Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com/
index
bobdylan
The basic contents of this website has been posted on the world wide web since December 1996.
Please note: There is audio-content on this website so you may have to "turn on" your speakers.
Thank You
This website is updated daily although this site contains a great deal of information please note that we are still adding
documents and information daily.
We have also not included the two hour DVD "Dignity due to the fact that all videotaped depositions on the
DVD have been designated "Confidential" by United States District Court Judge Joel B. Rosen. These depositions
conclusivly and decisively incriminate Bob Dylan
"Eleven Years"
James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan / Copyright Infringement CV 95-4795 (JBS) Judge
Jerome B. Simandle presiding.
Judge Simandle
Judge Rosen
Bob Dylan Retains Same Law Firm as George W. Bush in Fifteen Year Plagiarism Law Suit. Also suppresses Plaintiff’s
First Amendment Rights acquiring a protective order designating all video taped depositions that are incriminating to
Dylan confidential
Bob Dylan & his law firm acquired a confidentiality order in a fifteen year plagiarism law suit designating all discovery
materials including fifty hours of incriminating video taped depositions as confidential suppressing Plaintiff James
Damiano’s first amendment rights to warn the public of Judicial favoritism and corruption.
Camden NJ June 2, 2009 -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, to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.
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 as best rock song of the
year. 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
multimillion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.
As per court papers it is judicially uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan’s law firms Manatt, Phelps & Phillips ,
Parcher Hayes & Snyder, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Heck Brown and Sherry and Sony House Counsel that Bob Dylan
and people in Bob Dylan’s entourage have solicited James Damiano’s songs and music for over ten years and eleven
months.
Interestingly enough Judge Jerome B. Simandle decided “This court will accept as true Plaintiff’s allegations that Sony
represented to him that he would be credited and compensated for his work if Dylan used it. Judge Simandle also stated
in his decision “Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his
work.
All statements, facts and documents in this declaration have been submitted to Bob Dylan, his counsel and to the court.
Bob Dylan's attorney's have also downloaded the contents of this website and produced it to the Court, specifically to The
Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle.
All statements, facts, and documents in this declaration have been unanswered and uncontested by Bob Dylan and his
counsel.
After fourteen years of litigation, ten thousand pages written, fifty hours of video taped deposition
which are incriminating to Bob Dylan and after at least seven and a half million dollars have been spent on this
litigation, Bob Dylan still to this date has not filed a counter or slander suit against James Damiano
Said mentioned materials and documents have been submitted to the United States Marshalls who have commented in
James Damiano's favor stating that the case was a "Shut tight case that should have been won by Damiano" The United
States Marshall Service is represented by the United States Attorney's office who's is headed by the Attorney General of
the United States.
It is uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan's law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips formerly (Parcher Hayes &
Snyder) and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited James
Damiano's songs and music for over ten years.
The Bob Dylan James Damiano Story is the most covered up scandal in the history of Rock and roll
At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.
According to Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder James Damiano's website has been viewed over 1,400,000 times. Mr.
Snyder has downloaded the website with the stat counter viewable and produced it to Judge Simandle three times, yet
never filed criminal chages of any kind..
It has been published in the media that the integrity of the United States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the
level that it is unable to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit. This motion not only supports that allegation
it conclusively documents, to the record the validity of said statement.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Bob Dylan received an Honorary Doctorate from Princeton University in 1971, The same
University Judge Simandle received a B.S.E degree at.
See below
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 1, 1992, to a new seat created by 104
Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission
Education:
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. John F. Gerry, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey,
1976-1978
U.S. Magistrate, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1983-
1992
Gender: Male
In a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997 Bob Dylan released only one newly written original song titled "Dignity". Mr.
Dylan's seven year hiatus from writing original material lacks merit of performance and creativity. One must wonder
why Mr. Dylan would embrace the hubris that time can endorse
This lawsuit James Damiano vs Bob Dylan for copyright infringement was filed in Federal Court in November of 1995.
This website was has been published on the world wide internet for a period of more than thirteen years since January of
1996.
The most interesting and shocking fact about this website is that Bob Dylan has tried to suppress the truth and the facts of
this case by applying to the court for a confidentiality order designating all discovery materials as confidential.
Suppression of the truth as far as we can remember is a tactic often used in Communism.
James Damiano subpoenaed Bob Dylan for his November 11th 1999 hearing and Bob Dylan never appeared in court.
VS.
CV95-4795 (JBS)
BOB DYLAN. ET AL
NOTICE TO APPEAR
Please take notice that plaintiff, James Damiano shall subpoena Bob Dylan on November 11, 1999 at 1:30 PM, at One
John F Gerry Plaza, Camden New Jersey, 08010 to testify in the above case.
Dated 11/11/99
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
James Damiano certifies that he served the foregoing notice to appear to Steven D. Johnson counsel for Bob Dylan.
James Damiano____________________________
against
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND BOB DYLAN.
At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year and it is estimated
that it made over $90,000,000.00 in the United States alone.
In 1994 James Damiano advertised in the attorney wanted section of the New York times for an attorney to file a
copyright infringement lawsuit against Bob Dylan. The advertisement read "Attorney wanted to file a copyright
infringement lawsuit against the worlds most respected songwriter"
Steven M. Kramer answered the advertisement along with many other attorneys.
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 plaintiff's materials The United States Marshall's
Service commented in Plaintiff James Damiano's favor, stating that Damiano's case was a "shut tight case" that he (James
Damiano) should have won.
Racism
A diversion of reality
Is not between
But between
James Damiano
All poetry and lyrics on this site have been written by James Damiano
and copyrighted with the library of congress
Someday maybe
You'll be able
To tell
The greatest story
Say the greatest line
Give the greatest
Performance
Find the greatest
Find copyright damiano 92"
The basic contents of this website has been posted on the world wide web since December 1996.
The most recent activity in this litigation is the following letter sent to litigants by Judge Simandle on December 23 2002.
Mr. Snyder (Mr. Orin Snyder Esq.) of Parcher Hayes & Snyder represents Bob Dylan in this action.
DISTRICT JUDGE
PO BOX 888
CAMDEN NJ 08010
(856) 757-5167
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769
Route
NJ 0780
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.
JBS/mm cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire 900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412 Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903
Update 9/12/03 Judge Jeorme B. Simandle has ruled. To inquire about Judge Simandle's Sept 12 2003 opinion send e-mail
to the e-mail address below:
Law_Review@yahoo.com
Judge Simandle disregarded a musical analysis of a song released by Bob Dylan titled "Dignity" constructed by Dr.
Greene who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University Even though Judge Simandle has no musical
background.
A copy of Doctor
Greene's resume is displayed below
All documents and statements contained in this document have been produced to defendants during discovery.
This website documents the corruption and fraud committed by Federal District Court Judge Jerome B Simandle as per
Rule 56 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)."
This website also documents the corruption and fraud committed by Orin Snyder Esq. of Parcher, Hayes & Snyder and
Steven D. Johnson Esq. of Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson.
against
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND BOB DYLAN.
At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.
At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem to be at an all time low, it has been published in the media that
the integrity of the United States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level that it is unable to adjudicate a
simple copyright infringement lawsuit.
This motion not only supports that allegation it conclusively documents, to the record the validity of the statement.
against
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.
4. This motion documents to the record the obvious and blatant validity of plaintiff's allegations.
5. This motion read in its entirety lawfully exonerates plaintiff, (James Damiano) from all judgments, rulings and
decisions arriving from this lawsuit.
6. This motion is lawfully conclusive in deciding that Judge Simandle's decision to dismiss this lawsuit is unlawful, illegal,
adverse to and inconsistent with the facts of this case.
This lawsuit James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement, Civil # 95-4795 (JBS), was dismissed unlawfully as
per basic civil rule procedure 56 (c) FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) by The Honorable Judge Jerome B.
Simandle (Federal Court Camden, District of New Jersey).
New evidence, which is pertinent to the outcome of this lawsuit, has been released in the media whereby plaintiff has
become aware of allegations that Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman have been accused of
falsifying evidence and lying in the Selletti Vs. Carey lawsuit.
against
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.
James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
Plaintiff stipulates that he has produced to the court this same motion for admissions during his contempt hearing, at
which time it was entered upon the record of this court as per order of Judge Simandle as exhibit A. and that defendant's
Bob Dylan and or Sony Music have never answered or denied the motion.
against
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.
4. This document motion 321 standard size pages. Text size is 12, 14 to16 size on headings in IBM compatible Microsoft
word pad document
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 plaintiff's materials The United States Marshall's
Service commented in Plaintiff James Damiano's favor, stating that Damiano's case was a "shut tight case" that he should
have won.
A four episode movie about this litigation has been completed. The movie contains video taped depositions, music videos
and assorted segments pertainning to this litigation.
From United States District Judge. JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION: [*625] JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV
95-4795 (JBS)
A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)."
Judge Simandle also found that James Damiano has created a genuine issue of material fact.
"Plaintiff asserts that 'the bulk of his life's work' was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982.(Complaint. At 2) He also
alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has produced
evidence that after these concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano
Declaration. At 2, 5, ; Deposition of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104: Deposition of Brad Wright at 105-112). "Taking these
allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his
work."
"Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact"
"Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work".
"A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record 'show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).' "
Exhibit A
CV 95-4795 (JBS
against
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST BOB DYLAN, MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, MOTION TO REVERSE ALL RULINGS IN THIS LITIGATION, MOTION TO
VACATE PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIAL ORDERS ENTERED IN THIS LITIGATION , MOTION FOR
ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS BOB DYLAN AND SONY MUSIC INC, MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE
SIMANDLE'S DISMISSAL
After thirteen years, fifty hours of incriminating video taped depositions, blatant admissions by defendants and after at
least five and a half million dollars have been spent on this litigation there has not been a counter-suit filed by Bob Dylan
and or Sony Music Entertainment.
