Patricia Santangelo and Counsel Agree to Substitute Ms. Santangelo as Her Own Counsel

Patricia Santangelo and her lawyers, Beldock Levine & Hoffman, have agreed that Ms. Santangelo should be substituted into the case as her own lawyer, in Elektra v. Santangelo, and submitted a stipulation and proposed order to that effect to Judge Colleen McMahon, who on November 28th had denied Ms. Santangelo's motion to dismiss complaint. (See Motion to Dismiss Denied in Elektra v. Santangelo)


In his affidavit submitted with the stipulation and proposed order, Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Santangelo's lawyers, said:



[I]t was jointly decided by defendant and by her counsel that it would be in defendant's best interests for defendant to be substituted as her own counsel, and to proceed pro se.
4. Additionally, (a) defendant does not appear to have the financial resources that would be required for the pretrial discovery, and summary judgment and/or trial work, that lay ahead, and (b) it is clear to the undersigned that the plaintiff's case is frivolous, so that it would be unwarranted for defendant to go to extraordinary means to finance her defense of this case.

=========

Magistrate Conference Scheduled in Elektra v. Santangelo

An initial "In Person" conference has been scheduled by the Magistrate Judge, Hon. Mark D. Fox, in Elektra v. Santangelo, for Thursday, December 22, 2005:


Courtroom 421
4th Floor
United States District Court
300 Quarropas Street
White Plains, NY 10601


The hearing will likely relate to pretrial discovery, scheduling, and other procedural issues.


========

Hearing Set for January 5th in RIAA case against 14-year old: Priority Records v. Brittany Chan


In the RIAA's Port Huron, Michigan, case against 14-year old Brittany Chan (see RIAA Deliberately sues 14-year old), the Court has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, January 5, 2006, in order to determine the RIAA's motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the defendant.


Notice of Hearing
(Alternate link)


The date, time, and place of the hearing, which is open to the public, are as follows:


Thursday, January 5, 2005
10:00 A.M.
Port Huron Federal Building
526 Water Street
Port Huron, Michigan


Posted by Ray Beckerman @ 12/06/2005 11:29:00 AM

Recording Industry Vs. the People

Translation: She can't afford us, so she's on her own.

She's gonna lose too.

I hope you are wrong Jefrystube, but I know you are a smart cookie and I fear you are right.

I fear that she has no chance without professional representation, additionally, I fear her likely loss will set a very bad precedent for other cases.

And thus, bigger $$$ wins again just because of the big $$$.

(What a 'wonderful' justice system we have!)

sigh.

No WONDER the RIAA has such a monopoly over the music-market and draconian copyright laws.

Our "system" is BROKEN!

...Ray, if you are reading this, PLEASE try to talk your friends who were representing her to take this case pro-bono!

i've never seen it happen but I heard once....

ordinarily there is no provision for court appointed counsel in civil cases. however I have heard that if a case meets certain requirements, (one of those being complexity which is beyond the grasp of the defendant...) it can be done. it would really take someone who is a lawyer to know exactly where to go to try to pursue this and it could be that it is only on a state level but as a last ditch effort it might be worth looking into. of course it might be more economically feasible to look into a one way ticket to santiago chile.....

Crap damnit!

Should we even make an attempt to raise some $$$ for Patricia? She's gonna be the FIRST (if she goes thru with it) to stand up in a court of law against our sworn enemy. (According to what we know, she is NOT wanting to "settle".)

...but, all of us "regulars" and "long-timers" here at Boycott-Riaa know and remember that as far as "fund-raising" goes, we are pretty piss-shoddy-poor in that department/arena.

The BEST effort we EVER made was way back when we bought Bill Evans a plane-ticket to get to the Tech-Tv "Music-Wars" show. (And, to tell the truth, I think our own leflaw footed the majority of that bill.)

I really WANT to be able to come up with the dough to help Ms. Santangelo have a better shot in court... but REALISTICALLY, I don't think we could possibly come up with the kinda bucks it would take.

I don't think many of us are "made of money" if you know what I mean. (I certainly am not!)

...damn, this whole thing depresses the hell out of me.

The RIAA is gonna get a huge PR win out of it, and a very brave person named P. Santangelo is probably gonna be martyred on a stick.

