"Bringing Down The House" Copyright Infringement Lawsuit (v. Disney,Queen Latifah,Jason Filardi..)

Will the SDNY/Second Circuit Court of Appeals apply the COPYRIGHT ACT against its personal attorney William Patry's GOOGLE in Google Books Case?

2011-10-31T04:09:00.000-07:00

On October 14th, 2011, Authors Guild filed Fourth Amended Complaint against Google as Settlement Talks fail. "Google Books" case: Google (whose in-house attorney is William Patry, self proclaimed copyright expert, and former Counsel for U.S. Copyright Office and Senate Judiciary Committee -responsible for investigations of criminal copyright infringement and enforcement of Copyright Act)-- CANNOT claim the infringement was not willful and CANNOT claim FAIR USE. Google committed willful criminal copyright infringement by copying and digitalizing copyrighted works without the permission of copyright owners in order to PROFIT off of creative artists' works. GOOGLE's policy is to commit criminal infringement and then wait and see if they are sued - all hiding behind their 'friends' in the SDNY/2nd Cir (judges who request William Patry's 'expertise' in pending copyright infringement cases in the Second Circuit, and who write letters of recommendations for their law clerks to work at Google's outside attorneys QUINN EMANUEL & SULLIVAN law firm DURING pending litigation against Google.). Will the Second Circuit/SDNY finally APPLY the LAW against its own personal attorney Google/William Patry? Stay tunedAuthors Guild v. Google Fourth Amended Complaint (SDNY) "Google Books Case"

2011-10-11T04:52:00.000-07:00

The "Real Disney"

Words of Wisdom

2011-10-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

- GHANDI

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' Dirty Little Secret: Appeal Filed & Pending re: Federal Judge's REFUSAL to even Address RECUSAL MOTIONS

2011-09-17T00:07:00.000-07:00

Appeal Filed in the Disney/Queen Latifah Copyright Infringement Lawsuit concerning "Bringing Down The House" - will the Second Circuit finally address the misconduct of its Quinn Emanuel & Sullivan law firm, now that, as was discussed here,[http://tinyurl.com/QuinnEmanuelMisconduct] Quinn Emanuel & Sullivan was implicated in litigation misconduct as well as complicity with its copyright client(s) Mattel for the same misconduct as occurred in this case?
2008 Recusal Motion: NEVER ADDRESSED by Magistrate Court: http://tinyurl.com/Recusal2008
2010 Recusal Motion: denied upon filing (without hearing or consideration) by District Court despite being addressed to Magistrate Court (refused to allow filing)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Dirty Little Secret: Recusal Appeal of Federal Judge (Disney/QueenLatifah/...

What's your dirty little secret Disney, Queen Latifah, Attny George N. Tobia, Jr., Hyde Park Entertainment, Jason Filardi, David Hoberman, Todd Liberman, Quinn Emanuel & Sullivan, John Quinn...?

It took 38 Yrs for Justice re:Government Cover-Up w/ loss of life–How many Yrs for Justice re:the SDNY’s Coverup of Judicial & White Collar Crimes?

2010-06-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

It took 38 Years for Justice and the disclosure of Government Cover-Up that concerned loss of life –How many Years for Justice for the SDNY’s Coverup of Judicial (Henry. B. Pitman, SDNY) Misconduct and White Collar Crimes (Quinn Emanuel law firm, Disney, Jason Filardi, Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr.)?

It took 38 Years for the UK government to admit its wrongdoing and to vindicate the victims of the Bloody Sunday massacre by the British Government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/jun/15/northernireland
This is what happens when a government/judiciary participates in criminal acts/cover-up. Government's response to civil rights and free speech and equal protection and access to courts. The Southern District of New York (US Federal Judiciary-Henry B. Pitman, Judge Laura Taylor Swain) has similar sentiments as the UK Government when it comes to free speech and civil rights.

**warning: contains graphic images and footage of the Bloody Sunday massacre***

It has been reported that this governmental/judicial corruption and cover-up, the government’s massacre that day, its subsequent vilification of the innocent victims (i.e., saying the victims were firing on the British soldiers when in fact the victims were shot in the back and/or while lying face down on the pavement with no weapons), and the refusal of the government to investigate, etc., lead to thousands of everyday people not prone to protesting or to violence to support and to join in acts of violence in Northern Ireland...after watching the footage, it isn't suprising.

Reports also indicate that as a direct result of the government’s actions on that one day January 30, 1972 (the killing of 14 people during a civil rights march in Ireland), 3000 subsequent deaths --- eerily similar to the loss of life on September 11th – resulted from the escalated decades of violence in Northern Ireland fueled by the government’s corruption and cover-up.

Here, in the United States, witnessing the repeated cover-up of the white collar crimes (i.e., copyright infringement, obstruction of justice, interference with legal proceedings– perjury, destruction of evidence, extortionist threats, tampering with court documents, see RICO Statutes=federal crimes) committed by corporations like Disney and lawyers like Quinn Emanuel law firm, Robert Muldoon, Jr. (Sherin & Lodgen, Boston, MA), George N. Tobia, Jr., Esq., Burns & Levinson, Boston, MA , with government participation in the crimes and cover-up (e.g., Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman (SDNY)), do we really have to wonder why terrorists highjack airplanes and fly them into buildings that represent government corruption?