Plaintiff's website declaration containing the enclosed issues of facts cited in this document has been posted on the world
wide internet for six years and nine months and defendants still to this date, March 29th, 2003 have not contested the
issues of fact or the issues of solicitation by defendants of plaintiffs songs cited herein.
Defendants did however filed a motion for contempt against plaintiff for violating Judge Joel B. Rosen's order designating
all discovery as confidential, including expert testimony, and deposition transcripts.
All witness's in this litigation were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel. It is impossible to
exploit the truth.
This court should know that Plaintiff has been counseled by many attorney's and some Judges who believe that the
outcome of this lawsuit so far is unjust and as a matter of law and at the very least the unresolved issues of facts could
have only been decided by a jury.
James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
No unbias facts, no unbias evidence or no unbias testimony exists to support Judge Jerome B. Simandle's decision to
dismiss Plaintiff James Damiano's lawsuit against Bob Dylan for copyright infringement case no 95- 4795 (JBS).
This motion conclusively refutes the courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
This motion also conclusively refutes the foundation of defendants bias, fabricated, primary defense that Plaintiff was
delusional and documents to the record that Defendants have intentionally made false statements to this court.
There are issues of facts left unresolved after the courts dismissal.
This court is attempting to hide from the public, deposition materials which incriminate Bob Dylan.
An Example of this would be Elliot Mintz Bob Dylan's publicist of ten years testified under oath in a video taped
deposition when deposed by Plaintiff's attorney:
"Under the subject of mis-truths 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 in fact told him that I
would and that I did ond on those occasions that of course was a mistruth."
The primary Defendant in this litigation ( Bob Dylan ) refuses to take a deposition.
The primary Defendant in this litigation ( Bob Dylan ) never submitted an affidavit of denial or an affidavit addressing the
unresolved issues cited herein.
Plaintiff stipulates that 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 anyone. 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 Defendants solicitation of Plaintiff James Damiano's songs, will be deemed
admitted after thirty days unless defendants deny the forgoing with specificity. pursuant to FRDCP rule 36.
a. In all major decisions in this litigation, this court continuously chose as truth the opinion of Defendant's counsel as
opposed to Plaintiff's true material facts.
This motion is based on part, in light of that all decisions made by this court in favor of the Defendants, were based on
opinion only and that these opinions were held as truth over Plaintiff's true material facts which conclusively reveal the
opposite of these findings.
Plaintiff's material facts substantiate the error within this injustice. Although said facts are massive, almost to many to
cite Plaintiff will notify this court that there are indeed many other facts than what are presented here, which were
produced to defendants during discovery, but for fear of submitting an oversized brief Plaintiff did not submit them.
Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to enter upon the record other findings of fact not cited in this motion. Should this
court provide an extension of time to allow Plaintiff to construct a more extensive brief Plaintiff is willing to comply.
Said decisions in 1a. were detrimental to the outcome of this law suit by which the evidence provided herein,
acknowledged and upon consideration of this court, conclusively constitute reversible error, and judicially defeat
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
With the recent development of the internet new finding of facts have surfaced regarding the truthfulness of defendants
defense in this action.
DEFENDANTS TRY TO MAINTAIN TO THE COURT THAT THE PEOPLE AT CBS RECORDS / SONY MUSIC
WHO WERE IN POSSESSION OF JAMES DAMIANO'S SONGS, WERE NOT IN ANY POSITION TO ADVANCE
PLAINTIFFS CAREER AS A SONGWRITER IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY.
James Damiano pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
1979
Years ago I read an unauthorized biography about Bob Dylan, in which the author made reference to a man who at one
time was considered to be the president of CBS Records. His name was John Hammond, Sr. He was family to the
Vanderbilts, Attended Yale law school, the most sought after record producer in the United States, and had signed Pete
Seeger to Columbia Records 1960.
In fact John Hammond Sr. was and probably will always be considered the most influential music executive in the world
by music industry professionals.
After years of working in the music industry, Mr. Hammond established himself as a legend and accomplished a
reputation as having the best ears in the business by signing a fascinating number of legendary artists to the record world.
Artists like Billy Holiday, Count Basie, Charlie Christian, Duke Ellington, Aretha Franklin, George Benson, Bob Dylan,
Bruce Springsteen along with many other artists including Stevie Ray Vaughan were John Hammond affiliates.
An article downloaded from the internet is displayed below about Mr. Hammond.
http://www.bluespower.com/a-mb.htm
Major talent scout, John Hammond Sir brought Stevie Ray Vaughan, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Leonard Cohen and
Bruce Springsteen to Columbia Records. Hammond also worked as a producer with such early greats as Bessie Smith,
Billie Holiday, Benny Goodman and Count Basie
Inspired by the book I read, I decided to take a long shot and called CBS Records on the phone. The operator answered
and I asked to be put through to John Hammond's office. The receptionist rang his office and a woman named Mikie
Harris answered the phone.
Mikie Harris
Mikie Harris I told Mikie that I was a lyricist and asked her if she had a few seconds to listen to one lyric. She replied yes
by saying "Shoot." I then recited a lyric to her that I had recently written and said "the lyric is: Just think how beautiful
you'd feel if you knew your love was real." Within a few seconds I could tell Mikie liked the lyric.
I in turn did not want to push to hard on the first phone call fearing that I might put her behind schedule, so I tried to
inch my way out of the conversation politely while trying not to show my emotions but before the conversation ended
between Mikie and me, she made it explicit that she wanted me to call again. She repeatedly told me to feel free to call
her there at the office. So began a relationship where we would converse through actual meetings or correspond over the
phone, that lasted close to seven and a half years.
Mikie told me that her name would be appearing in the credits on Stevie Ray Vaughan's album that was released in 1983.
When the album was released it listed John Hammond Sr. As Executive producer and Mikie Harris as associate
producer .
Credits were given to Mikie Harris on Stevie Ray vaughan albums: Assistant to Executive Producer: Mikie Harris
1. Say What! - S.R. Vaughan - 2. Lookin' Out The Window - D. Bramhall - 3. Look At Little Sister - H. Ballard - 4. Ain't
Gone `N' Give Up On Love - S.R. Vaughan - 5. Gone Home - E. Harris - 6. Change It - D. Bramhall - 7. You'll Be Mine -
W. Dixon - 8. Empty Arms - S.R. Vaughan - 9. Come On (Part III) - E. King - 10. Life Without You - S.R. Vaughan - 11.
SRV Speaks 12. Little Wing/Third Stone From The Sun - J. Hendrix - 13. Slip Slidin' Slim - S.R. Vaughan - Stevie Ray
Vaughan: guitar/vocals Chris "Whipper" Layton: drums Tommy Shannon: bass Reese Wynans: keyboards Joe Sublett:
saxophone Produced by Stevie Ray Vaughan/Double Trouble and Richard Mullen Executive Producer: John Hammond
Assistant to Executive Producer: Mikie Harris Engineer: Richard Mullen Assistant Engineer: Ron Cote Mixed by
Richard Mullen Recorded at Dallas Sound Labs, Dallas, Texas and Riverside Sound, Austin, Texas This album is
dedicated to the memory of Charlie Wirz.
The following article below appeared on the internet regarding Mikie Harris:
While playing marimba on the streets of New York City to finance his studies at Juilliard, Brian Slawson
was discovered by Mikie Harris, assistant to Columbia Records talent scout John Hammond. Bach On Wood, Slawson's
debut album on CBS/Sony, earned a Grammy nomination. Slawson has since released Bach Beat and Distant Drums,
which features cameos by blues great Stevie Ray Vaughan, jazz trumpeter Freddie Hubbard and drummer Michael
Shrieve. Slawson has performed with Leonard Bernstein, John Cage, Aaron Copland, Isaac Stern and Jessye Norman.
His pop credits as drummer and percussionist include Pat Benetar, Peggy Lee, Johnny Mathis, Marie Osmond, The
Mamas and Papas, and Ben Vereen. Slawson is Principal Timpanist with the Orlando and Brevard Symphony
Orchestras, and Resident Percussion Instructor at the Academy of the
http://www.slawsongs.com/
Stevie Ray Vaughan later recorded on Bob Dylan's "Under the Red Sky" album, released in 1990.
1982
I (James Damiano) registered my first copyright with the Library of Congress in Washington DC. In 1982. The library
registration number is PAU 409-107, Titled Collective songs by James Damiano. The computer print out of the
registration describes the registration as lyric sheets and one Cassette tape. This tape included Dylan's 1994 hit song
"Dignity" { Lyrical hook and melody line } In 1994 Bob Dylan released a song titled "Dignity" who he claims to have
independently written.
Although I have to go through my records to find a copy of the copyright filing the following exhibit was produced to the
court and to the defendants. It is a faxed note to James Damiano from Dr. Greene explaining that there is a good chance
that careful examination may show that in 1982 James Damiano was experimenting with musical ideas that later
came together as Steel Guitars.
I (James Damiano) registered my second copyright with the Library of Congress in Washington DC. In May of 1988. The
library registration number is PAU 409-107, Titled Collective songs by James Damiano. The computer print out of the
registration describes the registration as lyric sheets and one Cassette tape. ( Displayed below) This tape also included
Dylan's 1994 hit song "Dignity" { Lyrical hook and melody line } In 1994 Bob Dylan released a song titled "Dignity" who
he claims to have independently written.
Dylan's copyright produced in this litigation by his attorney's states that Dylan's first registration made to the Library of
Congress was December 5th, 1991. Dignity was nominated for a Grammy by the National Academy of Popular and was
the hit song on Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Volume 3.
Dylan used this cover in Europe but not in the United States
Dignity was also the hit song on Bob Dylan's Greatest hits Volume 3, and the
Unplugged CD, and DVD which generated a great deal of money for him. .
There was also a live version of dignity released on MTV's Bob Dylan Unplugged
It's called the Grammy bump, and it goes something like this: See an act win a Grammy (or sing a song on the Grammy
telecast), then go out and buy the album.
