UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder stated the following "Moreover, this Court has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for his repeated postings on the Internet of confidential discovery materials from this litigation, in violation of confidentiality orders that were entered in this case..." Mr. Snyder also stated "Defendants expect to cross move for futher sanctions, more sever than the money judgments that clearly have failed to deter Damiano's contempt, for his continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process against Defendants". ".....this situation is no longer one involving civil contempt as a remedy for violations of a discovery order....." Steven D. Johnson Esq. Attorney for Bob Dylan UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE CHAMBER OF JEROME B. SIMANDLE DISTRICT JUDGE ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA PO BOX 888 CAMDEN NJ 08010 (856) 757-5167 December 23, 2002 ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769 Mr. James Damiano Route NJ 0780 RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS) Dear Litigants: This will reply to Mr. Snyder's letter of December 18, 2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr. Damiano's motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20, 2003. Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder's letter, his request is granted. In my preliminary review of these motions, I have noted that they do not conform to the requirements of the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions has also been exceeded. Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and in light of Mr. Damiano's pro se status, I will not dismiss the motions and require rebriefing. as I would do if an attorney filed these papers. I will, however limit the length of defendants' opposition to the 40-page limit of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that special attention be given to the motion to vacate the protective order. That motion may not be timely to the extent that it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive order regarding the use of confidential discovery materials. Although the defendants must address all of the pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is given by defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current status of the confidentiality order. The issue arises whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials will continue to have the heightened degree of confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier years. If not, is the future continuation of the injunction against use of the confidential materials warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the court re-examine the continued validity of the protective order against his use of confidential discovery materials, and the court is willing to do so after all parties have had a chance to be heard. In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants' opposition will be due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damiano's reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving defendants' opposition papers. Mr. Damiano's reply is also limited by L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all submissions have been received by the court, I will determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damiano's recusal motion and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral argument or decide the matter upon the basis of the papers received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P. Very Truly yours, JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge JBS/mm cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire 900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412 Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903 ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 Dear Mr. Snyder: I found your partner, Steven D. Johnson's statement ".....this situation is no longer one involving civil contempt as a remedy for violations of a discovery order....." a bit intimidating so I took the liberty of e-mailing it along with this E-mail it to federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney's office. I Hope you don't mind. The problem you have Mr. Snyder is that I have already discussed the facts and issues of this case with the United States Attorneys Office. As you know a CD ROM of this motion and a four-hour videotape of segments of various depositions taken during discovery have been produced to the United States Marshall's Service. After reviewing said materials the marshall didn't seem to think I was delusional in fact he commented that he thought that it was a "shut tight" case that I (James Damiano) should have won. Also all in all depositions witness's were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel therefore it is not possible to exploit the truth. So please file for criminal contempt and lets talk to the prosecutor. It has already been brought to light that Bob Dylan's publicist Elliot Mintz's testimony at [page 82 par. 16]: "In my opinion Mr. Damiano was at the time of these telephone conversations delusional" is blatantly conflictive to Mr. Mint's testimony at [page 45 para. 20] "Under the subject of mistruths spoken to your client during the course of these telephone conversations he would frequently ask me to pass along information, ask questions about Bob or to Bob about him and I in fact told him that I would and that I did...and on those occasions that of course was a mistruth." Elliot Mintz deposition On a more serious note please keep in mind that I have served a subpoena upon Bob Dylan via your e-mail address for any hearings arising from this litigation. Surely you would not deny a man the basic civil right to confront his accuser (like you did in the last contempt hearing) would you? Plaintiff stipulates that the following evidence did not exist until after the dismissal of this lawsuit. This evidence also did not exist until after Plaintiff filed his last reconsideration motion thus could not have raised these issues prior to summary judgment. It has been recently reported in the media, that the lead attorney representing Bob Dylan in this action Orin Snyder has been accused of falsifying evidence and lying in a lawsuit. Mr. Snyder retained Mary Jo While as legal counsel. Plaintiff notified Mr. Snyder's attorney Mary Jo White via Ms. White's E-mail address. See document below. RE: James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) Infringement