As someone who has witnessed first hand the white collar crimes of the Quinn Emanuel law firm and attorneys (George N. Tobia, Jr., Burns & Levinson, Robert J. Muldoon, Jr. Sherin & Lodgen) as well as federal judges (Henry B. Pitman) --- and the cover-up by the government (federal judiciary) to conceal legal proceedings to protect the disclosure of liability etc., it is no surprise to me why worldwide disdain for the U.S. federal government and these white collar criminals (the Disneys/Googles, the Quinn Emanuels, the Bernie Madoffs) exist. The problem is that innocent people are literally caught in the crossfire – which I also witnessed first hand.

At least the British Government finally came clean albeit after 38 years…will the U.S. (federal judiciary) do the same? What will it take for the U.S. Federal Judiciary (Southern District of New York) and the U.S. Government to come clean with reference to their special treatment of White Collar Criminals like Disney, Google, the Quinn Emanuel law firm (Jeffrey Conciatori, Jonathan Oblak, Sandford Weisburst), George N. Tobia, Jr., Burns & Levinson, Robert Muldoon, Jr., Esq., Sherin & Lodgen, Jason Filardi, Queen Latifah, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Peter Filardi ..? Seven years and counting... wouldn't hold your breath...or maybe just for a little longer… stay tuned for coming attractions…If these families endured for 38 years, we can endure the same.

US Supreme Court: FINDING NEMO copyright case v. Disney/Quinn Emanuel law firm PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI docketed March 17, 2010

2010-03-18T22:07:00.000-07:00

Thomas v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., 09-1109 U.S. Supreme Court docket.

The unprecedented/unconstitutional RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS on the PLEADINGS in a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ACTION in which JUDGE looks outside the pleadings, takes judicial notice of only a sample of the screenplays that are IN DISPUTE, relies on testimony of Disney's QUINN EMANUEL lawyers as EXPERT TESTIMONY, performs a FACT ANALYSIS** on a MOTION TO DISMISS(?) with the movie-studio-defense attorney created 'substantial similarity' INDIRECT EVIDENCE test (despite DIRECT EVIDENCE of INFRINGEMENT, concessions).

**FYI: Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss "test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, and NOT THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF IT." E. Shor Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs., Ltd P'Ship, 213 F. 3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000)

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court believes that the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Copyright Act apply to all individuals regardless of corporate status, grants certiorari and mandates that all the Circuits apply the Rules of Procedure and the U.S. Copyright Act equally to individual writers as it does to corporate billion dollar entertainment companies -- and confirms that the Quinn Emanuel law firm and its Disney/Google Defendants are not exempt from the complying with the law nor are they exempt from liability for their willful criminal copyright infringement.(as an aside, see also, recent UNSEALED documents revealing Google, Inc.'s, Quinn Emanuel's client, willful copyright infringement: http://tinyurl.com/yf7ro5s).

US SUPREME COURT Petition for Writ of Certiorari "Finding Nemo" case Thomas v Disney 09-1109
US SUPREME COURT Appendix "FINDING NEMO" to Petition for Writ of Certiorari Thomas v Disney 09-1109

The Petition in Thomas v. The Walt Disney Company, 09-1109 US Supr. Ct., addresses the fact that, here, in conflict with the U.S. Copyright Act (e.g., "lack of authorization" test), U.S. Constitution (separation of powers), U.S. Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Twombly), and other Circuits (Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792, 6th Cir. 2005, no movie studio-defense attorney created "substantial similarity" test re: separate exclusive "derivative right"), in another Disney theft of female writer case, Quinn Emanuel moves on a MOTION TO DISMISS Rule 12(b)(6) motion ON THE PLEADINGS, convinces a judge to look outside the pleadings to take judicial notice of screenplays that are IN DISPUTE(?), to rely upon the TESTIMONY of QUINN EMANUEL ATTORNEYS as opinion/experts on 'substantial similarity' and to take on the role of jury and act as 'fact finder.' All while depriving writer plaintiff of ANY DISCOVERY into the 'preparation of the derivative work' (i.e. the development of the motion picture, the separate exclusive derivative right. 17 U.S.C. 106(2).

Disney's Attorneys Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges (improper?) influence on the Federal Government & Judiciary, the continuing story...

2010-03-15T19:00:00.001-07:00

U.S. Senate Confirms (Google, Inc’s Attorneys) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges Partner Edith Ramirez to the Federal Trade Commission in charge of eliminating anti-competitive business practices (?!?). http://tinyurl.com/yjj88pj REALLY?

Hmmm…coincidently the same week as Disney and Google, Inc’s Attorney’s Appointment to Federal Trade Commission: Southern District of New York Judge dismisses first of two antitrust lawsuits against Google, Inc. in which Google, Inc. was sued by smaller Internet search engines accusing Google, Inc. of manipulating its rankings in order to punish its rivals.* http://tinyurl.com/yzd6qjx

* Granted, it’s only a procedural dismissal…let’s hope the next federal judge doesn’t own stock in Google, Inc. or pander to Quinn Emanuel’s unethical, improper influence and litigation strategies.

