In Arista v. Does 1-21 (renamed by the Court as "London-Sire v. Doe 1"), where "John Doe" Boston University students have moved to strike the Carlos Linares declaration based upon the illegal use of unlicensed investigators, the students have submitted -- in response to the RIAA's claim that Mr. Linares hired MediaSentry and in doing so he was acting as the record companies' lawyer -- supplemental memoranda indicating that Mr. Linares
-is not admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, where he maintains his office, or
-in Massachusetts, where the investigation was.
[Ed. note. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. -R.B.]
Supplemental memorandum in support of motion to strike*
Correction to supplemental memorandum in support of motion to strike*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property
14 comments:
LOL
Epic fail
[...]How stand we now?— he told his tale
To Douglas, and with some avail;
'T was therefore gloomed his rugged brow.—
Will Surrey dare to entertain
'Gainst Marmion charge disproved and vain?
Small risk of that, I trow.
Yet Clare's sharp questions must I shun,
Must separate Constance from the nun—
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
A Palmer too!— no wonder why
I felt rebuked beneath his eye;
I might have known there was but one
Whose look could quell Lord Marmion.'
Via http://www.geocities.com/poeminister/canto6.htm
Priceless!
Dave
Luis Carlos Linares, Jr. is a member of the bar only in Florida and Texas.
Regards,
Art
Ray,
They are not practicing, they are doing it for real--- and I'd hardly call it 'first'!
--hsm
Who wants to wager that they'll start to insist that Carlos Linares still counts as a lawyer in this case, just like they insist that MediaSentry's unlicensed evidence is still admissible in court?
dts
what do you expect?
It seems the RIAA and the record companies that like to be represented via this "scapegoat company" do not care for stuff like licenses and all that clerical annoyances when it comes to acting within the bounderies of the law
.
So it is NOT unusual that they have a guy "playing" lawyer while he is actually not admitted as a bar member, is it?
At least he could have been so honest and put a "IANAL" disclaimer at the end of his affidavits couldn't he? :-P
Ray,
If he is only a member of the bar in Florida and Texas, then what exactly does this mean to all of the RIAA lawsuits that depend heavily on his "expert testimony"?
I do understand that representing yourself to the court as something you're not is a good way to get a judge really, really pissed off at you.
Does that mean he will be forced to be diposed? Will the Linares Affadavit be thrown out? What exactly will happen with this discovery? Will he be subject to perjuring himself? Will his supposed "personal knowledge" be somehow not seen in the same light as previously?
Just curious if you, or someone else who knows more about the law than the average layperson, could take a minute to give us your (or their) opinion on what possible outcome could occur from this.
The most important thing it means, in my personal opinion, is that Mr. Linares made a false statement 'under penalty of perjury'.
I don't think this will play too well with Judge Gertner.
Especially if she comes to realize how many false statements he's previously made 'under penalty of perjury'.
Ray anticipated:
"I don't think this will play too well with Judge Gertner."
While me haven't (and very likely never will) appeared before judge Gertner I can not say how much tolerance she hasfor guys like Carlos.
But at least he had not stated that he is a member of a certain bar or a lawyer. Just some "president" of some branch of some 4 letter acronym scapegoat. And that his "personal knowledge" isn't technically objectively true might not be a violation of some perjury thingy stuff too?! he can simply claim that he is not an expert in those technical stuff and he truely believed what he wrote since that was his knowledge about the stuff.
My knowledge is that the moon is made out of cheese and moon.google.com reasures my knowledge if you zoom in well enough. so if I would state under penalty of perjury that to my knowledge that it is made out of cheese can a judge hit me with rule 11? (OK, he might recommend some psychiatric evaluation, but beside that)
And if you read his declaration
http://www.ilrweb.com/ILRPDFs/arista_does1-21_070502LineresDeclaration.pdf
while it is full of fluff and some technical nonsense like a cheese moon, of course he can seriously beleive that and therfor did not commit perjury, can't he?
For what it's worth, Linares never stated that he was acting as a lawyer for the RIAA, Katheryn Jarvis Coggon stated he was in her reply. Certainly to act as Vice-President of Antipiracy Affairs, one not be admitted to the bar of every state litigation is pending...
Of course, the vitriol the RIAA spews must be stopped, clearly the have no urge to stick to the truth.
Q
You're right, anonymous Q. I stand corrected. It was Ms. Coggon who sought to mislead the Court, this time.
Linares hasn't been heard from when? He seems to have done a one time declaration and is gone.
The cynic in me thinks that although this has been an unlicensed investigation, the judge will ignore it. After all, if you can't trust the RIAA, who can you trust?
It will be up to the State of MA to prosecute the RIAA, and I think they will decide they have more important things to do.
Post a Comment