EXPOSED: Disney/ABC Memo:Blueprint to Steal Ideas=evidence of Disney's calculated policy to violate contract law: http://tinyurl.com/yfvdp54
Disney/ABC Legal Department's Memo to staff with a blueprint on how to steal ideas (in violation of state Contract Laws protecting such idea submissions). Confirms Disney/ABC's policy of calculated intent to deprive writers/owners of IDEAS and COPYRIGHTED WORK from just and due credit and compensation.
Disney/ABC has been warned by a representative of more than 100 TV production companies around the world, the Format Recognition and Protection Association, that Disney/ABC's policy directing Disney/ABC employees to steal ideas is "unacceptable": http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/15/television.usa.
However, when judges in the United States who have personal and financial interests in the Disney companies (e.g., stock holdings, preserving relationships with Disney/ABC's multi-million dollar salaried Disney defense attorneys), the U.S. Courts will continue to turn a blind eye to Disney/ABC's written stated policy of theft of ideas and criminal copyright infringement.
Story originally uncovered by journalist Nikke Finke, Deadline Hollywood: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/bombshell-abc-studios-memo-a-blueprint-to-rip-off-foreign-tv-series/
Disney/ABC Memo:Blueprint to Steal Ideas
Friday, January 22, 2010
Further Evidence of Disney/ABC's Written Policy to Steal IDEAS and Willfully Violate State Contract Law
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
DISNEY's JUDGE SANCTIONS Female Attorney/Writer for talking about Disney Screenplays Judge Summarizes in Dispositive Rulings
*** COMPARE: John Gotti, Jr. allegedly threatens to kill witness in court=NO contempt; Female Attorney talks about Judge's Summary of Disney Screenplays= Contempt ***
Disney/Queen Latifah and the Mighty Quinn Emanuel law firm's arguably illegal influence over the SDNY has resulted in District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain finding Female Attorney/Writer in contempt of Disney's protective Order -- despite the fact that District Judge Laura Taylor Swain concedes the fact that (prior to any dispositve ruling - i.e., in which Judge Swain determines the parties' rights) Attorney/Writer complied with Disney's fraudulent protective order and FOUR YEARS AGO (January 2006) filed a MOTION to VACATE the IMPROPER 'Highly Confidential' designation of the screenplays that DISNEY claims the publically distributed motion picture Bringing Down The House was based upon.
These screenplays and other documents that the District Court and the Magistrate Court relied upon and referred to on dispositive motions (including, default judgment, summary judgement, partial summary judgment motions) were no longer subject to a protective order, if ever they were, once the Judges made their dispositive rulings years and months before Attorney/Writer referred to them. In every other case - except apparently where Disney and Quinn Emmanuel lawyers are defendants - this American legal concept and prevailing law re: judicial documents is applied.
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain concedes the fact that Magistrate Henry B. Pitman REFUSED to even address this January 2006 Motion - which is evidence of Magistrate Pitman's bias and misconduct in this almost 7 year pending lawsuit. Female Attorney/Writer complied with Disney's Quinn Emanuel law firm's drafted Protective Order despite the fraudulent and invalid nature of the Protective Order by filing the January 2006 Motion.
Magistrate Henry B. Pitman improperly (and arguably illegally see RICO statutes) refused to rule on this stockpiled 4 year Motion to Unseal in order to protect Disney/Queen Latifah/Hyde Park Entertainment from disclosure of their liability as well as the fact that these screenplays contain pedophilic and pornographic content. Magistrate Pitman's biased conduct - in which he AGAIN refused to even address in the over 1 1/2 ignored July 2008 RECUSAL MOTION (to which the Second Circuit even refused to require Magistrate Pitman to address at this time)- has subjected a Female Attorney/Writer to Contempt Sanctions in violation of her Due Process rights and First Amendment Right to talk about the dispositive rulings in this case.