Looks like it’s going to be a good month for another one of Quinn Emanuel’s white collar criminals, Google, Inc., (quite possibly the most prolific criminal willful copyright infringers in the history of copyright):

Looks like Google, Inc. and its attorneys Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges will be getting off on the current (or, now defunct?) Antitrust Investigations by the Justice Department:

(1) April 2009 “Google Faces Antitrust Investigation for Agreement to Digitize Millions of Books Online” http://tinyurl.com/coznus …hmmm, where’s that investigation stand Justice Department?
Does this case fall under one of the cases former SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin S. Reed, current Partner at Quinn Emanuel law firm (Google, Inc’s attorneys), brags about in his bio concerning Quinn Emanuel’s influence on the U.S. Attorneys Office convincing the DOJ to ‘drop investigations’ of Quinn Emanuel’s white collar criminal clients?

(2) Wonder if this one gets swept under the rug, too? Another “current” Google, Inc. antitrust investigation:

“The Federal Trade Commission is examining Google’s purchase of mobile advertising platform AdMob to determine whether it violates antitrust laws. According to a person familiar with the review, Google has turned over the bulk of the documents needed for the review; in industry parlance, Google has certified that is has “substantially complied” with the FTC’s request for documents. A decision is expected in the next month. (April 2010)”. http://tinyurl.com/yzd6qjx

I’m sure the Federal Trade Commission (with Google, Inc.’s Quinn Emanuel attorney on the Commission), will overlook Google, Inc.’s non-compliance with document requests since Google, Inc.’s ‘substantial compliance’ (meaning Quinn Emanuel’s standard business practice of obstructing justice by destroying or withholding relevant documents requested through court orders, etc.) is something Quinn Emanuel Partner Edith Ramirez, and now member of Federal Trade Commission, advocates.

No wonder the Mighty Quinn Emanuel law firm has a god-complex. http://tinyurl.com/ldg93e
And, this represents the U.S. Judicial system…these individuals and white collar criminals give fodder to those people who want to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings that represent the financial influence on the deprivation of individual’s rights and access to the courts.

** Google, Inc.'s participation and interest in this Bringing Down The House copyright infringement lawsuit is yet to be determined since Magistrate Henry B. Pitman has refused for Two (2) years to even address the July 2008 Recusal Motion which requests the Court's disclosure of Magistrate Pitman's Conflicts list and financial interests in this action. Google, Inc.'s in-house counsel, William Patry, obtained orders in this action prior to the public docketing of the orders to publicize false information concerning this case over the internet on behalf of the Disney defendants.***

Further Evidence of Disney/ABC's Written Policy to Steal IDEAS and Willfully Violate State Contract Law

2010-01-22T13:43:00.000-08:00

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

DISNEY's JUDGE SANCTIONS Female Attorney/Writer for talking about Disney Screenplays Judge Summarizes in Dispositive Rulings

2009-11-10T13:01:00.000-08:00

*** 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 publicly 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 judgment, 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 referred 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.

A Moment of Respite: Words of Wisdom from U2...

2009-10-10T21:33:00.000-07:00

BREAKING RELATED NEWS: Quinn Emanuel client Mattel accused of attempting to bribe Canadian Federal Authorities in Criminal Probe

2009-09-03T21:44:00.000-07:00

"* 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

Daily Dose of Disney & Its 'Rapacious D-Bags' (1) Defense Attnys Quinn Emanuel law firm

2009-08-30T12:19:00.000-07:00

(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

Compare the Movie with Disney's screenplays..oh wait, you can't: The Judges refuse to UNSEAL the record....?

2009-08-02T15:06:00.001-07:00

*** 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. ***

VALIDATION: The Best Description of Disney's Attorneys Quinn Emanuel Law Firm by the Legal Community="a giant collection of rapacious d-bags"

2009-07-14T13:53:00.001-07:00

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:

"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.***

Federal Magistrate Judge selectively DESTROYED audio recordings of these proceedings while a Motion re:his Recusal for Bias/Misconduct is pending

2009-07-09T16:20:00.000-07:00

In May 2009, a request was made for the audio recordings of three conferences before Magistrate Henry B. Pitman http://tinyurl.com/nheana in this 6 ½ year pending copyright infringement/legal malpractice lawsuit against Disney, Queen Latifah, Jason Filardi, Hyde Park Entertainment, Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. (Burns & Levinson, Boston, MA). Usually such requests are answered within 48 hours. Plaintiff Writer/Attorney was told that a call was made to Magistrate Pitman Chambers concerning whether or not the audio recordings were preserved. For over a month, the Court avoided responding to Plaintiff’s request. [Writer/Attorney Plaintiff is also required to obtain transcripts of these proceedings within a certain amount of time].

Only after a request to Federal Investigators was made to look into whether or not the audio recordings of these copyright infringement/legal malpractice proceedings had been destroyed by Magistrate Henry B. Pitman was Writer/Attorney Plaintiff finally informed that the Magistrate Court did in fact destroy the audio recordings of the November 10, 2005 hearing and the July 26, 2006 pre-trial conference. Yet, the Magistrate Court preserved an older audio recording of the September 2, 2003 initial conference?