With 25 million viewers watching the show this year, that's a lot of potential record buyers.
. True to form, the Titanic soundtrack was buoyed by Celine Dion's belting out "My Heart Will Go On" on the 40th
Grammy Awards last Wednesday and berthed in the No. 1 slot for the eighth consecutive week. The collection of mostly
orchestral tracks sold 505,000 units for the week ended March 1.
The Grammy cast also propelled the compilation album 1998 Grammy Nominees into the No. 11 spot with sales of 72,000
units, almost double the previous week's 37,000. The album features winning songs from the likes of Shawn Colvin, R.
Kelly, Paula Cole, Fiona Apple and Erykah Badu.
Deservedly, the album getting the biggest boost was Bob Dylan's multiaward-winning Time Out of Mind, which jumped a
whopping 95 places up to No. 27.
The sales on Titanic were off a bit from the soundtrack phenomenon's previous week's total of 563,000. Dion's Grammy
crooning also helped her own album Let's Talk About Love hold the No. 2 spot. Both albums feature the song, which like
the movie, has struck an emotional chord with fans.
Holding the No. 3 slot is rapper Silkk the Shocker, with a smooth 141,000 units of Charge It 2 Da Game, off from last
week's debut of 248,000. Pop-rockers Savage Garden sowed a crop of 101,000 new fans in fourth place, while the goofy
soundtrack to the Wedding Singer married 97,000 albums and fans to land at No. 5.
The Backstreet Boys sold a manly 91,000 copies of their self-titled debut to chart at No. 6, and Usher did it his way in
seventh, selling 90,000 units of My Way.
K-Ci & JoJo have Love Always for another 88,000 people who bought their debut disc. The rookie rappers rose from
eleventh to eighth.
Rock rounding out the last two spots in the Top 10. Matchbox 20--shut out of the Grammys--sold 79,000 copies of their
debut Yourself of Someone Like You and Pearl Jam's Yield brought up the rear with sales of 73,000.
Since the beginning of my (James Damiano's) involvement with Mikie Harris, I had been sending her tapes that I
recorded at home on my cassette deck. After of about a year and a half of talking on the phone, sending lyric sheets of my
songs to Mikie as well as bringing cassettes with my music up to her at CBS Records, Mikie asked me if I would like to
audition for Mr. Hammond.
None of my songs at that time had been recorded in a professional recording studio.
I accepted the invitation to audition for Mr. Hammond and Mikie told me that she would call me back in a week to set up
the time and place.
A week later Mikie called and told me that she had set up the audition for three months from that date. The audition
would be at Mr. Hammond's office in the Media Sound Building in New York on West 57th Street at Eleven O'clock in
the Morning. I started practicing fifteen hours a day seven days a week. The three months seemed like forever.
The morning of the audition Mikie called me and told me that she would have to cancel the audition. I told her that I
couldn't believe what she was telling me. She knew I quit my job three months prior, to practice for the audition. Finally
after while she told me that she wanted to keep it out of the news and that Mr. Hammond was in the hospital. She then
assured me that once Mr. Hammond was out of the hospital she would reschedule the audition.
A few months later Mikie called and rescheduled the audition for a few months from that date. I was excited and called a
person who I was working with at the time named Allen LeWinter.
Allen worked with Don Kirshner and was associated with the band Kansas. Allen and his wife were living in a beautiful
high rise condo on the East side. I loved going up there. They had a spectacular view from their balcony, and gold Kansas
albums hanging on the wall.
Allen told me that his wife wrote scripts for soap operas.
Allen was a cool guy, well mannered, polite, modest, just your all around classy person. Kind of an artistic guy whose
greatest attribute was his sincerity.
It seemed , Allen's job was to seek out talent in the suburbs. Everything else goes without saying. Allen respected Mr.
Hammond immensely and was looking forward to going to the audition with me.
When I told Allen that the audition was back on we made arrangements for me to pick him up at his condo the morning of
the audition.
Again I started practicing and practicing fourteen hours a day when Mikie sent me a book titled "John Hammond on
Record."
I was all practiced out, I couldn't practice anymore, so I read the book.
The book put me in semi-shock. It identified Mr. Hammond as the most influential music executive in the world.
The days counted down to three nights before the audition and I couldn't sleep. The following night I couldn't sleep, till
finally the night before.
It was twelve midnight the night before. I laid in bed trying to go to sleep but still could not It seemed impossible. My
adrenalin wouldn't stop pumping.
One A.M. rolled around, I was still wide awake and I hadn't slept in a couple days. Around two thirty I went downstairs
grabbed a bottle of tequila and started drinking. Within a half hour I finally fell asleep.
The audition was for eleven oclock in the morning. I woke at seven, jumped in the car, drove to New York, picked up
Allen and we drove cross town to the audition. We parked the car, I grabbed my guitar and we started to walk to Mr.
Hammond's office when I started feeling ill.
Allen quickly started trying to help me pull myself together with words of support, by calmly saying "You can do this "
while I was thinking "he must be crazy, he doesn't understand how sick I feel" anyway I had no other alternative but to
believe what Allen was saying to me and to simply pull myself together.
We entered the building and the receptionist called up to Mikie to tell her we were there, she hung up the phone and told
us that Mikie said for us to go up. When we got to the office Mikie was waiting and quickly asked me if I'd like to tune my
guitar. I said yes and she brought me down into a recording studio where she pointed to a piano and said "You can tune
your guitar to this piano, it's the piano that Billy Joel records on." My first reaction was " Now that's a dose of reality not
to many musicians could swallow." and with that thought I had to wonder what she expected from me. My second
reaction was "Now that's inspiration.
I started tuning the guitar, when all of a sudden a string broke. I put down the quitter and said to Allen I'll be right back.
I jumped up, ran down the stairs, stopped at the receptionist and asked her to get me some packets of salt, I ran a couple
blocks down to the car and asked the valet where my car was. He pointed me to it and I ran down and grabbed a case that
had guitar strings in it.
I ran back to the building , and as I ran past the receptionist she handed me the salt, I ran back up the stairs, put on the
string, tuned the guitar, licked some salt and followed Mikie back up to Mr. Hammond's office.
Mikie told Allen and me to have a seat and that Mr. Hammond would be in a couple minutes. We waited a few minutes,
then Mr. Hammond walked in. Mikie introduced us. We all shook hands, Mr. Hammond sat down at his desk and started
out the conversation with a comment about Bruce Springsteen. We talked for a while and Mr. Hammond asked to hear
one of my songs.
I played four songs for Mr. Hammond. One of which was titled "Living Proof." Mr. Hammond also read a song of mine
that when I handed it to him I explained that I had written the song on an electric guitar and that since I only had an
acoustic guitar with me, that I'd rather not try to play it. Mr. Hammond politely understood and said that he would like
to hear it with music after it was recorded.
Cathedral ceilings
It's a 911- E
The song that Mr. Hammond read at the audition was untitled at the time but identified with two separate names.
One of the identification of this song was "Just say yes to me" the second was "Dignity". I copyrighted this song
with the Library of Congress in 1982.
Twelve years later Bob Dylan was nominated for a Grammy for a song titled "Dignity" released on his 1994 Bob
Dylan's Greatest Hit's album and also on his MTV Bob Dylan Unplugged album.
The relationship between Mr. Hammond, CBS Records, Mikie , and myself continued for over Eleven Years. I
kept submitting material. Musicians that I was playing with at the time would come up to CBS Records with me
when I went to bring new songs that I had written up to Mikie.
Dear Jim,
(signed) - Love Mikie, Randy, Duke and Nikkie too. December 1982.
Mikie invited me to stay at her home for weeks at a time where I wrote and experimented with songs on her baby
grand piano all the while submitting more and more material to her.
It was around this time James recorded "Bury Me In New York City" with Tommy LaBella and carolyne Mass.
See Carolyn Mass's website below
Carolyne_Mass_website
1986
I ( James Damiano) met Danny Gallagher in 1986. Danny was in one of Bruce Springsteen's first original bands
"Doctor Zoom and the Sonic Boom". Rumor has it that Springsteen was sleeping on Danny's couch when he got
signed to CBS Records. Nevertheless Danny and Springsteen still remain friends as of today {August 5th 1997}
Danny was a great steel guitar player. I asked Danny if he would put a steel guitar track on "Steal Guitars" (also
identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) and he agreed to do so. He also told me
he that had a friend named Mario who played a great electric guitar and who did some touring with members of
the New Riders of the Purple Sage.
Danny set up the recording session at Mario's home, we set up the equipment and recorded "Steal Guitars." (also
identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration)
Danny Gallagher a musician who recorded the dobro guitar track on James Damiano's song "Steel Guitars" (also
identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) declares under penalty of perjury that:
I am a musician and I play the dobro guitar. I reside at -- _____________ Terrace __________Ireland. I recorded
songs with James Damiano in the year 1986. I Danny Gallahger declare that in 1986 I played and recorded the
dobro guitar track on James Damiano's song " Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982
copyright registration) The song I am referring to in statement #5 of this declaration is the same song that is
playing in the background of this taped statement or declaration. A week after James Damiano and I recorded the
song "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration)
Mr. Damiano told me that he went to New York to submit a copy of it to Mikie Harris at CBS.