--------------

Fuggin' lawyers BAILED when the bill couldn't be footed.

----------

Certain professions (lawyers, doctors, etc.) should NOT be rewarded only on the client/patient's ability to pay.

THAT'S the sorta flaw in our capitolistic society that needs remedy.

--------

Shut me up. I'm getting all political again.

Mike, contact P. Santangelo about her setting up a PayPal account if she doesn't have one already. Ask her to write a short request for HELP, then spread her word throughout the online communities against the RIAA. If 5000 could just donate $10 each that would be $50K. Individually, we can't do too much, but collectively we can. I would be happy to donate to her cause!! I say it's time to put up or shut up!

Oh I forgot to mention, since I'm owner/admin of several mailing lists, I have access to several thousand music lovers.

Jefrystube said: "Translation: She can't afford us, so she's on her own."

Exactly! They've been using her to advertise their firm, and now they're dropping her! Yeah, capt, I'll donate.

I just posted a comment on their blog. I suggest that other people do the same.

I have been asking about a fund for this sort of thing for a while. Who can contact her? I would definately contribute. Keep us posted please.

I also posted to thier blog. This has got to happen. Don't let the Bastards win!

They way it stands now, the RIAA have the right to sue you for infringement, and it's up to you to prove you didn't. You don't even have to own a computer, if they say your guilty, then you are. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I would also donate to help Santangelo fight this case, so don't confuse my observations with lack of support.

We've all probably heard the old canard that anyone who chooses to be their own lawyer has a fool for a client. If attorney fees are the only reason for this move, it could hardly be described as being in Santangelo's "best interests."

It could be that, being a reasonably intelligent person, she kept the lawyers through the preliminary hearings and let them argue the legal details for a judge, make motions and cite precedents (or the lack thereof).

Now it's down to convincing a jury. Maybe she simply doesn't need them anymore. An even more devious plan is to display that you don't even need a lawyer to beat the RIAA's lawsuits.

Wouldn't that make a few heads explode?

No longer burdened by the cost of an attorney to do it, Santangelo can now demand that her accusers prove any basic facts, such as copyright registration. Do this each and every time they attempt to include something as a point of fact by its mere mention. This is called foundation.

Along with this comes the question of exactly how the incriminating evidence was obtained and the accuracy of those methods, not forgetting the dead people, people without computers, or people with computers that couldn't run the software they were accused of using. If I'm not mistaken, the computer which was allegedly used was never examined.

You could spend weeks questioning the character of the accusing parties. If Sony is on the list, maybe a month. If Santangelo is "lucky" enough to have song on the list of "evidence" from a CD with Sony's famous XCP spyware feature -- or better yet, actually owned one at the time of her alleged offense, you wouldn't have to be Perry Mason to make your point. Once you have spyware on your computer, well, even Sony music claims not to know what it actually does.

After the RIAA has spent thousands of dollars going through the case, item by item, trying to close every logical loophole you catch, the best they can possibly do is maybe prove that the IP records say it was your account being used to connect to p2p.

It doesn't point to any one person.

She's a soccer mom. She has kids. They have friends. Maybe one of those friends is an Eddie Haskell with an iPod. Or not.

"It must have been someone else."

~~Now it's down to convincing a jury. Maybe she simply doesn't need them anymore. An even more devious plan is to display that you don't even need a lawyer to beat the RIAA's lawsuits.~~

From your lips to God's ear!

If it was one of their bot that copied the names of the songs. I could just have files like a rolling stone or monday monday. Doesn't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing. As for the ip I could have wi-fi . Anyone within a short distance could have used my ip.

We better get Mike to take these guys out of our friends and partners folder. I don't think they're our friends any more...

Well if this is a trial by jury, I have a feeling they're doing this to show the jury what this trial truly represents, a single mother against a huge corporation. And who's to stop one of the attorneys to be in the audience at the trial and help her advise her outside the court

It is part of her attorneys strategy for her to be her own lawyer. Its how they plan to screw the RIAA. The judge has lots of discretion in how much to award if she loses.

An interesting strategy....

I hope it works for them.

Lets just hope she is still getting free expert advice.