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain AGAIN - refused to allow oral argument or an evidentiary hearing on this Motion to find Female Attorney/Writer in Contempt and instead, the only record is the Judge's opinion.
The motion papers will be posted shortly including Female Attorney's defense -- which Judge Laura Taylor Swain refused to even address - that even if these screenplays were protected under the Disney drafted fraudulent Protective Order (which District Judge Laura Taylor Swain refused to address the validity of such Protective Order), once Judge Laura Taylor Swain refered to and relied upon these screenplays in summary judgment (i.e. dispositive rulings) orders, these screenplays are Judicial Documents no longer protected by any confidentiality.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain even summarized these screenplays in public opinions in which she made dispositive rulings; yet, Judge Swain's summary of these screenplays did not include the pedophilic and pornographic scenes, etc. The concept of the Judicial Document is that the PUBLIC is entitled to see and compare a Judge's 'summary' of the EVIDENCE in the American legal system.
Once again, Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firm have been given special privileges in order to protect a Magistrate Judge - Henry B. Pitman - whose calculated biased refusal to make a ruling on a simple basic motion - has resulted in further infliction of deprivation of due process to a female attorney/writer.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain's refusal to address these defenses and instead to falsely state in a judicial opinion that Female Attorney did not dispute the allegations of violating a protective order is just another example of Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firms arguably illegal influence on these proceedings and the cowardice of the federal judiciary in the Southern District of New York to police its own Judges.
It's quite telling that Judge Swain refused to impose any further fine other than for Female Attorney/Writer to PAY Disney and Quinn Emanuel's attorneys' fees for making the Motion = another taking of Attorney/Writer's property in violation of her Constitutional rights. The Color of Justice is a brighter shade of green today in the Southern District of New York.
The House Judiciary Committee is currently addressing the requirements for Judicial Recusal finding that the failure of Judges like Magistrate Henry B. Pitman to adequately deal with Recusal Motions (here, Judge Pitman just ignored it)requires Congressional investigation. This Case clearly will be the poster child for the House Judiciary Committee hearings. STAY TUNED....apparently the House and Senate will get a chance "to know it when they see it", prior to the Supreme Court.
Disney/Queen Latifah and the Mighty Quinn Emanuel law firm's arguably illegal influence over the SDNY has resulted in District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain finding Female Attorney/Writer in contempt of Disney's protective Order -- despite the fact that District Judge Laura Taylor Swain concedes the fact that (prior to any dispositve ruling - i.e., in which Judge Swain determines the parties' rights) Attorney/Writer complied with Disney's fraudulent protective order and FOUR YEARS AGO (January 2006) filed a MOTION to VACATE the IMPROPER 'Highly Confidential' designation of the screenplays that DISNEY claims the publically distributed motion picture Bringing Down The House was based upon.
These screenplays and other documents that the District Court and the Magistrate Court relied upon and referred to on dispositive motions (including, default judgment, summary judgement, partial summary judgment motions) were no longer subject to a protective order, if ever they were, once the Judges made their dispositive rulings years and months before Attorney/Writer referred to them. In every other case - except apparently where Disney and Quinn Emmanuel lawyers are defendants - this American legal concept and prevailing law re: judicial documents is applied.
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain concedes the fact that Magistrate Henry B. Pitman REFUSED to even address this January 2006 Motion - which is evidence of Magistrate Pitman's bias and misconduct in this almost 7 year pending lawsuit. Female Attorney/Writer complied with Disney's Quinn Emanuel law firm's drafted Protective Order despite the fraudulent and invalid nature of the Protective Order by filing the January 2006 Motion.
Magistrate Henry B. Pitman improperly (and arguably illegally see RICO statutes) refused to rule on this stockpiled 4 year Motion to Unseal in order to protect Disney/Queen Latifah/Hyde Park Entertainment from disclosure of their liability as well as the fact that these screenplays contain pedophilic and pornographic content. Magistrate Pitman's biased conduct - in which he AGAIN refused to even address in the over 1 1/2 ignored July 2008 RECUSAL MOTION (to which the Second Circuit even refused to require Magistrate Pitman to address at this time)- has subjected a Female Attorney/Writer to Contempt Sanctions in violation of her Due Process rights and First Amendment Right to talk about the dispositive rulings in this case.