Plaintiff's Steven M. Kramer refused to submit Danny Gallagher's Declaration to the court, until the
reconsideration motion. When Plaintiff asked Mr. Kramer why he was not submitting Mr. Gallegher's Declaration
in his opposition brief to Defendants summary judgment motion, Mr. Kramer replied that "He didn't want to
appear weak to the court
Mario Phillips a musician who recorded the electric guitar track on "Steel Guitars" aka (also identified as
"Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) during the same recording session with Danny
Gallagher and James Damiano declares under penalty of perjury that:
My full Name is Gregory S. Phillipps (aka. Mario) I was born in _________________Washington. I reside at
_____________________Washington In the year 1986 I played and recorded on an instrumental song of James
Damiano's. Said song in #4 was recorded at the address I was living at in New Jersey Danny Gallagher also played
the dobro guitar on this song The song I am referring to was played to me on the phone by James Damiano. I
recognized the song as the song James, Danny and I recorded in 1986.
http://www.bluespower.com/a-mb.htm
Major talent scout, John Hammond Sr. brought Stevie Ray Vaughan, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Leonard
Cohen and Bruce Springsteen to Columbia Records. Hammond also worked as a producer with such early greats
as Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday, Benny Goodman and Count Basie
Info@VanguardRecords.com,info@veerecords.com,webmaster@vprecords.com.
Dear Jim:
Thanks for 'sharing' your lyrics / poetry with me. To me, your work represents a lot of time and effort but, from an
artistic point of view, I feel that it is representative of poetry rather than a song in today's commercial market of
music.
Since no tape accompanied the words, I have no way of knowing what your ideas are with regard to the music.
I just wish that there was some way for me to be of help to you, but with things the way they are, especially
regarding Mr. Hammond's health, my hands are tied.
Our office has (at least since I've been associated with John) been actively involved with publishing, which is
something I suggested you try to your material several years ago.
I still maintain that this is the best route for you. Publishers can reach major artists and guide you with regard to
your material.
On the basis of the material that you have just now presented to me, I think it might stand a stronger chance
of being recognized as a volume of straight poetry rather than songs.
Because of Mr. Hammond's policy with regard to his relationships with artists he has worked with, I will not be
able to present your material to Bob Dylan.
Jim, I wish you the best ( but surely you know this by now after all these years ) and I'm only sorry that our office
can't be of assistance to you. Take care Mikie.
This is the letter I received after Mikie took my songs for seven and a half years.
A copy of the envelope which enclosed Mikie Harris's letter is displayed below. Please note JOHN HAMMOND /
MIKIE HARRIS below CBS Logo.
Plaintiff contends that many statements in Ms. Harris's letter are false and purposely misleading.
Patterson Deposition
17 Damiano?
23 came up to my store.
25 Studios in 1988?
24
1 Patterson
6 A. As-needed basis.
8 A. Brian Draigo.
20 A. Yes.
24 Productions
17 Sammy Fields.
26
1 Patterson
22 this meeting?
23 A. Yes.
58
1 Patterson
13 Marble.
16 Damiano?
21 go outside to do that.
59
1 Patterson
Mikie Harris is on the National Academy of Popular Music / Songwriters Hall of Fame - Board of Director's
Plaintiff believes that this organization is instrumental in nominating Grammy nominees. This exhibit explains the
caliber of the people Mikie was associated with in the music industry not that she needed and credentials after
working with John Hammond Sr. the last ten years of his career.
Martin Bandier Chairman and CEO of EMI Music Publishing. Administers the copyrights of close to one million
songs. Billboard's Pop and Black Music Publisher of the Year in the U.S. for a record seven consecutive years.
Board member of EMI Group plc, the NMPA, the BMI Foundation and Board of Trustees of Syracuse University,
his Alma Mater.
Freddy Bienstock Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Carlin Music International; Board Member of ASCAP,
Harry Fox Agency and National Music Publishers Association; Recipient of Songwriters' Hall Of Fame Abe
Olman Publishers Award, 1996.
Oscar Brand Singer/Songwriter; Composer for Broadway Musicals (Hyman Kaplan, A Joyful Noise, Kennedy
Center Bicentennial Musical Sing American Sing), Ballets (Gold Rush for Agnes Demille) and Films (Blue Chips,
The Fox, Sybil, The Long Riders). Songs Include: A Guy is a Guy, My Old Man's a Sailor, When I First Came to
This Land, Where Were You Last Night, Wayward Boy. Founding Director and Curator of the Songwriters' Hall
of Fame; TV and Radio Broadcaster; Author (The Ballad Mongers, Songs of '76, Singing Holidays, etc.). Irving
Burgie Songwriter; Publisher; Member of ASCAP and Songwriters' Guild since 1956. Songs Include: Day O;
Jamaica Farewell; Island in the Sun; and 34 songs recorded by Harry Belafonte. Musical: Ballad for Bimshire.
Honorary Doctor of Letters, University of the West Indies (1989).
Tita Cahn Widow of lyricist Sammy Cahn, President Emeritus of the Songwriters' Hall of Fame, 1973-1993.
Ervin Drake Vice President, NAPM; Scholarship Committee Chairman, NAPM; Songwriter; Writer and/or
Producer of Stage and T.V. Shows; Former President of Songwriters' Guild of America; Songwriters' Hall of Fame
Inductee; Songs include: It Was a Very Good Year; I Believe; Perdido; Good Morning, Heartache; Tico Tico; A
Room Without Windows; Al Di La. All songs in cast album revival CD "Her First Roman," 1994; All songs in
Leslie Uggams CD "Painted Mem'ries," 1995; Eight songs in current CD "From John Gabriel with Love."
Al Feilich Dinner Committee Chairman, NAPM; Retired Vice President, Information & Research, BMI; B'nai
B'rith, District One Board Of Governors; Executive Committee, Peninsula Chapter Cancer Care; Lifetime
Member, Basketball Hall of Fame; Serves on Executive, Museum, Scholarship, Nominations and Special Awards
Committees, NAPM.
Charles Feldman Vice President BMI, Came from EMI where he was Vice President, worked with The Neville
Brothers, Barry Mann, Carol King, Gerry Goffin, Tony Joe White, Toni Wine, and Wendy Waldman, Music
supervisor and executive soundtrack producer of motion picture "Tender Mercies," Started out as songwriter
signed to Muscle Shoals Music, National Trustee of NARAS, Vice Chairman of Entertainment Division
UJA-Federation.
Mark Fried President, Spirit Music Group; Board of Directors - Songwriter Associations of Boston, Philadelphia
and Washington; Co-Producer of Songwriters: Inside Out.
Milt Gabler Record Producer; Founder of Commodore Records; Worked with Decca/MCA until 1971; Founding
Father of NARAS; Produced songs in Grammy Hall of Fame: Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock, Billie
Holiday's Strange Fruit and Lover Man and Lionel Hampton's Flying Home. Other songs include: Danke Schoen;
L-O-V-E; In a Mellow Tone; Choo-Choo-Ch'boogie.
Jules Goldberg Executive Director, NAPM; Ex-Officio on Museum, Dinner, Nominating and all other
Committees; Realtor; Former President of Old Westbury Hebrew Congregation (still a trustee); Chairman af the
Village Board of Appeals; Member of the Council of Temple Presidents of Nassau County.
Mikie Harris Record Producer; President/Creative Affairs, Theatre Video Playhouse, Inc. and MIRI Music
Companies.
[NAPM] [Links] [Board of Directors] [Showcases] [Workshops] [Membership] [Newsletter] [SHOF] �1999
Songwriters' Hall of Fame, The National Academy Of Popular Music. Inquires email April Anderson Web site
questions email webmaster@12ptrule.com
Another new finding of fact which has surfaced concerning Mikie Harris is identified as exhibit 13 below. This
exhibit displays production credits on the album: Produced and arranged by Bruce Springsteen and Miami Steve
Van Zandt. Other production credits listed are Mikie Harris for background vocals. A true and correct copy of
this web site of the production credits
There is also a Bob Dylan song on the album titled From a Buick 6.
DADDY'S COME HOME from LP: "Dedication" Gary U.S. Bonds 1981, EMI America Records Dedication Gary
U.S. Bonds 1981, EMI America Records
Songs Jole Blon (Moon Mullican / Fort Knox Music Co.BMI)* This Little Girl (Bruce Springsteen ASCAP)*
Your Love (Bruce Springsteen ASCAP)* Dedication (Bruce Springsteen ASCAP)* Daddy's Come Home (Stevie
Van Zandt / Blue Midnight Music)**
It's Only Love (J. Lennon - P. McCartney / Maclen Music, Inc. BMI)**
The Pretender (Jackson Browne / Swallow Turn Music/WB Music Corp. ASCAP)**
Way Back When (G. U.S. Bonds-G. Bruno / King Kong Music/Gary Bonds Music BMI)***
Just Like A Child (J. Clemente-L. Conte-L. Anderson / King Kong Music/Gary Bonds Music/Smooth Sailing
Music BMI/ASCAP)**
* Produced & Arranged by Miami Steve & Bruce Springsteen ** Produced & Arranged by Miami Steve Associate
Producer: Garry Tallent *** Produced by Gary U.S. Bonds, Lanny Lambert & Rob Parissi Additional Recording
& Mix Produced by Miami Steve with Garry Tallent
MUSICIANS: Accordion: Danny Federici Bass: Garry Tallent; John Clemente Drums: Mike Micara; Max
Weinberg Fuzz Bass & Bongos: Miami Steve Guitars: Louie Conte; Rob Parissi; Bruce Springsteen; Miami Steve
Keyboards: Roy Bittan; Rusty Cloud; Danny Federici Baritone Sax: Joey Stann Tenor Sax: Clarence Clemons (all
solos); Ed Manion Trombone: La Bamba Trumpet: Rick Gazda; Michael Spengler Vocals: Ben E. King & Chuck
Jackson on "Your Love" Background Vocals: Ellie Greenwich; Mikie Harris; Ula Hedwig; Brenda Hilliard (solo
on "The Pretender"); Carol Sylvan; Carol Williams; Bruce Springsteen (solo on "Jole Blon" and "This Little
Girl"); Miami Steve; Clarence Clemons Thank You BEN E. and CHUCK Chuck Jackson appears courtesy of
Sugarhill Records Bruce Springsteen appears courtesy CBS Records Inc. Ben E. King appears courtesy Atlantic
Records Corporation
Engineers: Neil Dorfsman; Bob Clearmountain; Tony Bongiovi; Larry Alexander; Bill Scheniman Assistant
Engineers: Jason Corsaro; Dave Greenberg; Jeffry Hendrickson; Garry Rindfuss; Ray Willhard Recorded & Mixed
at the Power Station, New York City (except "Way Back When," recorded and mixed at Sound Mixers, Randy
Mason, Engineer) Mastered at Precision Lacquer by Larry Emerine & Stephen Marcussen Swoopman Apocalypse
Chuck Plotkin Management: John Apostol, Apostol Enterprises, Ltd. Album Design & Photography: Jimmy
Wachtel, for Dawn Patrol Additional Photography: Tom Gibson & Barry Goldenberg Hand Lettering: Gloria Von
Jansky Special thanks to: Big Laurie Anderson & Little Laurie Anderson, Gary Gersh, and Everybody at EMI
Mikie Harris also was given production credit on Stevie Ray Vaughan's album "Soul to Soul."
