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. (See Motion to Dismiss Denied in Elektra v. Santangelo)
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.
Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaaradar
28 comments:
Same question; I'd like to find out the ultimate result of this case. Hopefully you guys keep in touch with her and can keep making updates on what happens.
this is strange as of course she does not have enough money to afford expensive lawyers!
But I am surprised that do not do the work for free as if they won imagine all the work they would get!
However, I do think that a Jury may see this as a david v goliath situation and that it may help her - but we will see - I would like to know the reasoning behind the desicion but they won't tell us as it would breach their professional conduct rules!
By the way you realise that the last line says that the record companies don't have a case and that therefore trying to defend a case that is non existant is not worthit!
It seems to me that there are som games going on here but I am not quite sure what the idea is!
This doesn't exactly sound like what you said a month ago "We will fight to the end. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't take on something unless I am prepared to fight to the end. Also, anyone who knows me knows that the one thing I can't stand is a bully. The RIAA will give up long before we do, because sooner or later it will dawn upon them that their attorneys are taking them for a ride."
So if you feel the case is so airtight, are you abandoning Ms. Santangelo in order to save the RIAA money? I mean since you said she would get damages involving the RIAA paying her legal costs once she wins. I'd still like to believe in you, but the fish stinks at the head.
Can Miss Santangelo set herself up with a paypal account so that we could send her donations for her case?
So, does this mean that Beckerman has worked out a deal with the RIAA?
Few people had ever heard of your firm before this case, Mr. Beckerman. It seems like you just used Ms. Santangelo for free advertising and now you're throwing her to the wolves.
You have lost a lot respect by your "throwing your client to the wolves". As someone else stated. There are other options - for example, I would be very willing to contribute to defence fund for this woman, she must know she is not alone.
If you didn't plan to shoulder the burden of this case, you shouldn't have taken it.
Lawyers suck.
Just to clarify some facts:
1. It was a mutual decision between Ms. Santangelo and myself.
2. It is not a done deal unless and until the judge "so orders" the stipulation.
You have been bought off, haven't you? They Got To You and now you are cowering. Just like a lawyer, you can tell they are full of it because their mouths are moving.
I believe you're missing the point.
It was a 'mutual decision' most likely because she doesn't have any option except to go into debt to pay you.
Are you saying that she wouldn't want your pro bono services? That she'd prefer to represent herself if finances weren't an issue.
Don't you see that weight of public opinion is totally against you thus far? You wanted the publicity and now you have it, but you can't control publicity at a certain point.
This is just starting to hit the blogosphere and it's going to be ugly for you - and that's fair given your decision. It seems greedy and cruel. You should consider just biting the bullet and standing up for principle, not money. Even if your only concern is self interest, the benefits of that for you are far greater than the harm to your reputation by the worldwide public cyber flogging you're about to recieve. Not to mention, it's good karma.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE LAW FIRMS SIDE BECAUSE OF WHAT IT COST ME TO FIGHT 6200.00 JUST FOR PRE TRIAL DISCOVERY BECAUSE I NEVER OPERATED AN ONLINE MEDIA SYSTEM. THE RESULT WAS A SUMMONS SERVED ON MY 15 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER SO WE ARE NOW BEING SUED TOGETHER AND GET TO GO THROUGH DISCOVERY TOGETHER. WHAT A WONDERFUL WAY THE RIAA HAS COME UP WITH TO BOND WITH YOUR CHILD. I THINK A JURY WILL SEE MS SANANGEGLO IS A VICTIM OF THE MUSIC MAFIA AND SHUT THIS MONEYMAKER DOWN.
Typical lawyers. Make a big show of how magnanimous you are and then cut and run with your tail between your legs. Cowards. Your firm is apparently populated by a bunch of scumbags and you deserve whatever misfortune comes to you.
Wow. You had a chance to make history and lead the charge against the RIAA and their strong arm tactics! You could have made a difference in a postive way and helped someone out as well.
Too bad you decided to let money decide what was best.
Ray I think many readers of your blog, myself included, thought you would represent her pro bono. I don't understand why you cannot do this - I mean this could go to the supreme court, you'll be famous!
This is a sad day. I really don't think her chances are good if she represents herself. The RIAA scumbags will run rings around her.
Emil
Way to get loads of free publicity and then dump this poor lady. Why in the world did you not agree to take the case pro bono? Afraid you would lose?
Proof positive that lawyers are money-hungry scum.
I've got loads of money and am very tempted to drop private investigators on your team of lawyers. Find out who's cheating on their wives and what other unscrupulous activities you may be up to (i.e. being paid off by the RIAA to drop the case).
Hope you guys have really, really deep pockets. You're not going to have a cent left when I'm through with you.
This now puts you in the same class as the RIAA. I hope Karma comes back to bite you in the...
I think this situation shows alot of what lawyers are really about " SHOW US THE MONEY"
What is read and brown and looks good on a laywer?
A Doberman pincher!!
"I hate the poor, the poor can't pay"
- Denny Crane
"I've got loads of money and am very tempted to drop private investigators on your team of lawyers. Find out who's cheating on their wives and what other unscrupulous activities you may be up to (i.e. being paid off by the RIAA to drop the case).
Hope you guys have really, really deep pockets. You're not going to have a cent left when I'm through with you.
# posted by Anonymous : 12:34 PM "
If you got tons of money why not help Ms. Santangelo. Do you really think this law firm, no matter how unethical they may be, really feels threaten by an anonymous person claiming to have money. Really.
As for this law firm. Way to go guys. You got alot of attention, but it just might backfire now.....
Will you continue to assist her behind the scenes, but just not sign the court documents?
I can see that as a strategy to get even more sympathy from the court.
I hate to see so many people come down on you, as up to now, you've been so supportive of Patricia. Please, talk to us, tell us if this is some form of strategy that you all came up with as a weapon against the riaa.
You got free publicity for promising to defend her, in a frivilous lawsuit (ie, one that you would almost certainly win).
But you drop out, anyway.
How much did the RIAA pay you?
Pig.
Seems to me this is a deliberate attempt to portray the RIAA as the big, bad villain in court against the poor, defenseless homemaker. I have to believe that they'll be giving her back-room guidance on what she should be doing. Since it sounds like this is a to be a jury trial, hope it gets decided on facts and not emotions. This doesn't sound like it's shaping up to be a precedent setting case.
I'm sorry, folks, I cannot discuss internal conversations between Mrs. Santangelo and myself, so if you want to come to all kinds of conclusions, that is your prerogative.
But:
1. It was a mutual decision.
2. It is not a fait accomplis unless and until the judge signs the proposed order.
3. There is no basis whatsoever for your conclusions that Mrs. S. will lose without a lawyer. She did not infringe any copyrights and she will win the case, one way or the other.
I agree with the above comment -- given the "evidence" the RIAA has, representing herself pro se in front of a jury is probably Ms. Santangelo's best option in any case.
An awful lot of people are terrified of the law, lawyers and courtrooms, probably because they've heard legends and seen movies of lawyers spinning truth into lies, convincing juries that black is white, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't usually happen that way.
If the RIAA hasn't got anything, chances are very good they're going to lose, no matter who they're up against and who they have on their side. Then Ms. Santangelo can retain a lawyer -- for navigating the complex web of filing a counter-suit. I'm willing to bet she'll have takers :)
Post a Comment