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain AGAIN - refused to allow oral argument or an evidentiary hearing on this Motion to find Female Attorney/Writer in Contempt and instead, the only record is the Judge's opinion.
The motion papers will be posted shortly including Female Attorney's defense -- which Judge Laura Taylor Swain refused to even address - that even if these screenplays were protected under the Disney drafted fraudulent Protective Order (which District Judge Laura Taylor Swain refused to address the validity of such Protective Order), once Judge Laura Taylor Swain refered to and relied upon these screenplays in summary judgment (i.e. dispositive rulings) orders, these screenplays are Judicial Documents no longer protected by any confidentiality.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain even summarized these screenplays in public opinions in which she made dispositive rulings; yet, Judge Swain's summary of these screenplays did not include the pedophilic and pornographic scenes, etc. The concept of the Judicial Document is that the PUBLIC is entitled to see and compare a Judge's 'summary' of the EVIDENCE in the American legal system.
Once again, Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firm have been given special privileges in order to protect a Magistrate Judge - Henry B. Pitman - whose calculated biased refusal to make a ruling on a simple basic motion - has resulted in further infliction of deprivation of due process to a female attorney/writer.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain's refusal to address these defenses and instead to falsely state in a judicial opinion that Female Attorney did not dispute the allegations of violating a protective order is just another example of Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firms arguably illegal influence on these proceedings and the cowardice of the federal judiciary in the Southern District of New York to police its own Judges.
It's quite telling that Judge Swain refused to impose any further fine other than for Female Attorney/Writer to PAY Disney and Quinn Emanuel's attorneys' fees for making the Motion = another taking of Attorney/Writer's property in violation of her Constitutional rights. The Color of Justice is a brighter shade of green today in the Southern District of New York.
The House Judiciary Committee is currently addressing the requirements for Judicial Recusal finding that the failure of Judges like Magistrate Henry B. Pitman to adequately deal with Recusal Motions (here, Judge Pitman just ignored it)requires Congressional investigation. This Case clearly will be the poster child for the House Judiciary Committee hearings. STAY TUNED....apparently the House and Senate will get a chance "to know it when they see it", prior to the Supreme Court.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
BREAKING RELATED NEWS: Quinn Emanuel client Mattel accused of attempting to bribe Canadian Federal Authorities in Criminal Probe
"* MGA accuses [Quinn Emanuel law firm's major client] Mattel of trying to influence investigation
* Hearing to determine whether other gifts given to police"
SURPRISE, SURPRISE! Right. I'm not surprised since I've witnessed firsthand Quinn Emanuel's 'litigation tactics.' It appears as though the Quinn Emanuel law firm encourages and/or advises all its clients (e.g., Disney, Mattel, Jason Filardi, Queen Latifah, Hyde Park Entertainment, Touchstone Pictures, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Ashok Amitraj, etc.) to commit fraudulent and arguably criminal acts (e.g., obstruction of justice, interference with legal proceedings)-- 'to win' at any and all costs.
In the protracted litigation stemming from the [typical Quinn Emanuel dragging out for years] copyright infringement lawsuit concerning MGA (Bratz Dolls) and Mattel(Barbie) - represented by the rapacious Quinn Emanuel law firm (including named partner John Quinn and Sanford I. Weisburst) - see:http://tinyurl.com/kp39ek Mattel (and Quinn Emanuel lawyers) were ordered to appear on September 21st, 1:30 PM in a Los Angeles Federal Courtroom (CR One) for the Central District of California (U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson)"to address MGA's concerns that 'other gifts have been given to law enforcement officials by Mattel.'":
"LOS ANGELES, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Mattel Inc's (MAT.N) security chief must appear in court this month to testify about why the toy company gave gifts to Canadian police investigating Mattel's complaints of trade secrets theft against rival MGA Entertainment, a judge ordered on Thursday...