Because Magistrate Henry B. Pitman refused to even address the now year pending July 2008 Recusal Motion for Bias http://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg
(subject to a 2-month pending Second Circuit Court of Appeals Motion to force Magistrate Pitman to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make a ruling on such motion), the issues of Magistrate Pitman’s misconduct, bias against female attorney and favoritism toward Disney and toward Quinn Emanuel law firm are still pending and any such evidence of these proceedings was required to be preserved. These purposefully and selectively destroyed audio recordings of the proceedings are/were evidence of Magistrate Pitman’s persistent antagonistic, demeaning and improper biased conduct toward female attorney and Magistrate Pitman's biased favoritism not only toward corporate billion dollar Disney but also the Quinn Emanuel law firm.

How, when, and why the Magistrate Court (Henry B. Pitman) destroyed this evidence relevant to a pending 2008 Motion for his Recusal for Bias is a question that apparently only the Federal authorities will be able to answer.

* Again, how can the public maintain any confidence in the integrity of a U.S. Supreme Court Nominee (Sonia Sotomayor) from a Circuit and the very District (SDNY) that not only improperly conceals the record of these copyright proceedings to improperly prevent public disclosure of Disney’s liability and the Court’s favoritism toward corporate billion dollar Disney Defendants and their Quinn Emanuel law firm (that employs Sotomayor’s former law clerk) and to improperly protect corporate billion dollar Disney from disclosure that Disney creates and continues to support pedophilic/child porn and pornographic content, but also purposefully delays and conceals any investigation into the undisputed/unopposed allegations of misconduct of judges in Sotomayor’s very District?

What Does Sotomayor's District think: DISNEY=CENSORSHIP??

2009-06-28T00:35:00.000-07:00

What FIRST AMENDMENT? What PUBLIC RIGHT TO ACCESS TO (RECORDS OF) THE COURTS?
Defendant Disney's Quinn Emanuel Attorneys'(Jonathan Oblak, Esq.+3 law firms, and 17, yes, 17 named lead defense counsel see below: http://tinyurl.com/mzjegt) CEASE & DESIST LETTER to Female Writer/Attorney http://tinyurl.com/n7htxa and attempt to obtain a gag order (hearing July 1, 2009 4:30 PM, Courtroom 11C, SDNY, 500 Pearl Street, NYC - Hon. Laura Taylor Swain)http://tinyurl.com/ndqdcv to prevent Writer/Attorney from discussing Disney/Jason Filardi/Queen Latifah's liability and the Court's dispositive rulings, improperly applied and erroneous 'substantial similarity' analysis of screenplays at issue in this lawsuit: "Suburban Sista" and "Jailbabe.com"...Will the SDNY continue to pander to corporate billion dollar Disney Defendants and Quinn Emanuel law firm (that employs U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor's former law clerk Adam Abensohn) and conceal/seal every document in this action?

Why is it that Disney/Queen Latifah and their law firm Quinn Emanuel are entitled to national security level confidentiality status and a sealed record because the Disney screenplays contain scenes that are pedophilic/child pornographic and pornographic in nature and the Judges expressed their personal feelings that Disney not be held in a 'negative light'? But, for everyone else, even according to Judge Pitman the Magistrate in this case who refused to even address the motion to unseal these proceedings still pending for 3 1/2 years, "alleged injury to reputation is insufficient to seal records'?! http://tinyurl.com/lag87g (Judge Pitman ruled "If the possibility of embarrassment from the charges alone justified sealing here, the sealing of civil proceedings would rapidly become the general rule," and that "[parties] and their counsel have a right under the First Amendment to discuss the charges and the proceeding against them with anyone who is willing to listen.")...except, apparently if you're suing Disney...

DEJA VU?: Disney attempted to "muzzle" (Disney's Quinn Emanuel Attorney Jonathan Oblak, Esq.'s word used in current female writer/attorney case)a female journalist who reported on Disney's litigation and discovery misconduct in another copyright infringement lawsuit http://tinyurl.com/le6jq6; and Disney threatened and shut down another blogger: "'Spocko's Brain'(blogger) v. KSFO Hate Radio and ABC-Disney and their Attorneys": http://tinyurl.com/28uhzdf

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Will Sotomayor Uphold the Constitution?

2009-06-24T08:36:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/mccxea

Good Question, since it is apparent that if you are opposing counsel and/or opposing litigant of the law firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges) that employs U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor's former law clerk, Adam Abensohn, you will be denied status conferences, oral arguments, scheduling orders, discovery, and equal opportunity and access to the courts in order to protect the corporate billion dollar Disney Defendants and/or to prevent the disclosure of Disney Defendants' liability and the fact that Disney Defendants create, support, promote and encourage pedophilic/child pornographic and pornographic content... stonewalled, especially when your case is pending before the Second Circuit during the time U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor is scheduling meetings with your adversary....: http://tinyurl.com/le9u9p :

"Adam Abensohn, who clerked for Sotomayor both on the district court and appeals court in the late 1990s, agreed that the relationship she has with her clerks "goes beyond professional mentoring. You get close." Now of counsel at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, Abensohn said her clerks had long ago scheduled a reunion with Sotomayor for May 26, the day after President Barack Obama announced he was nominating her. It was canceled, but Abensohn says, "I hope we'll be able to reschedule it."

