Defendant Uses Glengarry Glen Ross To Try To Teach Righthaven About Truth
from the mamet-needs-to-be-in-more-courtrooms dept
In the ongoing mess that is Righthaven’s many lawsuits, we’re still waiting for the judge in Colorado who’s put all of the Righthaven cases there on hold to see if he agrees with the multiple Nevada rulings that found that the transfer of copyrights to Righthaven was a complete sham on the court. One of the defendants sued in Colorado has filed a motion in the court, via the Randaza Group (who has had some success in other Righthaven cases in Nevada), which is very much worth reading.
Beyond another attempt to convince the court that Righthaven’s copyright transfer claim was a sham, it highlights that Righthaven’s response to the court seems to focus heavily on the idea that the judge should only rule on the jurisdiction issue, rather than on the merits of the case. This filing suggests that Righthaven is doing that, knowing that it’s likely to lose, and knowing that if the ruling is on the merits it risks additional sanctions — so it’s pre-fighting that:
In short, Righthaven knows full well that it does not have the right to bring this case. Instead of conceding that point, Righthaven is unnecessarily prolonging this litigation. In doing so, Righthaven wants this Court to believe that if a party brings a case, which it had no right to bring, then it should suffer no consequences, should pay no attorneys fees, and should simply be able to walk away ? even after causing the defendant to expend thousands of dollars in attorneys? fees. Righthaven wins one thing in this case ? it wins the chutzpah award.
The rest of the filing is in that same tone, which makes it both highly readable and entertaining. How often do you see legal filings that (repeatedly) quote Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross?
In Glengarry Glen Ross, Ricky Roma says to George Aaronow, ?Always tell the truth ? It?s the easiest thing to remember.? Had Righthaven followed this simple bit of wisdom, it would not find itself in its current thicket of predicament in Nevada, and it might find its fortune in Colorado to be more promising.
Righthaven?s scheme is based upon ?Assignments? of copyrights from news entities to itself. When such assignments are honest and bona fide transfers of rights, they are remarkably simple ? the copyright owner simply transfers all title to the copyright to the new owner. Righthaven?s scheme is much more complex, because there is so much dishonesty to obfuscate. In 1992, Glengarry Glen Ross was made into a film with the tagline ?Lie. Cheat. Steal. All In A Day’s Work.? Righthaven should have watched the entire film and learned from Ricky Roma; instead it relied upon the tagline and has lied, cheated, and stolen from dozens of hapless defendants in Nevada and in Colorado. That conduct ends in Colorado with this Reply Brief.
Filed Under: colorado, copyright, jurisdiction
Companies: righthaven
Comments on “Defendant Uses Glengarry Glen Ross To Try To Teach Righthaven About Truth”
As a litigation greenhorn, I’m always a little nervous to insert language in my briefs that goes beyond basic persuasive technique, even when it’s just my supervisor at the firm law suggesting certain colorful turns-of-phrase. But damned if filings like this don’t make me want to try and flex my wit a bit more in the pleadings.
Re: Re:
“at the law firm,” rather; I think it’s time for a mid-day coffee break.
Re: Re: Re:
You might like to read Eugene Volokh’s views on Humor [ http://volokh.com/2011/07/21/humor-in-legal-writing/ ]
And if you have the knack for it, as Mr Randazza certainly does (Same with those nutters over at Popehat 😉 ], it makes the court, and opposing sides, read a lot more enjoyable and can really make your major points stand out and be retained/remembered.
And reading a humourous, witty, and slightly sarcastic (or ironic) 200 page pleading/brief makes that time when you have too much blood in your caffeine system, like around the 2pm mark, be slightly more bearable and not full of mental Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s 😉
Re: Re:
Dude, please do what you want. If judges don’t like it, they ignore it. If they like it, they like you more. And it makes something that you made that much better. Lawyers don’t typically get to MAKE much, so take care that what you do make is as good as it can be–and not just in terms of persuasiveness. This way, on your deathbed, you can be proud of your writing.
All this, of course, assumes that you’ll do it well. I believe in you.
Re: Re: Re:
If you don’t you’ll probably go mad….
Clearly, Mike once again is fishing for sympathy due to the fact that he is up crazy river without a crazy paddle for his crazy site known as techcommunism.
Insert rant about how Righthaven is clearly doing God’s work and patents and patent trolling is a magical industry full of hope and dreams and Mike is just a freedom hating communist running his satanist blog on his anarchist “free internet”.
Now insert Strawman argument about how Mike is the great Satan and Techdirt is a fascist front for patent hating Nazis everywhere who are killing both puppies and smiling children alike.
Keep it up Mike “FREETARD” Masnick.
Re: D'oh!
While making study guides is encouraged, creating cheat-sheets for trolls is not.
;-P
Re: Re: D'oh!
It’s okay because I have patented “Method or apparatus for trolling (‘trolling’ being referred to as a method or apparatus in which to make freetards upset and/or anally pained) on an electronic blog sites that have DNS registrations that begin with ‘Tech’ and end with ‘Dirt'”.
Now as long as no one notices the long string of prior art I’ll be rich in no time.
Re: Re: Re: D'oh!
ooh! Ohh! Can I bend over for your anti-freetard rants again?
Re: Re:
Hey man, you forgot to actually fill out forms two and three on your copypasta reply.
I suggest something concerning the obviously true claim that nothing would have been invented ever if not for patents. I leave it to you to reconcile the invention of patents with patents not previously existing.
For section three, just lop off the first six words. It’s good after that.
Re: Re:
Wait, this is the fascist front for patent-hating-nazis website? Crap dang man! I thought I was on the fascist patent-hating-nazis front website all this time.
Re: Re: Re:
Splitters!
RightHaven in General
Mike:
I have several questons. First, it has been acknowledged by several courts that RightHaven has lied in many of it’s briefs. Is there a functional difference between perjury on the stand and lying in briefs? If not why has Righthaven not been held in contempt?
Second, the matter of champerty. In English Law, this is illegal and punishable. Is it not here?
Third, the matter of barratry. ALL of Righthavens lawsuits have been frivolous and without merit. Is this also not illegal here?
Fourth, Is there no mechanism, such as a class-action suit, that would allow recovery of settlement amounts and fees from those defendants already scammed?
Fifth, since we are dealing with such blatant misrepresentation, and since the firm of Righthaven has NOT been admitted to practice law, why are the courts even wasting time on the cases? They should all be summarily dismissed with prejudice, with fees and penalties against Righthaven.
Sixth, since it is likely that Righthaven will disappear in a puff of smoke the minute the tide turns against them, is there any way, via the “agreements”, that Stephens and MNG could be made responsible for the penalties, reimbursement of the settlements, and the legal fees of all defendants? Also is there any way Righthaven, Steve Gibson, and perhaps the publishers could be held criminally liable?
Thank you,
davnel
Re: RightHaven in General
The answer to all of the above is that “people are idiots and they all must die.”
The smart thing to do...
would be to arrest all of the Righthaven “lawyers” and sentence them to 2 years in jail.
Don Henley, of The Eagles, in the song “Get Over It”, said the following:
Henley also references William Shakespeares Henry VI pt.II when he states, “Old Billy was right: let’s kill all the lawyers – kill ’em tonight”, echoing Shakespeares line “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”
Quote from Wikipedia