential in James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement ( CV 95-4795 JBS ) jeopardizes the first amendment Rights, of every American. Elliot Mintz who is Bob Dylans publicist testified in a video taped deposition the following: Under the subject of mistruths spoken to your client during the course of these telephone conversations he would frequently ask me to pass along information to Bob, asked questions about Bob or to Bob about him and I in fact told him that I would and that I did and on those occasions, that of course was a mistruth. [Deposition of Elliot Mintz] Mr. Mintzs deposition is 183 pages. Further Judge Simandle opined: Plaintiff asserts that the bulk of his lifes work was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982. (Compl. at 2). He also alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has produced evidence that after these [**18] concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano Decl. at PP 2, 5; Dep. of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104; Dep. of Brad Wright at 105- 112). Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work. From Judge Simandles Decision END OF E-MAIL RE Damiano V. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement. CV 95- 4795 (JBS) The following letter has been E-mailed to Bob Dylans attorney Steven D. Johnson and all the partners and associates of the firm Hecker Brown Sherry & Johnson. Dear Firm: Please be informed that Steven D. Johnson and Orin Snyder have committed an abundance of fraud in their motion to hold James Damiano in contempt Re: James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement. CV 95- 4795 (JBS). Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson both were aware that there were eleven years of documented facts of James Damianos association with Bob Dylan and Dylans management. Not only did Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson ignore Mr. Damianos testimony regarding, Mr. Damiano working with CBS for eleven years. They never denied or Contested, Mr. Damianos testimony. Also, Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder and or Mr. Johnson never contested or denied Mr. Damianos Testimony regarding Bob Dylans solicitation of plaintiff Damianos music. All of said facts incriminate Mr. Dylan and were left disregarded and unresolved after Judge Simandles decision to dismiss the case . The courts dismissal endorsed the appearance of partiality by Judge Simandle. All decisions by Judge Simandle in this case were at best subjective. Disregarding Judge Simandles subjective decisions, Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnsons knowledge of these facts document the extent of their fraud in filing a motion to have James Damiano held in contempt of the courts confidentiality order. The legality of the confidentiality order is irrelevant given the fact that someone anonymously published and posted Mr. Damianos website on the World Wide Internet for the last six and a half years and defendants Bob Dylan and Sony Music have not filed a motion to have it taken off the internet. Judge Simandles decision to dismiss is inconsistent with the evidence produced to the court. Many lawsuits have survived summary judgment with only a few material facts .In this case Damiano has fifty hours of video taped depositions which incriminate Bob Dylan and Bob Dylans attorney Orin Snyder ( who forgot he was wearing a microphone at the Elliot Mintzs deposition ), eleven years of documented facts of Dylans solicitation of Damianos music, extremely credible expert testimony from a Harvard musicologist with a PH-D, and sworn blatant admissions of guilt by defendants. All of the above evidence was disregard by the court when Judge Jerome B. Simandle dismissed the lawsuit in summary Judgment. ( Defendant first procedural motion, which was not legally substantial enough to warrant summary judgment.)Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson filed their contempt motion to hold JamesDamiano in violation of the confidentiality order based on Damiano disseminating said facts and deposition materials on the Internet, all of which incriminate their client Bob Dylan. Plaintiff Damiano produces the following transcript in support of his proof that it is conclusive that Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson were aware of Damianos Eleven Years association with Bob Dylan and CBS Records thus both Snyder and Johnson who are attorneys for Bob Dylan committed fraud. In the following transcript James Damiano testified under oath in his contempt hearing in front of The Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle :I feel like there is so much testimony and documentation of your clients solicitation of my music over a period of eleven years, and theres deposition materials to that effect which no one made reference to in the lawsuit, I feel its an unfair decision. I feel that I wrote songs for eleven years with Mikie Harris, those songs showed up on Bob Dylans albums. No one ever made referenceto the eleven years that I worked with CBS. No, No, ones ever contested those issues.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:41:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015