Also, currently before Sotomayor's Second Circuit in this case is the May 6, 2009 Remand Motion http://tinyurl.com/lbsq7h to Compel Magistrate Henry B. Pitman (SDNY) to perform his simple basic judicial duties, hold an evidentiary hearing and make a ruling in the first instance concerning the year pending Recusal Motion for Bias http://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg which has been ignored by the lower court to improperly protect Disney Defendants and their Attorneys (Quinn Emanuel - Jeffrey Conciatori, Jonathon Oblak) from even addressing the allegations of misconduct. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed just this month that Recusal Motions address the deprivation of a litigant's Constitutional Due Process rights. See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Supr. Ct. June 8, 2009) http://tinyurl.com/nt2uv9.

Which brings us back to whether or not Sotomayor's Second Circuit will uphold Equal Protection and Opportunity/Due Process for all litigants...not just corporate billion dollar Disney Defendants and/or the peodophilic/child porn and pornographic communities.

How can the public expect a Judge from this Circuit to uphold Equal Protection and Due Process when the special privileges and misconduct - including improper undisputed ex parte communications between Judge Sotomayor's former clerk's law firm, Disney Defendants' Attorneys Quinn Emanuel, and the Magistrate Judge prior to the initial conference in this action and without notice to Plaintiff discussing Disney Defendants' litigation strategy - are encouraged and condoned three doors down in the same building as a U.S. Supreme Court Nominee?

In this case, the District Court (Laura Taylor Swain, SDNY) and the Magistrate Court (Henry B. Pitman, SDNY) continue to allow Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment/ Attny George N. Tobia, Jr.'s Defense Attorneys Quinn Emanuel (Jeffrey Conciatori, Esq., Jonathan Oblak, Sanford Weisburst) and Sherin & Lodgen (Boston, MA)(Robert J. Muldoon, Jr.) to repeatedly submit ad hominen, misogynist, verbal and written attacks on Plaintiff in an attempt to divert attention from Disney/Jason Filardi/Queen Latifah/ Hyde Park/George N. Tobia, Jr.'s admitted unauthorized use of Plaintiff's unpublished screenplay, while at the same time, striking and concealing from the record Plaintiff's defense to Disney and the Courts' accusations that Plaintiff is trying to hold Disney "in a negative light" each time Plaintiff mentions the Disney pedophilic/child porn scenes?**

** Although the District Court (Laura Taylor Swain, SDNY) and Magistrate Court (Henry B. Pitman, SDNY)'s actual written and verbalized personal concern for Disney being 'held in a negative light' is a topic for another post -- apparently the Courts can't accept the reality that maybe the fact that it is Disney who is the actual entity that created, promoted, and encouraged the pedophilic/child porn content at issue in this case might be the source of Disney's 'reputation' and, quite possibly, the Courts' personal concern for Disney might be better addressed in a conversation with the U.S. Department of Justice division responsible for investigating the creation and dissemination of child pornographic and pornographic content to minors. But then again, that would be assuming Sotomayor's District actually performs its judicial responsibilities, but I digress.

We all agree that the pedophilic/child porn and pornographic scenes that Plaintiff refers to in this lawsuit and that appear in the Disney Defendants' submitted screenplays at issue in this lawsuit were solely created by the Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment/Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. Defendants. Unfortunately, the Courts (Swain, Pitman) seem to misplace their judicial duty and seem to be more personally concerned about the disclosure of another instance of Disney's relationship to the pedophilic/child porn and porn community "Disney Executive 'Solicited Minor'"http://tinyurl.com/lfssoz; "Disney hiring an admitted pedophile (Victor Salva, Powder)while he was on parole":http://tinyurl.com/lgtk79 *** rather than to the legal relevance and evidence of such scenes as they relate to and support Plaintiff's contentions of Disney's theft and criminal copyright infringement in this lawsuit. See Complaint below http://tinyurl.com/o947ww,Recusal Motion http://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg.

***"The issue that has sparked this public relations flame is the personal history of Powder's director, Victor Salva. Salva was convicted in 1989 of molesting 12-year-old actor Nathan Forrest Winters. Salva served fifteen months in a California state prison. According to the St. Petersburg Times, "critics believe the studio{DISNEY] is violating its long-standing trust with American families" by supporting an admitted pedophile."

Disney and its Quinn Emanuel Attorneys' feigned outrage that Plaintiff would even utter references to the pedophilic/porn content of DISNEY/QUEEN LATIFAH/JASON FILARDI/GEORGE N. TOBIA, Jr.'s very own scenes to prove Plaintiff's claims against Disney is akin to the feigned disgust of Rep. Mark Foley toward child predators (i.e., Rep. Mark Foley, Disney's 'go-to-guy' in Congress for whom Disney held fundraisers, had to step down from Congress and from working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as a result of Foley's predilection for teenage boys).

If the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed, she may have to recuse herself from at least one issue in this case that surely is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Whether Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment/Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. and other individuals and corporations who create and support pedophilic/child porn and pornographic content are considered a 'protected class' pursuant to the U.S. Constitution entitled to national security level confidentiality and special privileges that the SDNY has bestowed upon them and whose interests outweigh the Due Process and Equal Protection and Opportunity Rights of every other litigant?"