Debevoise & Plimpton Mary Jo White 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Ms. White: I am the plaintiff in James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) I am acting pro se in this matter. You have not responded to my last E-mail to you so I am resubmitting it to you once again. I have learned of allegations that Bob Dylan's attorneys Jonathan Liebman and or Orin Snyder lied to the court and falsified documents in the Selletti Vs Carey lawsuit see article below. I also have learned of allegations that Bob Dylan's attorneys Jonathan Liebman and or Orin Snyder lied to the court and falsified documents in the Selletti Vs Carey lawsuit see article below. Mariah 'Hero' Sued For $20 Million Mariah Carey has a legal case that won't go away. On Friday, I was faxed papers showing that Christopher Selletti is suing her again over the song Hero. He wants $20 million in damages. Selletti is also suing Carey's attorneys, Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman (now with Brillstein Grey Entertainment) and her songwriting partner Walter Afanasieff. He accuses them of falsifying evidence and lying in the Hero case. Selletti has tried suing Carey before over Hero, only to have his case dismissed. But, as I first reported six years ago, there is a lot of questionable stuff in this case. Enough to warrant a real trial with real testimony presided over by an objective jurist but Judge Denny Chin has consistently done strange things regarding this case and these participants. In the 60-plus page document, Selletti's attorney Jeffrey Levitt cites many of Chin's odd decisions. I am sorry to say that this is precisely what Orin Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder did in my lawsuit after learning that my copyright registration predated Bob Dylan's copyright registration. Exactly what they did was produce what they claimed to be "Bob Dylan creation materials" which were analyzed by my expert Dr. Green, a musicologist from Harvard who concluded that the Dylan creation materials did not at all provide, any evidence, as to the independent creation of the Song, "Dignity." I am requesting that you send me all documents relevant to the above allegations. The following information is a summary of what occurred in James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan through the eyes of an American filmmaker, a director and the plaintiff James Damiano. Please be assured all statements are true and correct Sincerely James Damiano James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 JBS Few artists can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter, James Damiano. Twenty-two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that has become a paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System. As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit, we learn that CBS, used songs and lyrics, for international recording artist Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan's name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy. Ironically the title of that song is "Dignity" Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit with Bob Dylan. To our knowledge there has been only one article written about this suit and released by the press. The article was written by Larry Hicks and published in New Jersey's Morris County "Daily Record" on October 3, 1995, when the headline "Mount Olive composer sues Bob Dylan" appeared on the front page. Patricia Keil a spokeswoman for Sony commented on the allegations "We don't normally comment on pending litigation but we know Bob Dylan wrote all of these songs." It is now six and a half years later and we have this to say: After thirty-five hours of video taped depositions, and after three and a half million dollars have been spent on this litigation, defendants Sony Music and or Bob Dylan still to this date September 18th 2002, have never filed a counter, slander or libel suit against Damiano. Defendants have been aware of James Damiano's public statements made against Bob Dylan for over ten years.. Defendants also refuse to answer, deny or refute material questions regarding Bob Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's songs and music. The lawful time allowed for the filing of such motions is well passed. In 1979, James Damiano met Mikie Harris. Mikie introduced James to the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond Sr. James eventually auditioned for Mr. Hammond with an acoustic guitar. This is a story of music industry corruption and intrigue, of the "little guy's" daunting struggle against big business and a legal system that not only failed to work for justice and fair play, but also allowed itself to be manipulated for unprecedented vengeance. In an unbelievable, but true story, we relive Damiano's seductive times with top, music industry artists and agents. In a chilling chapter of this saga James meets the highly acclaimed and legendary bass player Jaco Pastorius. Jaco takes a liking and personal interest in James and his music. Eventually James moved into Jaco's apartment on Jones Street in Greenwich Village and Paul Butterfield came to stay for a while. We watch as James intrigues the industry with some of the hottest Rock and Roll tracks ever to be recorded as Jaco coaches . After his twenty-five year rise to the top we then suffer with James at the malicious indifference and arrogant abuse of top industry officials. Finally we rise with him to fight back in a court system covertly manipulated by powerfully sinister forces yet James, in the course of the lawsuit establishes "access" through the courts ruling. Judge Simandle ruled in his December 1995 opinion "Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work." Judge Simandle also ruled "This court will accept as true, Plaintiff's allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated for his work if Dylan used it." Even motive for the basis of the lawsuit is established through a 1988 Associated Press article by Kathryn Baker who interviewed Bob Dylan. Ms. Baker writes " …he didn't have enough material of his own for an album." Ms. Baker was deposed however her testimony remains confidential information That is only available to the court and not to the general public. Bob Dylan filed a motion for all discovery materials to be designated as confidential and was granted the request by Federal Magistrate Judge, The Honorable Judge Joel B. Rosen. Bob Dylan's publicist Elliot Mintz who had been soliciting James Damiano's music for