| Subject: |
|
Bob Dylan sued over Dignity & more |
| Name: |
|
Nat'l Law Journal Review |
| Date Posted: |
|
Jan 29, 04 - 3:45 PM |
| Email: |
|
Click here to Email |
| Message: |
|
James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan / Copyright Infringement
CV 95-4795 (JBS)
Judge Jerome B. Simandle presiding. Judge Joel B. Rosen magistrate. It it uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan's law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips formerly (Parcher Hayes & Snyder) that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited James Damiano's songs and music for over ten years.
Parcher Hayes & Snyder have now merged with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
In a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997 Bob Dylan released only one newly written original song titled "Dignity".
Mr. Dylan's seven year hiatus from writing original material lacks merit of performance and creativity. One must wonder why Mr. Dylan would embrace Mr. Damiano's allegations and the hubris that the facts and time can endorse.
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 said statement.
After seven and a half years, fifty hours of video taped depositions and after over four million dollars have been spent on this litigation Bob Dylan still to this date January 15 2004 has not filed a counter suit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795
(JBS) BOB DYLAN Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S DISMISSAL OF THIS LAWSUIT. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S MEMORANDUM OPINION OF FINDING JAMES DAMIANO IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF JUDGE JOEL B. ROSIN'S [Sic]CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE [Sic] PROTECTIVE ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE SIMANDLE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND BOB DYLAN.
At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.
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 Marshall's Service. After reviewing plaintiff's materials The United States Marshall's Service commented in Plaintiff James Damiano's favor, stating that Damiano's case was a "shut tight case" that he should have won.
This lawsuit was never dismissed with prejudice. James Damiano is currently seeking an attorney to refile this claim in federal or state court. Contact information. E-mail Proposal112000@yahoo.com James
Racism A diversion of reality That the worst segregation In the world today Is not between Yellow, red, black or white men Muslims Jews or Christians But between The rich and the poor
This website has been posted on the world wide web since December 1996. The most recent activity in this litigation is the following letter sent to litigants by Judge Simandle on December 23 2002. Mr. Snyder (Mr. Orin Snyder Esq.) of Parcher Hayes & Snyder represents Bob Dylan in this action.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of New Jersey
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
CHAMBER OF JEROME B. SIMANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
PO BOX 888 CAMDEN NJ
08010
(856) 757-5167
December 23, 2002
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 NJ 0780
RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS) Dear Litigants: This will reply to Mr. Snyder's letter of December 18, 2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr. Damiano's motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20, 2003.
Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder's 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. Damiano's 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 acate the protective order.
http://www.geocities.com/Proposal112000/James_Damiano.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out our brand new guestbook, photo album and resource articles!
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com