Can't wait for another U.S. Supreme Court Justice's "I can't describe it (porn), but I know it when I see it" ruling, except in this case, they'll know it, and they'll see it.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: When they said 'justice is blind' did they really mean 'blind to' defense attny fraud, corruption??

2009-06-14T15:26:00.001-07:00

Have you seen the Statue of Justice in the lobby of the Federal Court house in the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl Street, NYC)?* Similar to the photo...can't really take random photos inside the SDNY..:

Not only is SHE blindfolded, she's standing on one leg with the other stretched out in the air behind her? I get the whole balancing thing, but she is already holding the metaphorical scales of justice...what's this added balancing act? A metaphor for the extra obstacles and burdens put on certain attorneys and/or litigants in the U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's Southern District of New York? That's a question that may be answered in currently pending motions before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in this action...let's see how Sotomayor's Court answers that question.

Defendants Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/George N. Tobia, Jr.'s Defense Attorneys Quinn Emanuel's website has an animation that reads: "Justice may be blind, but she sees it our way over 90% of the time"...in that case, maybe Justice [in the form of the Senate Judiciary Committee] needs to take her blindfold off and take a look at the SDNY?

Question of the Day: Is the color of justice a 'bright shade of green' in Judge Sotomayor's District?

2009-06-07T14:21:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to creatively describe the experience of suing corporate billion dollar Disney and its associates in the Southern District of New York, four years ago, Plaintiff Attorney described the scene and her experience with the Quinn Emanuel defense team* as dealing with “the most sophisticated network of financial terrorists.”

*(16 named lead defense counsel, including Robert Muldoon, Jr. of Sherin & Lodgen –supposedly on the Ethics Committee of the Massachusetts Bar - and representing Defendant George N. Tobia, Jr. a Massachusetts attorney whose disbarment complaint will be before the very same Massachusetts Bar? Conflict, anyone?).

Although Quinn Emanuel defense attorney Jeffrey Conciatori apoplectically protested the uttering of the phrase, within the past 4 years, the public has been introduced to the Quinn Emanuel-parallel Madoffs (a law school dropout, fraud)http://tinyurl.com/5wja3a, Dreiers (Mark Dreier, Esq., fraud)http://tinyurl.com/nkkmrc, and Pellicanos (Anthony Pellicano, witness tampering, racketeering, illegal wiretapping on behalf of his law firm clients and others involved in litigation)http://tinyurl.com/286auu, whose cases epitomize the ‘network of financial terrorism’ used to commit crimes and to attempt to avoid prosecution.

As stated in Plaintiff’s Recusal Motion (re: Magistrate Henry B. Pitman-still ignored for a year) http://tinyurl.com/ly85bx
and Plaintiff’s Unopposed and Undisputed October 6, 2006 Dispositive Motion for Default Judgment and Sanctions (see 'Documents' list on right) regarding Quinn Emanuel and Disney Defendants’ usual litigation tactics of extortionist threats http://tinyurl.com/le6jq6, shredding of documents http://tinyurl.com/mcw345, and overall (arguably, criminal) interference with legal proceedings (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1503, 18 U.S.C. 1512), not only have Disney Defendants (Senior Vice President Ken Newman), personally, and complicitly with their defense counsel Quinn Emanuel repeatedly threatened Plaintiff that she would ‘suffer personal and professional consequences if she didn’t drop Queen Latifah and Disney from the case,’ but Magistrate Henry B. Pitman has also contributed to the attempts to financially pressure a female attorney and plaintiff to drop her legitimate case against Disney et. al, by asking Plaintiff at the initial conference in this action: "do you know how expensive discovery is going to be for you?’ before Magistrate Pitman denied Plaintiff the opportunity to conduct ANY discovery in this action for over two years. See Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Sanctions http://tinyurl.com/l7vbpz and http://tinyurl.com/msu4hc

During the two years in which Magistrate Pitman’s unprecedented and contrary to law stay of all discovery in this action was imposed, Disney exploited every right at issue in this lawsuit profiting over $300 million dollars in theatrical release, over $60 million in DVD sales, $20 million dollars for 1st television rights, and $20 million dollars for 2nd television rights.

Although, normally, it is standard industry practice to write and produce a sequel to such a hit movie, the lack of such sequel is quite telling, although not surprising: (1) since Defendant Jason Filardi didn’t write the original screenplay, characters, idea and sequence of events, Defendant Jason Filardi clearly couldn’t ‘re-write’ a sequel; and (2) the threat of another lawsuit where Plaintiff might actually have her case heard before an unbiased judge not influenced by corporate billion dollar Disney and its million dollar defense team, was a possibility.