Plaintiff produces to this court the following article ( review ) to the court Please note that Stevie Ray Vaughan
played on Bob Dylan's album "Under the Red Sky." In fact, numerous musicians that played on the "Bob Dylan
Unplugged" album also shared similar credits on Stevie Ray Vaughan albums. Mikie Harris is given production
credits as Assistant to Producer John Hammond.
When I (James Damiano ) received the June 15th, 1987 letter from Mikie Harris stating that she could not be of
assistance to me, I called her at CBS and asked to speak to her. A man answered the phone and told me that
Mikie was at the hospital with Mr. Hammond. His name was Tony Tiller and he said that he was watching over
the office while Mikie was out.
Mr. Tiller then asked me if I was the person who wrote the material on Mr. Hammond' s desk. I asked him what
material he was referring to and he replied the songs in the big black notebook. I replied yes and we started to
converse about the songs. He told me that he liked them and invited me up to CBS to meet with him. Tony
showed a great deal of enthusiasm for my material. We started meeting or corresponding over the phone as Mikie
and I had and Anthony started inviting me to parties in New York that other CBS people would attend.
The following article in which Tony Tiller's name appears and is given credit on an album which contained songs
released by Bob Dylan.
Exhibit 14 displays the album credits Tony Tiller as the Project Coordinator on The Byrds Box set which
contained songs written by Bob Dylan.
4k. THE BYRDS BOXED SET (Columbia/Legacy C4K 46773; 1990) _ Credits: Released October 1990.
Compilation produced by Don DeVito and Bob Irwin. Musical Consultant: Roger McGuinn. Remastered and
remixed by Tim Geelan & Vic Anesini. Project Director: Gary Pacheco. Project Coordination: Tony Tiller. Art
Direction: Joel Zimmerman and Lisa Sparagano.
Personnel: The Byrds v. 1.0 The Byrds v. 2.0 The Byrds v. 3.1 The Byrds v. 4.0 The Byrds v. 6.0 The Byrds v. 6.1
and on all new material: The Byrds v. 8.0: Roger McGuinn: vocals, 12-string guitar David Crosby: vocals Chris
Hillman: vocals, bass plus: On "Turn! Turn! Turn!" Add John Jorgenson on guitar Add Steve Duncan on drums
On "Mr. Tambourine Man" Add John Jorgenson on guitar Add Steve Duncan on drums With Bob Dylan on
vocals & guitar On "Paths of Victory" Add John Jorgenson on mandolin Add Stan Lynch on drums On "From A
Distance" David Crosby add guitar Add John Jorgenson on guitar, and mandolin Add Stan Lynch on drums On
"Love That Never Dies" Chris Hillman plays guitar and not bass Add John Jorgenson on lead guitar and bass Add
Stan Lynch on drums Add Al Kooper on keyboards Songwriting Credits: "Turn! Turn! Turn!" by Pete Seeger;
lyrics adapted from the Book of Ecclesiastes "Mr. Tambourine Man" by Bob Dylan "He Was A Friend of Mine"
by Jim McGuinn "Paths of Victory" by Bob Dylan " Musically, The Byrds Boxed Set lives up to its billing as a
"definitive" collection.
http://ebni.com/byrds/lpbox.html This page was last revised on February 20, 1997 DEFENDANTS TRY TO
MAINTAIN TO THE COURT THAT THE PEOPLE AT CBS RECORDS / SONY MUSIC WERE IN
POSSESSION OF JAMES DAMIANO'S SONGS, WERE NOT IN ANY POSITION TO ADVANCE
PLAINTIFFS CAREER AS A SONGWRITER IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY.
The following exhibits downloaded from the internet conclusively refute Defendants position of said defense.
I brought a sound engineer that I had worked with in the studio to one of Tony's parties. Not long after this, the
engineer started working in the studio with Mr. Tiller on a musical project that Tony Tiller was producing.
Scott Patterson testified below Please note: All depositions besides Plaintiff's are video taped:
26
1 Patterson
July 10th, 1987 Tony Tiller asked me If I would like to submit material to Bob Dylan. I told him sure I would. He
told me to mail the songs to Dylan at the Meadowlands Arena in East Rutherford New Jersey. I mailed them
certified mail with return receipt requested. Produced during discovery in this litigation is Exhibit # 27 a certified
mail receipt sent to Bob Dylan at the Meadowlands Arena Route 20, East Rutherford New Jersey. The date of
this receipt is July 10th, 1987.
[ a copy the Meadowlands arena certified mail receipt has been produced to defendants and the court during
discovery]
On the same day July 10th, 1987 John Hammond. Sr. passed away. An article downloaded from the internet is
displayed below.
One day shortly before Mr. Hammond's death I was in New York and I called him from the lobby house phone at
CBS as he told me to do from the first time I went to see him. Usually when I called from the lobby house phone
he would tell me to come up to his office. He would call the security guard at the front desk and give his tell the
security guard to permit me to enter the elevator and I would go up to his office.
This particular day he said to me "don't come up because I'm coming down shortly" . His voice had a ringing
excitement to it when he then asked me if I'd like to go with him to Carnegie Hall that night where he was going
to record Stevie Ray Vaughan live. I remember the excitement in his voice still to this day. I was just excited and
honored that he asked me to go with him. I was extremely flattered and honored.
I told Mr. Hammond I would love to go and he told me to meet him at the back entrance. He told me that he
would be at the mobile recording unit outside of the back stage entrance and to look for a large truck or van.
I met Mr. Hammond there. As soon as we entered through the backstage door Mr. Hammond was swarmed by
reporters attempting to ask him questions mostly about his health because he was recently released from the
hospital. Mr. Hammond wasn't concerned with answering questions about himself. I stood back and watched. He
was surrounded by reporters all talking to him all at once. I could feel his excitement, I could feel his adrenalin
flowing, and I knew his intentions were not to talk about himself but to record Stevie Ray Vaughan yet I could
see him trying to slow himself down so as to be polite to the reporters like a Jockey on a racehorse trying to slow
the horse down after a race.
Mr. Hammond spoke to the reporters for a short while, then tried to make an exit but they wouldn't let him go.
The reporters kept asking him questions. From my recollection Mr. Hammond's reaction to their questions could
only be best described as reminiscent of a tv newsperson flashing a microphone in a politicians face who was
caught in a scandal as he walked out of the court room, although Mr. Hammond was not in that position. It was
just the look on his face that resembled the notion of that similar situation I described. It appeared to me that all
Mr. Hammond wanted to say to the reporters was "Are you kidding Stevie Ray Vaughan's on the stage and he's
getting ready to play".
Mr. Hammond then said to the reporter something to the effect and very politely "Now if you'll excuse me I'll go
record this concert" He was seventy three or seventy four years old then, he was just out of the hospital, yet he
continuously walked on to the stage to check the microphones, then out the backstage door, down some shakey
metal steps, back up some more shakey metal steps to the mobile recording truck to check the recording levels
and then back again.
It was like he was on a tight rope, or a high wire. I thought he was going to fall a couple times as he lost his
balance. I stayed as close to him as I could in case he fell. I could tell he didn't have all his strength and still
wasn't fully recovered from his heart attack.
I was think to myself the doctors released him to soon but his energy came from his ambition and it reminded me
of my audition with him after not sleeping for three nights before the audition. It was a similar situation although I
was around thirty years old when I auditioned for him and he was in his seventies. It was a great concert.
Doctor John was playing piano that night with Stevie. Mr. Hammond accomplished what he was trying to
achieved that night and parts of the concert were released on a live Stevie Ray Vaughan CD.
Not long after the live recording of Stevie Ray Vaughan at Carnegie Hall was recorded Mr. Hammond died. at his
home in New York. The article in the newspaper stated that Mr. Hammond died at home while listening to a Billy
Holiday record.
Major talent scout, John Hammond Sr., died in 1987. He brought Stevie Ray Vaughan, Bob Dylan, Aretha
Franklin, Leonard Cohen and Bruce Springsteen to Columbia Records. Hammond also worked as a producer with
such early greats as Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday, Benny Goodman and Count Basie
Info@VanguardRecords.com, info@veerecords.com,webmaster@vprecords.com.
A few weeks later Tony Tiller told me that he went to the Memorial service for Mr. Hammond and that he
manned the door at the church making certain that everyone signed the quest log. He said Bob Dylan did not
attend and that Bruce Springsteen was there.
In January 1988 , I started recording at Broccoli Rabe studios in Fairfield New Jersey. Among the songs " My
Cousin JoAnn" and "Another Justification" is an instrumental song titled "Steel Guitars" (also identified as
"Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration). The melody line of "Steel Guitars," which is analyzed
in a comparative analysis to Bob Dylan's recording of "Dignity" by both Jon Bob Jovi's piano teacher Harold
Frazee and Harvard University musicologist, Dr. Paul Green.
In a sworn video tape deposition Scott Patterson testified below : Please note: All depositions besides Plaintiff's
are video taped:
1 Patterson
2AFTERNOONSESSION
3 (1:46 p.m.)