...The email between Canadian authorities and Mattel's head of security, Richard De Anda, showed "an obviously improper attempt to curry favor in their investigation," MGA argued in court documents."
http://tinyurl.com/mn6qwe
* Hearing to determine whether other gifts given to police"
SURPRISE, SURPRISE! Right. I'm not surprised since I've witnessed firsthand Quinn Emanuel's 'litigation tactics.' It appears as though the Quinn Emanuel law firm encourages and/or advises all its clients (e.g., Disney, Mattel, Jason Filardi, Queen Latifah, Hyde Park Entertainment, Touchstone Pictures, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Ashok Amitraj, etc.) to commit fraudulent and arguably criminal acts (e.g., obstruction of justice, interference with legal proceedings)-- 'to win' at any and all costs.
In the protracted litigation stemming from the [typical Quinn Emanuel dragging out for years] copyright infringement lawsuit concerning MGA (Bratz Dolls) and Mattel(Barbie) - represented by the rapacious Quinn Emanuel law firm (including named partner John Quinn and Sanford I. Weisburst) - see:http://tinyurl.com/kp39ek Mattel (and Quinn Emanuel lawyers) were ordered to appear on September 21st, 1:30 PM in a Los Angeles Federal Courtroom (CR One) for the Central District of California (U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson)"to address MGA's concerns that 'other gifts have been given to law enforcement officials by Mattel.'":
...The email between Canadian authorities and Mattel's head of security, Richard De Anda, showed "an obviously improper attempt to curry favor in their investigation," MGA argued in court documents."
http://tinyurl.com/mn6qwe
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Daily Dose of Disney & Its 'Rapacious D-Bags' (1) Defense Attnys Quinn Emanuel law firm
(1) http://tinyurl.com/ned3bh See No.3
Defendants Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment/Touchstone Pictures, etc., etc.'s Quinn Emanuel law firm's latest baseless threats to female Writer/Attorney.
I know this case is keeping 3 law firms and 18 defense attorneys employed, but for the money Quinn Emanuel Law Firm is billing Disney, et. al., do you think Quinn Emanuel's 18 lawyers on this case could have at least read the DMCA and complied with it? Since Quinn Emanuel clearly does not represent my interests, an e-mail to Quinn Emanuel requesting the identification of the 'copyright owner' upon whose behalf Quinn Emanuel is claiming to represent (i.e., compliance with the DMCA) has gone unanswered, [shocking]. [Evidently, Quinn Emanuel must have sent the same non-compliant threat to the site owners since it appears the site is disabled.]
A more detailed response will follow a short break while I take time to listen to a CD a music industry friend sent to me: "The Great Burrito Extortion Case: Bowling For Soup." ... in the words of the original thief/fraud Defendant Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. (Burns & Levinson - Boston, MA): "it's a comedy! it's a comedy!" : http://tinyurl.com/mq87gs
Disney/Queen Latifah's Quinn Emanuel Attnys NonCompliant DMCA Threat re:Bringing Down The House film
Defendants Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment/Touchstone Pictures, etc., etc.'s Quinn Emanuel law firm's latest baseless threats to female Writer/Attorney.
I know this case is keeping 3 law firms and 18 defense attorneys employed, but for the money Quinn Emanuel Law Firm is billing Disney, et. al., do you think Quinn Emanuel's 18 lawyers on this case could have at least read the DMCA and complied with it? Since Quinn Emanuel clearly does not represent my interests, an e-mail to Quinn Emanuel requesting the identification of the 'copyright owner' upon whose behalf Quinn Emanuel is claiming to represent (i.e., compliance with the DMCA) has gone unanswered, [shocking]. [Evidently, Quinn Emanuel must have sent the same non-compliant threat to the site owners since it appears the site is disabled.]