It’s also not surprising that the Disney/Queen Latifah Defendants’ Attorneys Quinn Emanuel employ such misogynist and financial extortionist tactics as part of the Quinn Emanuel defense strategy, since even Quinn Emanuel Partner Sanford I. Weisburst (a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) engages such financial terrorist tactics in his own personal divorce action: the appellate court shot down Weisburst's attempt to force his soon-to-be ex-wife (and mother of his children?) – a website blogger – to pay for HIS interim attorneys fees...in the divorce action where he was representing himself...See http://tinyurl.com/yj75muw and Page 6 of 122 http://tinyurl.com/qtb8vj.:
"Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.
4973

Sanford I. Weisburst,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
-against-
Joanna Dreifus,
Defendant-Respondent.
Index 312352/07

Sanford I. Weisburst, New York, appellant pro se.
Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert, LLP, New York (Susan M. Moss of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.),
entered June 25, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied
plaintiff's motion for an interim award of attorney's fees,
unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The record does not show that defendant has significantly
greater financial resources at her disposal than plaintiff has
(Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187,
190 [1999]; Charpie v Charpie, 271 AD2d 169 [2000J).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contention and find
it unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JANUARY 6, 2009"

Mommas Don't Let Your Boys Grow Up To Be U.S. Supreme Court Justice's Clerks

2009-06-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

Lucky Us! Just off the 17 year defense of Redskins racist trademark case, the self-professed ‘America’s law firm’, see http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn_emanuel_redskins_reservations.php, and ‘the Mighty’ Quinn Emanuel Urquhart partner (and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ clerk) Sandford I.‘get me off on a technicality’ Weisburst, Esq., has jumped right into this over 6 year pending copyright/legal malpractice case (that makes 16 defense counsel now) – notwithstanding the fact that he has absolutely no knowledge of the proceedings in this case nor has he ever appeared in this case. BUT, rules, ethics, morality, facts, the law, etc. do not matter since this comes from the Mighty Quinn Emanuel law firm that brags about its influence on the courts regardless of the law and facts of the case:

"[Quinn Emanuel Partner] Bob [Raskopf] and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn't. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple." http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn_emanuel_redskins_reservations.php

Hmm, the real "Devil’s Advocate"??

Sandford I. Weisburst, Esq.

It seems like the only natural progression for the Mighty Quinn Emanuel firm to jump from defending racist trademarks to defending Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Entertainment’s pedophilic/child pornographic and pornographic screenplays that are the subject matter of this copyright lawsuit (see COMPLAINT below http://tinyurl.com/o947ww and RECUSAL MOTION belowhttp://tinyurl.com/qlwzrg : Plaintiff claims that Disney/Queen Latifah/Jason Filardi/Hyde Park Ent. replaced Disney scenes of masturbation in front of children, masturbation to photos of children, simulated rape of man by another man in front of children, anal and oral sex references, etc., with Plaintiff's scenes from her unpublished screenplay, obtained by Defendants from Def. Attorney George N. Tobia, Jr. who under the guise of representing Plaintiff gave his family friend Jason Filardi Plaintiff's screenplay without her knowledge and authorization).

And, it looks like Mighty Quinn Sanford is wasting no time pulling out his secret weapon: the desperate tactic of a desperate defense attorney, a technicality - since Defendants do not have the Statute, case law, and the facts on their side: In response to Plaintiff’s filing of a motion for the Second Circuit to require the lower court Magistrate Henry B. Pitman to actually address the year pending Recusal Motion for Bias which contained undisputed and unopposed allegations of improper (and arguably illegal) ex parte communications between Quinn Emanuel lawyers and Magistrate Pitman even prior to the initial conference in this action concerning this case and Quinn Emanuel’s litigation strategy, Sanford I. Weisburst is trying to get this case thrown out on a technicality: failure to file a form. [Sanford, no doubt distracted by his firm’s celebration of defending racist trademarks, probably forgot to read the motion since had he actually read the motion, Sanford might have by chance noticed that Plaintiff requested this filing to be stayed in her initial motion to the Second Circuit to order SDNY Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman to perform his judicial duties.] Let’s see if the Mighty Quinn’s admitted influence over the courts extends to the Second Circuit.

It’s also not surprising that Defendant Queen Latifah’s Quinn Emanuel attorneys in this action reflect her choice in attorneys ("Thugs in Armani Suits") in light of Queen Latifah’s former attorney Paul Bergrin’s arrest for murder and his recent denial of bail on charges that he intimidated witnesses and hired individuals to kill witnesses. See http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-13/124365991137380.xml&coll=1

Yet another example of Defendant Queen Latifah’s attorneys (e.g., Bergrin, Jeffrey Conciatori, Jonathon Oblak, Robert Muldoon, Jr., Sanford I. Weisburst, etc.) further reducing the practice of law to a form of prostitution where for any price they (attempt to) get their clients off.

I guess I should be shaking in my boots, since it’s “incumbent upon Quinn Emanuel to kick [my] ass” because, well, they’re Quinn Emanuel and they said so. See above. Nothing like dealing with the mentality of 6th grade playground bullies with the ethics of parasites – at least we now know where they all ended up.

Defendant Jason Filardi -George Washington University Graduate: "What is Copyright Infringement?"

2009-05-24T09:58:00.000-07:00

In this copyright infringement action, Defendant Alleged Writer Jason Filardi - who apparently obtained a degree from George Washington University where he took a 'playwriting class'- and his "Mighty Quinn" attorney Jeffrey Conciatori (violating Court's order to refrain from making speaking objections and exemplifying the Quinn Emanuel law firm's tactic of improper coaching of witnesses, obstructing justice and interfering with legal proceedings*) "answer" the question: "Do you understand what copyright infringement is?"