I don't understand--how can this help her?? Can they still advise her if they don't represent her in court?

Courts appear to be a little more considerate when you go Pro Se. The judge may listen to her and help her along since she's not expected to be a law expert.

If I remember correctly, the Plaintiffs attorney was not cooperative in any way. And I think this was the same law firm that represented the tobacco companies when they were being sued by cancer victims. It's all about money.

We should hold off on condemning Santangelo's lawyers, Beldock Levine & Hoffman until after the trial. They'll have their own PR problems to worry about if this case really goes bad.

Seems they are still pretty sure of themselves..from their blog today..

Ray Beckerman said...

I'm sorry, folks, I cannot discuss internal conversations between Mrs. Santangelo and myself, so if you want to come to all kinds of conclusions, that is your prerogative.

But:

1. It was a mutual decision.

2. It is not a fait accomplis unless and until the judge signs the proposed order.

3. There is no basis whatsoever for your conclusions that Mrs. S. will lose without a lawyer. She did not infringe any copyrights and she will win the case, one way or the other.

6:02 PM

Props to Ray.

Good Luck (and where's your PayPal account)
to Pat S.

And a greasy Mr. Digit to the RIAA reprobates.

"By 1987, his firm, Kansas City's Shook, Hardy & Bacon, was the most successful defender of tobacco (and other products) on the planet. They had become so by creating legends, marching into court like gunslingers and defending the seemingly indefensible . They beat back grieving families who blamed their sorrow on cigarettes or other dangerous products. They never blinked, never panicked, and always walked away unhurt."

http://kcstar.com/standing/stories/shook1.htm

Gunslingers, eh !

It would seem her attorney believes the RIAA doesn't have a case, and as such would be best for her to win on her own. Once she wins, others might be able to follow her lead. I still want to make a donation...

"Can they still advise her if they don't represent her in court?"

Absolutely. Free speech and all that.

About the tobacco lawyers, who "never blinked, never panicked, and always walked away unhurt."

Which has no bearing on the RIAA cases. In the tobacco suits, they were defending against people claiming to be so stupid they didn't know smoking was bad for them.

It's not like they won cases where the tobacco company sued people for rolling their own cigarettes.

OK Leflaw, Mroop
here is your chance!!!

Don't wimp out on us now....

OK Leflaw, Mroop
here is your chance!!!

So, why don't either of you represent her? Pro Bono.

Don't let us all down.

surfside6,

She got a "trial by jury". They'll have to prove, to a full court, that she committed a crime. And the evidence they present must convince the jury.

She's not guilty of anything so she doesn't have to worry.

"We should hold off on condemning Santangelo's lawyers, Beldock Levine & Hoffman until after the trial."

My initial reaction was (as shown above) to think that she simply couldn't afford them... but judging by what George and a few of you have said... (and the fact that she still seems to be in communication with them)

I feel a little better about it now!



If Patricia gets in touch with us to set up an pay-pal account, I will do what I can to get the ball rolling. But, as it looks right now, it's not even needed.

(Cross your fingers that they know what the hell they are doing with this tactic. It's important to us all, not just to Patricia Santangelo!)

"3. There is no basis whatsoever for your conclusions that Mrs. S. will lose without a lawyer. She did not infringe any copyrights and she will win the case, one way or the other."

Ha. Ray Beckerman - unprofessional jerk and liar. He didn't send her on her merry way when he agreed to take this case, did he? Now all of a sudden in the middle of the case she doesn't need an attorney? This guy is a douche and should not be let out of the case. He bought it, he owns it.

"It would seem her attorney believes the RIAA doesn't have a case, and as such would be best for her to win on her own."

Don't be a sucker and fall for this guy's line of BS. Why would it be best for her to win on her own? That makes no damn sense at all. It is best for her to win. End of story. And being deserted by your counsel in midstream is not the way to win.

OK - here is what happened:

Motion to Dismiss Denied in Elektra v. Santangelo

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/11/motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-elektra-v.html

Beckerman was so sure that he was going to win on the motion to dismiss that he did not plan on the subsequent costs if he did not win his motion. This guy is a moron.

And it's sad, because this is one case that I would have given a good chance for a defendent to prevail (by trial).