4 S C O T T H. P A T T E R S O N,
17 Damiano?
23 came up to my store.
25 Studios in 1988?
24
1 Patterson
6 A. As-needed basis.
8 A. Brian Drago.
25 A. Right.
152
1 Patterson
6 Tiller, is it not?
9 bottom.
10 A. Right.
13 A. Right.
19 A. Right.
153
1 Patterson
2 Q. Okay.
4 saying that.
9 A. Okay.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. -- where you're stating the word 14 "especially." Do you see that? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. Okay. Do you recall,
Scott, giving
22 A. Right.
Produced in this litigation is part of the contract with Broccoli Rabe studios and Mohammad Marhoumy who is a
private investor for the Damiano project.
I Mohammad Marhoumy state that I have read the following statement and I am willing to testify in a court of law
that it is true that on or about July 1987, James Damiano and I drove to New York to attend a meeting with
Anthony Tiller. Anthony Tiller was working for CBS Records . This meeting was in reference to James Damiano's
songs. Mr. Tiller and I discussed the financing of a musical project of James Damiano's music. At this time I
entered into a verbal agreement with Mr. Tiller. I was obligated according to the agreement to supply the money
for the project. After this meeting with Mr. Tiller I invested ten thousand dollars. This money was paid to Brian
Draigo of Broccoli Rabe studios in Fairfield New Jersey, where Mr. Damiano recorded "Another Justification"
and My Cousin JoAnn" . I Mohammad Marhoumy am willing to testify in a court of law that the above statement
is true.
Mohammad Marhoumy was also deposed in this litigation by Bob Dylan's attorneys. When Mr. Marhoumy was
asked by Orin Snyder (Dylan's attorney) Mohammad testified
Orin Snyder - Question. "And my question to you, sir is that after those weeks and after you started paying
monthly on the $10,000. Your feelings of disbelief about Mr. Damiano's claims of having some connection to
Bob Dylan"
Mohammad Marhoumy - Answer. "If you want an answer, I'll give you answer. I don't think that Jim was the one
that made me - gave me that disbelief. It was Anthony. I think Jim was just maybe lied to. Like I was. That is how
I perceived it. I took him for a victim just as much as myself. If there was no connection to Mr. Dylan, it wasn't
because of what he said to me, it was because of what Anthony said to me."
Appearances:
3 STEVEN M. KRAMER & ASSOCIATES 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 150 West 56th Street 5 65th Floor New
York, New York 10019
8 9 PARCHER & HAYES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants 10 500 Fifth Avenue 38th Floor 11 New York, New
York 10110-3899
14 15 Also Present:
15 time of trial.
14 themselves.
16 plaintiff.
21 witness.
22 M O H A M E D M A R H O U M Y, (residing at XX
1 Marhoumy
2 testified as follows:
3 EXAMINATION BY
4 MR. SNYDER:
6 A. Good morning.
8 spell it?
10 M-a-r-h-o-u-m-y.
13 Jersey.
15 A. 201----------
17 A. November --------
20 A. No.
23 A. Yes.
24
1 Marhoumy
3 A. Yes.
7 recording session --
8 A. Uh-huh.
13 A. Okay --
17 to?
19 question --
24 A. Yes.
25
1 Marhoumy
4 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
10 A. Uh-huh.
13 that judgment?
17 Q. I understand.
26
1 Marhoumy
27
1 Marhoumy
5 A. Yes.
7 correct?
8 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And accurate?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And complete?
19 A. Yes.
23 A. Yes.
25 A. Yes.
29
1 Marhoumy
21 who it was.
12 A. Yes.
14 met him?
15 A. Only once.
18 Tiller?
1 Marhoumy
33
1 Marhoumy
7 with him.
9 up to this meeting?
10 A. Yes.
15 his music.
17 artist?
34
1 Marhoumy
4 the time?
5 A. Yes, I didn't.
13 was.
35
1 Marhoumy
3 music?
35
1 Marhoumy
3 music?
23 the money.
36
1 Marhoumy
2 A. Yes.
4 you?
7 Q. A&R?
10 company.
37
1 Marhoumy
2 A. Yes.
9 correct?
10 A. Yes.
13 investment?
20 interested.
23 A. Yes.
38
1 Marhoumy
4 this twice.
7 A. Yes.
10 Damiano?
11 A. No.
13 A. Yes.
16 more?
17 A. Of course.
19 A. Yes.
22 A. No.
24 him?
25 A. No.
39
1 Marhoumy
2 Q. Never?
17 the hog, you would call him up and you would say,
21 give it to me.
40
1 Marhoumy
11 after that.
13 record?
15 happened.
18 happening, correct?
41
1 Marhoumy
4 I understand, correct?
5 A. Yes.
13 correct?
14 A. Yes.
42
1 Marhoumy
18 A. Yes.
43
1 Marhoumy
6 the drain?
9 Platinum bill?
10 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Is that correct?
25 personally.
44
1 Marhoumy
5 A. Yes, I was.
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. -- began to resurface?
24 said to me.
45
1 Marhoumy
19 Q. Sure.
46
1 Marhoumy
19 fast, I know.
25 is 12:15 p.m.
47
1 Marhoumy
2 (Recess taken)
6 BY MR. SNYDER:
12 that?
48
1 Marhoumy
2 A. Yes --
15 was done that way, but they didn't want the money,
49
1 Marhoumy
25 words, he does.
50
1 Marhoumy
3 nowhere?
6 wasn't a scam?
10 Q. By whom?
1 Marhoumy
6 happened?
10 A. CBS building.
12 A. New York.
14 downtown?
18 looked like?
25 building.
54
1 Marhoumy
3 together?
4 A. Yes.
6 A. No.
16 correct?
25 his lyrics books with him, one big thick book, and
55
1 Marhoumy
56
1 Marhoumy
20 recall --
21 Q. Sure.
57
1 Marhoumy
8 A. No.
12 I remember.
20 office.
23 office?
58
1 Marhoumy
11 to half an hour.
17 secretary?
23 that.
59
1 Marhoumy
3 Q. Sure.
7 Q. Uh-huh.
10 A. I don't remember.
11 Q. I mean --
12 A. He had a suit.
14 be to you?
18 A. Not really.
60
1 Marhoumy
2 A. Yes.
4 been reading?
5 A. No.
8 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did he say --
18 comment --
21 question?
23 question.
61
1 Marhoumy
3 coffee table?
7 Mr. Dylan?
14 Springsteen?
24 lyrics?
62
1 Marhoumy
8 them?
9 Q. Yes.
24 (Record read)
63
1 Marhoumy
12 company?
20 lyrics in 1987?
64
1 Marhoumy
5 lyrics?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
11 meeting?
69
1 Marhoumy
2 A. Yes.
4 check?
15 A. No.
18 Express Platinum?
70
1 Marhoumy
4 including 63.
8 as of this date.)
10 A. Yes.
15 correct?
16 A. Yes.
25 A. Uh-huh.
71
1 Marhoumy
4 Broccoli Rabe?
5 A. Yes.
8 A. I believe I did.
10 A. Yes.
14 1?
15 A. Yes.
72
1 Marhoumy
3 more.
14 A. No.
18 Q. Or CBS Records?
19 A. No.
23 correct?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. Okay.
73
1 Marhoumy
3 Q. Sure.
11 it.
13 recording sessions?
74
Note: Please see music player above to hear "My Cousin JoAnn" & "Paint in my heart"
1 Marhoumy
15 your house?
Tony Tiller invited my wife and I to parties in the city in which there were other CBS people. Mikie some times
came to Tony's parties as well: A copy to one of Tony's parties is displayed below.
"For over thirty five years I ( James Damiano) wrote songs and lyrics. Many times lyrics would come to me when I
was in the middle of working. I would however write the lyric down on a piece of paper put it in my pocket and
then throw it in a box when I got home, with the intentions of when I had a little more time I would go into the
box and work on a song.
During discovery my attorney Steven M. Kramer called me and told me he was sending a courier to my home to
pick up the boxes to my original materials and that he would copy them and produce them to the defendants in
response to the Defendants document list.
He told me when he was done that he would return them to me. Mr. Kramer also stated that there was a court
order to do so. I asked him to fax me a copy of the order. After fumbling for words he said that there was none
and that it was ordered from the bench. Then I asked him for a copy of the transcript which orders me to produce
the materials and Mr. Kramer's response was that he didn't have a copy of the transcript.
Kramer then stated that if I refused to give him the materials that the judge would dismiss the law suit, and that
since the defendants had spent (at that time) three million dollars that the judge would probably incarcerate me.
After stating that to me he then said "And you can tell the Judge what ever you want, just don't call me because
I'm going to California and I'm not going to defend you when that happens"
I only had about twenty minutes to decide what to do so I gave the courier approximately fifteen to twenty five
boxes with about four hundred unfinished songs in each box. Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder assembled the
originals in one binder containing four hundred songs and returned those 400 songs to me. The other materials
(The other fifteen to twenty five boxes) were never returned. I later found out that Steven M. Kramer had been an
attorney for CBS / Sony Music who were also Defendants in the law suit. My attorney Robert Church has since
requested to Bob Dylan's lead attorney Orin Snyder that the songs to be returned. Mr. Snyder has since not
replied to Mr. Church's request. Should Dylan's family fifty years from now release those songs as the lost songs
of Bob Dylan they would probably be worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe even close to a half a
billion.
After I recorded the material at Broccoli Rabe studios everyone who heard the music thought that it should be on
the radio. Also included on the tape was fast tempo recording of "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on
James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) which was compared to Bob Dylan's released version of "Dignity"
in the analysis.
When nothing happened with the music I decided to move back to Charlotte.
I discussed it with Tony ( Tiller) and I could see he was uncomfortable with the idea. I had stopped giving
material to CBS.
I was upset with the fact that CBS was not doing anything with the recorded materials I had just finished.