A more detailed response will follow a short break while I take time to listen to a CD a music industry friend sent to me: "The Great Burrito Extortion Case: Bowling For Soup." ... in the words of the original thief/fraud Defendant Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. (Burns & Levinson - Boston, MA): "it's a comedy! it's a comedy!" : http://tinyurl.com/mq87gs
Disney/Queen Latifah's Quinn Emanuel Attnys NonCompliant DMCA Threat re:Bringing Down The House film
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Compare the Movie with Disney's screenplays..oh wait, you can't: The Judges refuse to UNSEAL the record....?
*** COMING SOON...:DISNEY/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment and their 'giant collection of rapacious d-bags' lawyers See 'Above the Law' legal commentary blog:http://tinyurl.com/ned3bh Quinn Emanuel law firm (Jonathan Oblack, Esq. Jeffrey Conciatori, Esq., Sanford I.'get me off on a technicality' Weisburst, Esq.) clearly must have threatened the site hosting the Stolen Movie with the same invalid demand to take down the movie as it is no longer available...for the moment...***
Although in every other copyright infringement case in the United States of America, the public is entitled to see the 'evidence' upon which a Judge makes her decision, evidently according to the Federal Rules of Mickey Mouse which the SDNY has applied in this case, YOU, the public, have no right to see Defendant Disney's screenplays upon which Disney defends this copyright infringement suit and claims this motion picture is based...???
Apparently, like the 'hooded judges and concealed witness' trials of third world countries...YOU, the public, just have to take Disney and the Federal Judges' 'word' for it...??
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that Judge Laura Taylor Swain seems to think that unsealing warrants that may reveal the identities of government informants (i.e., putting their safety at risk) is required by the American legal system's basic premise of the PUBLIC NATURE of legal proceedings http://tinyurl.com/ml4fof, yet, at the same time, Judge Swain apparently continues to consider Disney's concealed SCREENPLAYS (that Disney claims this publically distributed motion picture derivative is based upon) as deserving of national security level highly confidential status preventing the public from seeing the 'evidence' in this case...seriously?
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that for over 3 1/2 years Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's JANUARY 2006 motion to vacate the improper sealing of DISNEY submitted screenplays in this case was purposefully ignored by Magistrate Henry B. Pitman who despite Writer/Attorney's repeated pleas to address such simple basic motion, Magistrate Pitman disdainfully retorted: "I have a lot of motions, OK? I'll get to it when I get to it!" Despite the fact that it's actually Magistrate Pitman's job to actually address motions, he never got to it - meaning, Judge Pitman never made a decision either way (no grant, no denial), effectively preventing Writer/Attorney from seeking further relief.
Magistrate Pitman's calculated refusal to 'get to it' for over 3 1/2 years due to Magistrate Pitman and Disney and its law firm Quinn Emanuel's 'special relationship,' see http://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg is apparently subjecting Writer/Attorney to contempt sanctions (which could include jail, fines, Disney's Attorneys' fees) for discussing Judge Swain's dispositve rulings based on these improperly concealed/sealed screenplays and for discussing Judge Swain's summaries in public orders of these improperly concealed/sealed screenplays.
In the movie, I don't see any of the Disney scenes of masturbation in front of 8 year old boys, anal and oral sex references, simulated rape of a man by another man in a bathtub in front of an 8 year old boy and 15 year girl, etc. If the U.S. Constitution and the basic premise of the public nature of U.S. legal proceedings are ever applied to THIS DISNEY case, maybe the PUBLIC, as entitled, would finally be able to compare these Disney screenplay scenes with the movie to see if Judge Swain's 'summary' of these concealed screenplays is a truthful representation of what is being hidden from the public.
**FYI: All parties agree that the racist scenes in this final unauthorized derivative of this motion picture were added by Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment -- again, in violation of Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's exclusive right to authorize the use of her work in subsequent derivative works (e.g., motion pictures).