*** VIDEO REMOVED PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT & ORDER PENDING COURT"S RULING ON PLAINTIFF"S MOTIONS**

*November 10, 2005 HEARING TRANSCRIPT: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman (SDNY)'s instruction re: objections at deposition (Page 19, lines 4-20)

THE COURT: Just some other comments with respect to the upcoming deposition which may hopefully expedite the proceedings. Ordinarily speaking objections at a deposition are inappropriate. All objections at a deposition except objections as to form are preserved. If the defending counsel wants to object all defending counsel needs to say is objection or objection to form. The grounds for the objection should not be stated. If Ms. Flaherty wants to ask the grounds for the objection she is free to ask the grounds for the objection and then the grounds should be stated, but in the absence of a request by the inquiring party the objection should be limited to objection or objection as to form. Directions not to answer at a deposition -- the rules provide that depositions are to be taken subject to the objections. Therefore, directions not to answer at a deposition are ordinarily inappropriate. The only times at which a direction not to answer is appropriate at a deposition is when the question would invade an area of privilege or if the question were so irrelevant as to be abusive. An example of a question that’s so irrelevant as to be abusive and would justify a direction not to answer would be a question to Mr.Filardi as to whether or not he was a boy scout and if so, what merit badges he earned. That’s the level of irrelevance you have to reach before a direction not to answer at a deposition is appropriate. Garden variety irrelevance does not justify a direction not to answer. The appropriate procedure is to let the witness answer and just move on.

The Mighty Quinn(s)

2009-05-22T04:34:00.000-07:00

In Homage to Disney/Queen Latifah/Hyde Park/Jason Filardi, et. al's
Defense Law Firm:

"The Mighty Quinn" Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP.

Let's take a moment away from the adversarial position to send out 'Congratulations' to opposing counsel for their 'win' (on a technicality i.e., the plaintiff brought the case too late) in favor of the Washington Redskins and against the seven Native American activists who filed a petition to cancel the Redskins' marks on the basis of racism/disparagement.

It only took Quinn Emanuel 17 years to obtain the 'win' on the technicality! Partner Robert Raskopf's victory e-mail speech included the final phrase:

"What a win. What a firm. Did someone say "America's Firm"?

See ATL for the e-mail trail that included another 'Mighty Quinn' Emanuel Partner stating:

"Bob [Raskopf]and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn't. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple."

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn_emanuel_redskins_reservations.php

Glad to know Quinn Emanuel has a Law Firm policy of racism and misogyny not just limited to their conduct in this 6-year pending case...Sing Along Now!:
Come all without, come all within,
You'll not see nothing like the Mighty Quinn...

A couple of the "Mighty Quinn(s)" in this case:

Jonathan Oblak(Partner) Jeffrey Conciatori(Partner)
*(Notice the freakishly uncanny resemblance of BOTH QE Partners Jonathon Oblak and Jeffrey Conciatori to the lead singer of Manfred Mann?!)

**Stay tuned for more examples of the mightiness of the Quinn(s)...**

QUESTION OF THE DAY: How many attorneys does a self-proclaimed 'innocent' defendant need?

2009-05-21T15:57:00.000-07:00

Evidently three (3) major defense law firms [Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP (NY); Sherin & Lodgen, LLP (Boston, MA); Kennedy, Jennick & Murray, P.C. (NY)], fifteen (15) named lead defense counsels...and apparently one(1) Magistrate Judge.

UPDATE: (July 2009): three (3) major defense law firms [Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP (NY); Sherin & Lodgen, LLP (Boston, MA); Kennedy, Jennick & Murray, P.C. (NY)], eighteen (18) named lead defense counsels (including another former Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge's clerk)...and apparently one(1) Magistrate Judge.

[Not so] Shocking!: Queen Latifah sued again...and again...

2009-04-02T09:01:00.001-07:00

Once a Thief, always a Thief...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKTRE52T7IL20090330

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" phrase applies to a "judiciary of cowards."

2009-03-21T12:17:00.000-07:00

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why didn’t Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman address the allegations of his misconduct and bias in the recusal motion filed 8 months ago? Judges either grant or deny a motion…they can’t just ignore them…or can they? ANSWERS to follow...

Synopsis by Analogy...

2008-09-27T12:48:00.000-07:00

Ford Motor Co. and its attorneys' egos are to $30 million dollars in 1978-1995 as Disney/Queen Latifah/Hyde Park Entertainment and their 3 defense law firms and 15 named lead defense counsels' egos are to $_________ in 2003 - the present...

REDACTED Recusal Motion re Magistrate Henry B. Pitman for bias - July 23, 2008

2008-08-04T05:38:00.000-07:00

***DISNEY PEDOPHILIC/CHILD PORNOGRAPHIC & PORNOGRAPHIC SCREENPLAY SCENES AND DEFENDANT JASON FILARDI DEPOSITION TESTIMONY REDACTED PENDING COURT ORDER UNSEALING RECORD***

REDACTED RECUSAL MOTION Re Disney/Queen Latifah "Bringing Down the House" Copyright Case

Flaherty v. Filardi, et al. (03cv2167)(Southern District of New York)First Amended Complaint- July 21, 2003

2008-08-04T01:49:00.000-07:00

Amended Complaint JULY 21 2003 Flaherty v Filardi 03cv2167 SDNY - Copy - Upload a Document to Scribd