years is present at the Dylan Baker interview. Mr. Mintz reviewed the article for accuracy before it was submitted to the Associated Press for final release. In other words Elliot Mintz who solicited James Damiano's songs was well aware that Bob Dylan (in Ms. Bakers words) did not have enough songs. During the course of the investigation Damiano stumbles upon some interesting facts, all of which support his claims. He learns that the melody line for "Knocking, On Heaven Door" is almost an exact clone of Neil Young's song "Helpless." "Knocking of Heavens Door" is released years after "Helpless" was played on the radio. Again learning that yet another Dylan song "Shelter From The Storm" seems to be another exact melodic clone Foggerty's "Down Around The Corner" which was released before "Shelter From The Storm" CONFLICT OF INTEREST Damiano learns of allegations that, Steven M. Kramer (the attorney who represented him in this lawsuit ) was previously employed by Parcher & Hayes. Parcher & Hayes is the same firm who represented Bob Dylan in this lawsuit. Judge Jerome B. Simandle ruled: "Indeed as Defendants themselves profess, plaintiff may exercise his first amendment right to speak about his claims with whomever he so desires, he is only prohibited from exploiting the discovery materials obtained during the course of this litigation for publicity, profit or collateral gain.". "Finally, the limited nature of the 1996 protective orders does not preclude Damiano from publishing his own version of reality to whomever he chooses, so long as the materials and testimony that came to Damiano under the discovery process in this case are not themselves disclosed." James has been associated with the most influential entertainment industry producers, all of his songwriting career. Besides working with John Hammond Sr. James is the brother-in-law of Richard Frankel a two-time Pulitzer prize winner and the producer of many award winning Broadway plays including "The Producers." "The Producers" made history after winning twelve Toni awards, one more Toni than "Hello Dolly." James has contacted Ben Elliot, Grammy Award winning music producer/engineer for Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, etc. to produce the his next album. Based upon his factual experiences documented in the account "11 Years" and leading up to his eventual copyright infringement suit with Bob Dylan, Sony Music and CBS Records this issue becomes not only the most compelling stories of generations and the rock and roll genre but it also becomes a paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System. Damiano has Dylan beat at every stage of the game, from Dylan not being able to deny the allegations of Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's songs, to motive and finally to the credentials of the music experts. Damiano's musicologist graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. This E-mail was sent to me from one of the most prominent intellectual property Attorneys in the country: Please review. Thank You. RE: James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 0547 (JBS) James Thanks for the disclaimer. I think in general, all you need to show for Copyright infringement is access and substantial similarity. To avoid summary judgment against you, the plaintiff, there would have to be some dispute as to any material fact. In your case, it would seem that all material facts are in dispute and no judge should grant summary judgment in favor of Dylan. Further, the moving party has the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exist. So, yeah, it seems like there are a thousand facts in dispute in your case and were I a judge, I'd never award summary judgment in favor of the other side. MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS FRCP rule 36 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36 The facts expressed within this motion will be conclusively deemed as truth within 30 days of August 3, 2000, should they be left disproved by Defendants Bob Dylan and or Sony Music Entertainment Inc. or by any other party involved or not involved in this matter as, pursuant to FRCP rule 36. At such time said admissions and facts expressed within this motion will be deemed as truth, entered upon the record of this court and docketed with the clerk. The fact issues expressed within this motion concerning Defendants eleven year association with Plaintiff and all fact issues expressed within this motion concerning defendant Bob Dylan's solicitation of Plaintiff James Damiano's songs, will be deemed admitted and acknowledged as truth after thirty days unless defendants deny and contest the forgoing with specificity, pursuant to FRCP rule 36. EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF 2002 IN James Damiano ____________________________________ DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #1 James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that: 1. The materials facts contained within this motion conclusively, refute this courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Bob Dylan as pursuant to Rule 56 ( c ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. In all major decisions of this litigation, this court continuously chose to honor the opinion of Bob Dylan's counsel Orin Snyder as opposed to plaintiff Damiano's true material facts. 3. This motion is based on part, and in light of that all decisions made by this Court in favor of Bob Dylan, were based on the opinion of Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder and that these opinions were held as truth over plaintiff's true material facts, which conclusively reveal the opposite of Judge Simandle's findings. DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #2 . James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that: 1. No unbiased facts, no unbiased evidence or no unbiased testimony exists to support Judge Jerome B. Simandle's decision to dismiss Plaintiff James Damiano's lawsuit against Bob Dylan for copyright infringement case Number CV 95- 4795 (JBS). 2. The United States District Court District of New Jersey has disregarded eleven years of material facts regarding Bob Dylan's solicitation of James Damiano's songs and has granted summary judgment dismissing all counts of this lawsuit to Defendant Bob Dylan in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 3. That all statements contained in this motion are true and correct. Click on link below for motion: http://www.geocities.com/proposal112000/James_Damiano.html