Friday, March 02, 2007

New Contested Case in Brooklyn, Capitol v. Sitaras

A new contested case has been brought in Brooklyn federal court, Capitol v. Sitaras:


Mr. Sitaras is represented by Anastasios Pardalis, of Astoria, Queens, New York, and Joseph D. Novahicka of the Bronx, New York. Mr. Pardalis is the author of legal blog Enemy of the State.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Enemy of the State

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


Anonymous said...

I think there is a mistake. Is Mr. Sitaras the author of the legal blog "Enemy of the State" ?

raybeckerman said...

Thanks for catching my error, "anonymous". It is Mr. Pardalis that is the author of "Enemy of the State".

Scott Ferguson said...

Regarding the RIAA's "hit list" of 13 universities published February 28 on their web site, it is interesting to note that none of these institutions are located within the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals; the seat of which is Denver, Colorado -- a location shared by the headquarters of Holme Roberts & Owen.

I just bet that the students of Colorado University can freely engage in all sorts of activity that is considered illegal by the RIAA, safe in knowing that they will never be touched by HR&O. The firm can't possibly want a case to be argued in a venue where the firm's fragrant theories would have an airing among their friends and neighbors. You can't go around suing college kids who might be related to someone you know, and then expect to be invited to their Christmas parties, after all.

This is a familiar pattern of conduct to those of us who live in the Northeast. Mafia-controlled neighborhoods tend to be pretty quiet.

(Marilyn Barringer-Thomson must be in the catbird seat now. Oklahoma is in the 10th Circuit, and there is no way in hell that HR&O will ever allow Capitol v. Foster to be heard there.)

raybeckerman said...

Thanks, scott. I took you up on your suggestion.

raybeckerman said...

In Capitol v. Foster, the way the RIAA is acting makes me think that they've lost their minds. Instead of cutting their losses they're going to turn this into a monumental disaster, digging their hole deeper and deeper, frivolous moving for "reconsideration" and "clarification", seeking discovery where none is needed, and stonewalling discovery on their end. They're going to wind up paying not one but 2 sets of attorneys fees for all this nonsense.

Scott Ferguson said...

Ray, generally, what is a lawyer's ethical obligation when a client -- a big client with lots of money and staff counsel of their own -- demands that you do things of marginal ethics and questionable strategy, insofar as the strategy can be understood? Where should a good lawyer draw the line?

Is it two different things to be an ethical lawyer and to be a good lawyer?

In my opinion (and for what little that's worth), HR&0 would, as an institution, want to cast its litigation net as far away from the home office as possible. Colorado is not a comfortable place for any law firm to be suing children and handicapped people; and especially not for a firm based in Colorado.

It is obvious from the RIAA's web site that they are engaged in a campaign to influence public policy -- in other words, a political campaign -- and are using HR&O as an instrument to pursue these political ends. Using the stage that the RIAA has set, then, it seems imperative that the political fight be brought back to Colorado. The EFF and others should be looking for ways outside of the court system to do this.

Another hypothetical: Would an attorney with a passive-aggressive attitude and a belligerent client look for a slick way to lose a few key cases just to get them off his or her back? Pushing Capitol v. Foster up into the 10th Circuit could be a way to do this.

The politics and strategy behind the RIAA's campaign interests me even more than the individual legal battles do. This is a story that the blogosphere is ill-equipped to tell, since bloggers with real knowledge of the issues are also advocates for a particular side. Nobody with any authority is giving the top-down view. I hunger for that.

An aside: I don't really MEAN to be a sycophant! I'm just trying to follow blog etiquette. One should always be nice to the blogger who allows comments on his blog. If I need to rip into you, I'll do it on my own blog. :)

raybeckerman said...


1. You cannot be a good lawyer without also being an ethical lawyer.

2. You have to draw a line in the sand, and do what is right, even when your client wants you... even instructs you... to do otherwise.

3. I agree with you that the HRO lawyers would not want their family, friends, and neighbors to know that they make a living ganging up on children, disabled people, the elderly, and, in general, anyone who's helpless.

4. No, unethical lawyers like that don't want to get the client off their back; they are all about the money.

5. You don't consider me impartial?
Sniff... sniff... You're right. I'm biased. I've always been prejudiced against bullies.

6. You can rip into me any time, even on my own blog, as long as you have a basis for it.

raybeckerman said...


do you want me to email you back your comment so you can edit it to take out the personal stuff

if so send me your email address

i'm at

raybeckerman said...

you're right scott, they probably don't want their friends and neighbors knowing how they make a living....

dreddsnik, you're better than i if you can discern a 'strategy' among these people....

r3m0t said...

"Defendant denies allegations [numbers], admits allegations [numbers]" - how can I find the original allegations?

Alter_Fritz said...

if oyu can't find the complaint in a specific case also on record, just use one of the complaint copies form ANY other case.
Its the boilerplate writing in all of them :-(