ONE of the issues in this case is whether despite Disney's admission that Disney did not have Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's permission to even possess and use Plaintiff's idea and UNPUBLISHED Screenplay in the development of subsequent unauthorized derivative screenplay(s) and motion picture(s), and despite Disney's submission of Plaintiff's unpublished screenplay to the court prior to discovery in this case (i.e., Disney didn't obtain Plaintiff's screenplay from Plaintiff during these proceedings-but obtained and possessed Plaintiff's unpublished screenplay prior to the lawsuit) AND Disney's admission of use, a Disney defense of 'we changed it enough' relieves Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi of the same liability that every other admitted copyright infringer is subjected to pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Act, e.g.,17 U.S.C. sec.106(2), as well as, the most recent copyright infringement decisions concerning admissions of unauthorized use: RIAA v. Joel Tenenbaum http://tinyurl.com/n322qt. ***
Although in every other copyright infringement case in the United States of America, the public is entitled to see the 'evidence' upon which a Judge makes her decision, evidently according to the Federal Rules of Mickey Mouse which the SDNY has applied in this case, YOU, the public, have no right to see Defendant Disney's screenplays upon which Disney defends this copyright infringement suit and claims this motion picture is based...???
Apparently, like the 'hooded judges and concealed witness' trials of third world countries...YOU, the public, just have to take Disney and the Federal Judges' 'word' for it...??
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that Judge Laura Taylor Swain seems to think that unsealing warrants that may reveal the identities of government informants (i.e., putting their safety at risk) is required by the American legal system's basic premise of the PUBLIC NATURE of legal proceedings http://tinyurl.com/ml4fof, yet, at the same time, Judge Swain apparently continues to consider Disney's concealed SCREENPLAYS (that Disney claims this publically distributed motion picture derivative is based upon) as deserving of national security level highly confidential status preventing the public from seeing the 'evidence' in this case...seriously?
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that for over 3 1/2 years Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's JANUARY 2006 motion to vacate the improper sealing of DISNEY submitted screenplays in this case was purposefully ignored by Magistrate Henry B. Pitman who despite Writer/Attorney's repeated pleas to address such simple basic motion, Magistrate Pitman disdainfully retorted: "I have a lot of motions, OK? I'll get to it when I get to it!" Despite the fact that it's actually Magistrate Pitman's job to actually address motions, he never got to it - meaning, Judge Pitman never made a decision either way (no grant, no denial), effectively preventing Writer/Attorney from seeking further relief.
Magistrate Pitman's calculated refusal to 'get to it' for over 3 1/2 years due to Magistrate Pitman and Disney and its law firm Quinn Emanuel's 'special relationship,' see http://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg is apparently subjecting Writer/Attorney to contempt sanctions (which could include jail, fines, Disney's Attorneys' fees) for discussing Judge Swain's dispositve rulings based on these improperly concealed/sealed screenplays and for discussing Judge Swain's summaries in public orders of these improperly concealed/sealed screenplays.
In the movie, I don't see any of the Disney scenes of masturbation in front of 8 year old boys, anal and oral sex references, simulated rape of a man by another man in a bathtub in front of an 8 year old boy and 15 year girl, etc. If the U.S. Constitution and the basic premise of the public nature of U.S. legal proceedings are ever applied to THIS DISNEY case, maybe the PUBLIC, as entitled, would finally be able to compare these Disney screenplay scenes with the movie to see if Judge Swain's 'summary' of these concealed screenplays is a truthful representation of what is being hidden from the public.
**FYI: All parties agree that the racist scenes in this final unauthorized derivative of this motion picture were added by Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment -- again, in violation of Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's exclusive right to authorize the use of her work in subsequent derivative works (e.g., motion pictures).
ONE of the issues in this case is whether despite Disney's admission that Disney did not have Writer/Attorney Plaintiff's permission to even possess and use Plaintiff's idea and UNPUBLISHED Screenplay in the development of subsequent unauthorized derivative screenplay(s) and motion picture(s), and despite Disney's submission of Plaintiff's unpublished screenplay to the court prior to discovery in this case (i.e., Disney didn't obtain Plaintiff's screenplay from Plaintiff during these proceedings-but obtained and possessed Plaintiff's unpublished screenplay prior to the lawsuit) AND Disney's admission of use, a Disney defense of 'we changed it enough' relieves Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi of the same liability that every other admitted copyright infringer is subjected to pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Act, e.g.,17 U.S.C. sec.106(2), as well as, the most recent copyright infringement decisions concerning admissions of unauthorized use: RIAA v. Joel Tenenbaum http://tinyurl.com/n322qt. ***
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
VALIDATION: The Best Description of Disney's Attorneys Quinn Emanuel Law Firm by the Legal Community="a giant collection of rapacious d-bags"
I rest my case. 'Above The Law' legal website recently had this to say about Defendant Disney/Queen Latifah/Hyde Park Entertainment/Jason Filardi's lead defense attorneys: Quinn Emanuel law firm:
Confirmation from the legal community that my reference to Quinn Emanuel lawyers as "Thugs in Armani Suits" http://tinyurl.com/ldg93e was somewhat of a compliment in comparison to what others in the legal community think of Quinn Emanuel and their litigation tactics. But, I would like to add that litigating against Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firm is like trying to swim across a river of sludge, handcuffed with blood sucking leeches all over your body.
To sum up the experience of dealing with the "rapaciousness" of Disney and Disney's 3 defense law firms and 18 lead defense counsel led by Quinn Emanuel in further visual perspective and to also allay Disney's repeated verbal and written expressed fear of Plaintiff writing a movie about Disney, Quinn Emanuel, and this litigation since it clearly has already been made, see the following links...here's to "fighting in the shade..." http://tinyurl.com/f9cz9 and here, of course, http://tinyurl.com/3x4tta.
***An update of the July 1, 2009 hearing as well as Disney's continual attempt to censor Female Writer and violate her First Amendment Rights and to improperly seal these copyright proceedings will be posted soon.***
"Good grief, how have we heretofore been unaware of the bombastic, hyper-aggressive train wreck that is the Quinn Emanuel website? Some excerpts from the chest-thumping animated banner that assaults the visitor:
* "THE RICHEST GUYS IN THE ROOM? Our clients."
* "NEED TO BREAK THE BANK? We can be adverse to almost all major financial institutions."
* "WHEN AN 8-FIGURE VERDICT SIMPLY WON'T DO." [Accompanied by a graphic of a spinning slot machine.]
If we were up against Quinn in litigation, we'd be sure to give the judge in our case an excuse to visit this website. It drives home the point that the firm is a giant collection of rapacious d-bags far more effectively than any brief ever could." http://tinyurl.com/ned3bh See No.3
Confirmation from the legal community that my reference to Quinn Emanuel lawyers as "Thugs in Armani Suits" http://tinyurl.com/ldg93e was somewhat of a compliment in comparison to what others in the legal community think of Quinn Emanuel and their litigation tactics. But, I would like to add that litigating against Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firm is like trying to swim across a river of sludge, handcuffed with blood sucking leeches all over your body.
To sum up the experience of dealing with the "rapaciousness" of Disney and Disney's 3 defense law firms and 18 lead defense counsel led by Quinn Emanuel in further visual perspective and to also allay Disney's repeated verbal and written expressed fear of Plaintiff writing a movie about Disney, Quinn Emanuel, and this litigation since it clearly has already been made, see the following links...here's to "fighting in the shade..." http://tinyurl.com/f9cz9 and here, of course, http://tinyurl.com/3x4tta.
***An update of the July 1, 2009 hearing as well as Disney's continual attempt to censor Female Writer and violate her First Amendment Rights and to improperly seal these copyright proceedings will be posted soon.***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