I drove to Charlotte, found a home and bought it. Came back up New Jersey to prepare to move in a few months.
Tony knew I was serious about moving when one day he called me and said to me that he had to tickets for a Bob
Dylan concert a Jones Beach Theater in Long Island New York.. This conversation was on or about June 15th,
1988. He offered the tickets to me and said "Maybe you could bring some songs with you.
I thought that was an interesting statement and as I was listening to Tony talk trying to keep focused on his words,
his previous words kept ringing in my head "Maybe you could bring some songs with you."
I was working long hours at the time and had to be at work the following morning. I asked Tony if he knew where
Jones Beach was and he replied "no."
I wasn't sure where Jones Beach was but I knew it was pretty far. I tried to calculate how long it would take me to
drive to the concert, watch the concert, do what ever was going to happen after the concert then drive back home
and get enough rest to be able to get up the following morning for work without being dead tired .
I had no idea what day the concert was so I asked Tony. Tony told me July 1st however I couldn't see a calendar
from where I was sitting. I remember thinking to myself I hope it's on a Saturday night because I could sleep late
Sunday morning. Unfortunately it was a Friday night. When Tony replied "Oh wait a minute here it is, the day is a
on the ticket, it's on a Friday night". I suddenly had to reply to his remark about Friday night and had to stopped
thinking about the statement he made about bringing some songs.
As the conversation progressed I was strongly staring to suspect that I was going to get to meet Dylan that night..
His words kept on ringing in my head "maybe you could bring some songs with you " and realized that his words
were chosen very carefully.
Tony was also being very evasive, nervous, talking a bit faster that his normal self. He knew I was excited about
the statement he made to me but he didn't want to talk about it. I was in a dilemma. I couldn't talk about it yet I
wanted to badly.
I reiterated how tired I would be the next day hoping he would offer more information but he said nothing
pertinent to the situation at hand.
I took a different tact and said 'It's a long ride but if I'm going to get backstage to give Dylan the songs it'll be
worth it. Tony said nothing and just listened.
I asked him what was going to happen when I got there he said "I don't know>" I was trying to get an idea of what
to expect so I said "Will I get to meet Dylan if I go?" Tony replied "Ummm" as if he was thinking.
I waited a while for a response then said "Will I get back stage?" Tony replied "Do you want to try? I then
realized that some thing had been arranged just by the way he was choosing his words.
I could tell how uncomfortable he was with my questioning him. The conversation however continued on for a
while when Tony told me to come to his office to pick up the tickets. I went to get the tickets from Tiller and then
went back home
Mr. Tiller then stated to me that I should bring my songs and to see if I could give them to Bob Dylan. I accepted
the invitation and went to the concert.
In a sworn deposition when questioned by Plaintiff's attorney Steven M. Kramer, Tony Tiller testified below:
[Tiller deposition page 64 paragraph 6 through par. 15]
By Steven M. Kramer - ...but if you could try to focus on my question, you will have every opportunity, I'm sure
from your skilled counsel to bring out whatever you and he want to bring out.
By Tony Tiller - I will try, but if I can just say one thing, that my relationship with Jim was a friend. Jim and I - - I
considered Jim a very good friend. For my friends I do whatever I can.
By Steven M. Kramer - Let's go back to the Jones Beach concert, if I may, to the time you offered the tickets to
Mr. Damiano, before the concert actually took place.. During that point in time when you offered the tickets to
him and before he actually went to the concert, did you ever say to him or suggest to him that maybe he should
bring some of his songs with him?
By Steven M. Kramer - Any - - all right. Do you deny saying that or is that you just don't recall one way or the
other?
By Tony Tiller - I deny suggesting to Jim that he bring songs along with him. I did, however, concur with him
when he asked me , do you think I should bring my songs with me. I said sure why not, it can't hurt.
By Steven M. Kramer - Did he tell you of what his experience was when he went backstage?
By Tony Tiller - Yes, he did, and I expressed some surprise that he even got backstage.
By Steven M. Kramer - Wait. You may want to say something, Mr. Tiller, and you have learned counsel on the
other side that will afford you that opportunity if you feel you need it, but I would appreciate it and this will go a
lot quicker if you just restrict your answers to my questions, sir. If I could ask you to do that.
By Steven M. Kramer- - Tell me why you expressed surprise to him, that he had gotten backstage at the Jones
Beach July 1, 1988 concert.
By Tony Tiller - Because from what I heard of backstage. I had never been backstage myself and I would not have
any way of getting backstage. I was rather surprised that he, as he described it, could just, if you will waltz right
backstage.
On July 1st, 1988 my wife and I drove to the concert. Tony's instruction were to go to the back stage entrance
after the concert. So when I got there I said to my wife let's find the entrance to the back stage so we know where
to go after the show.
After we found the entrance to back stage we found our seats. The concert was sold out. The Alarm was playing.
We were the only two people in our row although there were not any other vacant seats anywhere else in the
amphitheater.
We watched the show. After the show we proceeded to the back stage entrance. There was a guard standing near
the gate and the gate had a pad lock that was locked on it. I went up to the guard and to bring these songs to
Dylan as I held up the package.
The guard who I was no more than three and a half feet away from did not acknowledge one word I said and just
stared at me.
Pam (my wife) and I stood there wondering what was suppose to happen now. Tony's words kept on ringing in my
head "Maybe you could bring some songs, go to the back stage entrance"
We waited a while longer and started to see people walking down a long path coming from the backstage area.
Pam started getting impatient and started saying to me "let's go this is crazy."
I told her to wait. We waited a little while longer when she said it again "Let's go". I said "No let's wait."
The guard heard Pam saying "let's go". A couple minutes later a tour bus started driving out from back stage. That
was it for Pam and she adamantly stated "Come on let's go home.
I looked at the guard and asked him "Is that Dylan's bus?" He then decided to talk and said "No it's the opening
acts bus, the Alarm."
A few minutes after the guard's statement about the bus It started to rain. Pam said "let's go home" I said "No" and
Pam said "Well then at least let's go the umbrella in the car." I said "OK" and we started to walk toward the car.
We took a couple steps and I looked back one last time and saw the guard unlock the gate to the back stage area.
I put the envelope of songs under my jacket and said to Pam that the guard just unlocked the gate. Pam said "So
what, I don't care, let's go, this is ridiculous." I said "No let's go back stage." She said "No" again. I turned around
and started walking back toward the gate and Pam followed me."
The guard obviously saw us walk through the gate. As we were walking down the path the guard who was now in
his blazer with security lights on it was backing up very slowly watching us walk down the path to back stage.
We saw another fence in the distance. When we approached it we saw that it was open. We walked through the
second gate and saw a platform. I sat down and asked Pam to watch out for Dylan. I started going through the
songs to be sure I had what I thought were the best on top of the pile.
As I started going through them I stopped and said to Pam "Make sure you look out for Bob" A few minutes later
a man came out from a door that led to back stage. Walked passed Pam came over to me looked down at my face.
I stopped and looked up at his. He then walked back past Pam and back into the door he came out of.
A few minutes later a group of people came out. I didn't even look up. I was almost positive it would take Dylan
much longer to come out but I was wrong.
I heard Pam say something. I was still going through the songs. I asked her what she said. She replied "There's
Bob" I looked up and saw Dylan with his foot on the bottom step of the bus almost ready to get on.
I stood up and froze staring Dylan in the eyes. I was a few feet from the back of the bus. Dylan was at the door to
the bus. We were maybe thirty feet away from each other. I waited for him to make a move. He started walking
toward me and I toward him.
All the people who came out of the door with Dylan were now gathered around us and watching this take place.
When I was within arms reach I held out the envelope of songs to him and tried to say "Tony Tiller told me to
bring you these songs " However the only words I had time to say were "Tony Tiller."
No sooner than me saying to Dylan "Tony Tiller", did the big man who initially came out from the back stage
door, swing his hand down and said "hold it.' I looked up at him. He asked me," Who told you to bring these
songs" but before I could answer, this same man pointed at a man to my left, and said "Give them to him".
Ironically, no sooner did the man say "Give them to him" did the man to my left grab the envelope and rudely
started pulling on it. I looked him square in the eyes and wouldn't let go. We both pulled for a couple seconds
when the man stopped pulling and politely said "I'm sorry who told you to bring these songs. I replied "Tony
Tiller at CBS Records." and let go.
I immediately looked back at Dylan. Dylan nodded to me, turned around and walked back to the bus everyone
else followed. The door shut and the bus drove away.
Produced in this litigation were copies of the ticket stubs to the Bob Dylan Jones Beach concert.
Pamela Damiano testified to under oath in a video tape deposition. Questions asked by Orin Snyder (Bob Dylan's
attorney). Pamela Damiano - Deposition - Pages 80 -82
80
1 P. Damiano
3 July 1, 1988?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. At Jones Beach?
81
1 P. Damiano
6 the bus, the tour bus that they were walking to,
12 between the two of them and put down his hand, his
21 other people, and they all got onto the bus. The
Pamela - Yes
Orin Snyder - You testified that you freely walked backstage, is that correct?
Pamela - Correct
1.
Click here to review documents produced to Orin Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder during discovery.
Through discovery a few months after the Jones Beach concert Bob Dylan went to Atlanta Georgia to record
"Dignity" which was the hit song off the C.D.
On August 5th 1988 I recieved an unsigned typed letter from Bob Dylan's office displayed below
The Musical comparative Analysis of "Dignity" was prepared By Doctor Greene who graduated from Harvard
University (Magna Cum Laude).
The musical score below is a comparative analysis of the melody line of a song released by Bob Dylan titled
"Dignity" and a song written by James Damiano also titled "Dignity".
Bob Dylan's copyright registration for "Dignity" was dated December of 1991. James Damiano's copyright
registration for "Dignity" was 1982 and 1988, nine and three years before Bob Dylan copyrighted "Dignity".
