Posted by Lake Spring on 11/04/03

More | Report Post

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 Damiano's 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. 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 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. Damiano's
reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving
defendants' opposition papers. Mr. Damiano's 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. Damiano's 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:

http://www.geocities.com/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

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 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 Dylan's counsel Orin Snyder as
opposed to plaintiff
Damiano's 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 Dylan's
attorney Orin Snyder and that these opinions were held as
truth over
plaintiff's true material facts, which conclusively reveal
the opposite of
Judge Simandle's findings.

4. This motion documents to the record the obvious and
blatant validity of
plaintiff's 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 Simandle's
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 Dylan's 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 Dylan's solicitation of Plaintiff
James Damiano's
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
defendant's 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. Simandle's decision to dismiss
Plaintiff James
Damiano's 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 Dylan's
solicitation of James
Damiano's 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
Marshall's Service. After reviewing plaintiff's materials
The United States
Marshall's Service commented in Plaintiff James Damiano's
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 life's 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 Simandle's 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 Simandle's 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 Plaintiff's reconsideration motion Bob Dylan's lead
attorneys Orin Snyder
and Steven D. Johnson engaged in unlawful, unscrupulous
illegal and unethical
practices.

Mr. Snyder's, as well as Steven D. Johnson's, unlawful and
nefarious behavior
is documented in this motion.

Plaintiff has learned of allegations that Mr. Snyder and or
other associates of
Mr. Snyder's 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 plaintiff's
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. Snyder's attorney Mary Jo White via
Ms. White's 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 Dylan's 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 won't 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
Carey's
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, Selletti's attorney Jeffrey
Levitt cites many of
Chin's 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 Dylan's 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
Dylan's 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 Jersey's 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 don't
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 Damiano's public
statements made against
Bob Dylan for over ten years..

Defendants also refuse to answer, deny or refute material
questions regarding
Bob Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's 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
guy's" 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 Damiano's
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 Jaco's 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,
Plaintiff's
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 didn't 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 Dylan's publicist Elliot Mintz who had been soliciting
James Damiano's
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 Damiano's
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
Young's 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 Foggerty's "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 Dylan's solicitation of
Damiano's songs, to motive
and finally to the credentials of the music experts.

Damiano's 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, I'd 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 Dylan's
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.com
http://www.heckerbrown.com

Dear Mr. Johnson

You are beyond the date returnable to answer James
Damiano's 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 I'm, sure you have done. I spoke to the US marshal's
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.com once again.

Dear Mr. Johnson: Please find enclosed a link to
Plaintiff's motion to vacate
Judge Joel B. Rosen's order for confidentiality, Motion for
Admissions, and
other motions RE James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for Copyright
Infringement CV
95-4795 JBS.

Bob Dylan's 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 Simandle's decision is in conflict and adverse to the
first amendment .

Basic and simple: In every deposition of this lawsuit the
witness's 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 deposition's that
incriminate Bob Dylan.

He was unable to protect himself with the truth. That
concept is un-American.

Judge Simandle's 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 Dylan's 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. Mintz's deposition is 183 pages. Further Judge Simandle
opined:

Plaintiff asserts that "the bulk of his life's 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 Simandle's
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 Dylan's
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 Damiano's association with Bob
Dylan and Dylan's
management.

Not only did Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson ignore Mr.
Damiano's testimony
regarding, Mr. Damiano working with CBS for eleven years.
They never denied or
Contested, Mr. Damiano's testimony.

Also, Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder and or Mr. Johnson never
contested or denied Mr.
Damiano's Testimony regarding Bob Dylan's solicitation of
plaintiff Damiano's
music.

All of said facts incriminate Mr. Dylan and were left
disregarded and
unresolved after Judge Simandle's 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 Simandle's subjective decisions, Orin
Snyder and Steven D.
Johnson's 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. Damiano's
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 Simandle's 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 Dylan's attorney Orin
Snyder ( who forgot
he was wearing a microphone at the Elliot Mintz's
deposition ), eleven years of
documented facts of Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's
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
Damiano's "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 there's deposition
materials to that effect
which no one made reference to in the lawsuit, I feel it's
an unfair decision.
I feel that I wrote songs for eleven years with Mikie
Harris, those songs
showed up on Bob Dylan's albums. No one ever made
referenceto the eleven years
that I worked with CBS. No, No, one's ever contested those
issues."

Click on link below for motion:

http://www.geocities.com/Proposal112000/James_Damiano.html

James Damiano vs Bob Dylan for copyright infringement

James Damiano vs Bob Dylan for copyright infringement, 11/04/03, by Lake Spring.

Legal Ethics Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST