Home > Archive > Dylan > April 2005 > Bob Dylan movie completed Now on DVD
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Bob Dylan movie completed Now on DVD
|
|
|
|
Bob Dylan movie completed Now on DVD
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 (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.
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 December 11 2003 has not filed a counter
suit.
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 s ing an attorney to refile this claim in federal or state
court. Contact information. E-mail Proposal112...@yahoo.com
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. That motion may not
be timely to the extent that it ss 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
Update 9/12/03 Judge Jeorme B. Simandle has ruled. To inquire about
Judge Simandle's Sept 12 2003 opinion send e-mail to the e-mail
address below:
LawJournalRev...@yahoo.com
Judge Simandle disregarded a musical analysis of a song released by
Bob Dylan titled "Dignity" constructed by Dr. Greene who graduated
magna cum laude from Harvard University.
http://www.geocities.com/Proposal11...es_Damiano.html
=20
=A92005 Google
| |
| Christophe Wyatt 2005-04-07, 3:57 pm |
| All in all,"So what?" Whaat are you really saying? Who will care at this
late date? And who made the name Bob Dylan (Zimmerman) worthy of great
praise from all corners? He is 'great' on the basis of of the earliest 5
albums!
Doest thou obsess compulsively young Pup? What truly itchith thy anus?
"Law" <LawJournalReview@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109352498.496221.174820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bob Dylan movie completed Now on DVD
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 (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.
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 December 11 2003 has not filed a counter
suit.
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 sing an attorney to refile this claim in federal or state
court. Contact information. E-mail Proposal112...@yahoo.com
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. That motion may not
be timely to the extent that it ss 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
Update 9/12/03 Judge Jeorme B. Simandle has ruled. To inquire about
Judge Simandle's Sept 12 2003 opinion send e-mail to the e-mail
address below:
LawJournalRev...@yahoo.com
Judge Simandle disregarded a musical analysis of a song released by
Bob Dylan titled "Dignity" constructed by Dr. Greene who graduated
magna cum laude from Harvard University.
http://www.geocities.com/Proposal11...es_Damiano.html
©2005 Google
|
|
|
|
|