This analysis was prepared by Doctor Greene who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University. Doctor
Greene's analysis was corroborated by a professor of music at Julliard School of Music, Sebastian Courier and
also by Jon Bon Jovi's piano teacher Harold Frazee.
Bob Dylan offered no credible rebuttal to this analysis. For the purpose of comparison the notes have been
changed to numbers In this analysis Doctor Greene explains that the notes (2) & (3) are just accompaniments of
(1) when the note (2) or (3) precedes the note (1). So it would make no difference if Dylan used a (2) note or a
(3) note, theoretically the (2) note or (3) note in reference to this melody line can be considered the same note.
Also given that it would have been basically simple for Bob Dylan to leave one note out of the melody line one
can consider that fifteen out of fifteen notes in this melody line are in consecutive order. The limit a person can
legally copy is six notes. Seven notes legally constitutes infringement.
Professor Doctor Boris of Morris County College calculated the odds to be over a trillion to one that James
Damiano and Bob Dylan wrote this same melody line independently of one another. Doctor Boris also opined
that these odds are the same odds as hitting the New Jersey million dollar lottery a million times consecutively.
Judge Jerome B. Simandle wrote in his opinion of December 1996, "To the ear of this court, there is no
substantial similarity in the structure, instrumentation or melody of the two songs." Judge Simandle has no formal
education in music theory. Doctor Green who not only has a doctorate in music theory but graduated Magna Cum
Laude from Harvard University.
Click on the text below to review a diaghram of the musical notes written by Doctor Greene.
"Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy. "Dignity" was also the only newly written original song released by Bob
Dylan in a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997. All other songs released by Bob Dylan in that seven-year span
were traditional folk songs and songs taken from songs in the public domain. In a New York Times interview with
Bob Dylan the article read "Long time fans fretted that Dylan was not releasing new material in concert" When
asked why he had not released a new song in seven years Dylan responded: "I don't like to introduce new material
into the media because of the bootleg situation". Insinuating someone might steal his song.
I believe no credits to the authors of the songs Dylan recorded on his CD's between 1990 and 1997 were listed on
his CD or CD cover. Nor was there any reference to the author�s name. It is doubtful Dylan paid any royalties
to the families of the deceased or living authors of those songs. "To the ear of this court, there is no substantial
similarity in the structure, instrumentation or melody of the two songs.
Dr. Green faxed the following letter to Plaintiff referring To Plaintiff�s 1982 copyright registration:
Two months after the Jones Beach concert Tony Tiller called me and asked me if I had any more songs that I
could give Dylan. I told him that I had some songs that were not as of yet typed up but that I could copy some of
them real fast by hand if I had to. Tony then told me that Dylan was playing at Waterloo Village in Byram, New
Jersey and that if I wanted to go to the concert that he would get me tickets. I told him that I would go since it
was so close to where I was living.
After asking me how many tickets I wanted Tony told me that he would call me back to let me know where to
pick up the tickets. I called a friend of mine Brad Wright and asked him if he wanted to go. He told me that he
was going to go anyway and that he had tickets for he and his girlfriend Sandy. Brad told me that he would drive
over to my apartment, and we would all go together. When Brad and Sandy arrived I was on the phone with
Tony. Tony told me to go to the will call window where there would be four complimentary tickets.
Brad, Sandy, Pam, and I drove to the concert and picked up the tickets. The seats were seven rows back on the
center isle. After the concert we followed Tony Tillers instructions to go backstage. The following transcript is
what Brad Wright testified to in his deposition and under oath. Deposed by Orin Snyder, Bob Dylan's attorney
Brad testified the following:
We are sorry to inform you that we are no longer accepting songs for review. Enclosed please find the return of
your material. Sincerely, Bob Dylan office.
Produced in this litigation was a copy of the letter and the envelope, which enclosed the letter. A copy of the
envelope, which enclosed the letter, is displayed below.
Plaintiff has learned through discovery that this letter came from Jeff Rosen's office. Jeff Rosen is Bob Dylan's
publisher.
August 5th, 1988 I also received on the same day August 5th, 1988 a letter from CBS Associated Labels a letter
stating Dear Damiano:
Thanks for sending me the enclosed. I've listened to a number of times and my decision is to pass. I just don't feel
it's right for us at this time. May I wish you every success and thanks for thinking of us.
Sincerely L___P___S____
Two months after the Jones Beach concert Tony Tiller called me and asked me if I had any more songs that I
could give Dylan. I told him that I had some songs that were not as of yet typed up but that I could copy some of
them real fast by hand if I had to. Tony then told me that Dylan was playing at Waterloo Village in Byram, New
Jersey and that if I wanted to go to the concert that he would get me tickets. I told him that I would go since it
was so close to where I was living.
After asking me how many tickets I wanted he told me that he would call me back to let me know where to pick
up the tickets. I called a friend of mine Brad Wright and asked him if he wanted to go. He told me that he was
going to go anyway and that he had tickets for he and his girlfriend Sandy. Brad told me that he would drive over
to my apartment, and we would all go together. When Brad and Sandy arrived I was on the phone with Tony.
Tony told me to go to the will call window to pick up the tickets, there were four complimentary tickets.
Brad, Sandy, Pam, and I drove to the concert and picked up the tickets. The seats were seven rows back . My seat
was row G seven rows back from the stage center isle. After the concert we followed Tony Tillers instructions to
go backstage.
The guards saw us approaching, they moved to the side and let us walk right on through to the back stage area.
Brad had an envelope of my songs in his hand.
We walked down a path to Dylan's bus. Brad knocked on the door and a man came off the bus and introduces
himself as Mike Reed. Brad and I shook his hand. After the handshakes Mike looked down at the envelope and
asked Brad "Are those for me?". Brad answered "yes" and started to hand Mike the songs. But before Mike could
grab them I took the songs out of Brad's hand. Mike suddenly looked at me. with a confused expression.
I then asked Mike "Why doesn't Dylan come down and get the songs?" Mike thought for a moment and replied
"Bob already left" I then asked mike "why should I give you the songs?" and He didn't know how to answer me, or
what to say. I was trying to decide whether I should leave the songs with him, when Brad asked Mike if Dylan
would give him his autograph.
Mike replied that Dylan does not give autographs. As Mike and Brad were talking I was trying to decide what to
do so I opened the book of lyrics to a page that read:
Have to have
After Mike Reed read the songs we talked for a little longer. When the conversation between Mike, Brad and me
ended Mike entered the bus with the envelope in his hand.
The following transcript is what Brad Wright testified to in his deposition and under oath. Please note: All
Deposed by Orin Snyder, Bob Dylan's attorney part of what Brad testified to under oath is transcribed below.
Page's 105 through 110.
8 New Jersey?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In September of 1988?
11 A. Yes.
14 stub.
20 somewhat.
22 with you?
23 A. Yes.
75
1 Wright
3 girlfriend?
82
1 Wright
15 A. Sure.
21 A. Yes.
83
1 Wright
3 already, so --
7 going too.
9 A. Yes.
12 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
17 A. Right.
20 better tickets?
22 the time.
84
1 Wright
14 But they were not going to sell them. I said,,p. 15 "Pam, why don't I try to sell these for you," and,p. 16 she
liked the idea, and so I went back to the line,
19 Pam.
25 A. Yes.
85
1 Wright
3 A. Yes.
7 back or something.
8 Q. On the floor?
86
1 Wright
5 A. Yes.
10 seats, thanks."
13 night in question?
14 A. Okay.
87
1 Wright
7 evening?
17 been raining.
88 1 Wright
4 that night?
7 that night.
8 Q. Why is that?
12 meet Bob?
14 yes.
24 Bob.
89
1 Wright
4 ended?
6 going to meet with Bob and give him the songs and
13 know, more.
18 of the question.
90
1 Wright
4 A. No.
8 concert?
11 know.
12 Q. What --
16 happen?
20 Dylan.
22 level.
91
1 Wright
6 you?
14 Bob.
17 backstage?
22 believed it.
92
1 Wright
10 Bob.
23 A. No.
93
1 Wright
8 A. Yes.
10 that subject?
13 times to me.
17 A. Yes.
19 Anthony Tiller?
23 somewhere.
94
1 Wright
3 A. Yes.
7 A. Yes.
10 A. No.
18 of the question.
22 it.
95
1 Wright
5 Q. What, if anything --
19 it? No.
22 Damiano?
96
1 Wright
5 together?
10 had met before the show so they did talk about it,
13 hour.
97
1 Wright
2 Afternoon Session
3 1:22 p.m.
4 B R A D L E Y C H A R L E S W R I G H T,
9 BY MR. SNYDER:
12 occurred there.
98
1 Wright
4 A. Yes.
7 A. Not a one.
15 A. Correct.
17 I assume, printed as in --
21 Q. Typed or handwritten?
99
1 Wright
8 the same tape that you had with you that night?
9 A. Yes.
11 the concert?
17 "Yes, great."
100
1 Wright
5 the stage?
10 A. I saw two.
15 us.
17 Damiano?
19 Q. And --
22 up to the bus.
25 A. No.
101
1 Wright
3 attempted to go backstage?
5 or not.
7 see?
11 charter type.
14 Q. Any trucks?
22 bus.
102
1 Wright
11 looking dudes.
18 backstage.
103
1 Wright
3 other.
8 hold.
11 me that.
13 a nervous manner?
23 about.
104
1 Wright
20 songs.
25 A. He told us.
105
1 Wright
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Of the bus?
5 A. Yes.
9 Q. He came off --
11 his answer.
12 Go ahead.
20 understand.
22 now?
106
1 Wright
8 saying have him come off and meet us, and he said
11 an equipment bus.
13 by equipment bus?
21 a minute.
25 Mr. Kramer.
107
1 Wright
4 question again?
10 A. It is vague.
14 A. Oh, yes.
16 if you recall?
21 say in response?
24 nightstand.
25 Q. On his nightstand?
108
1 Wright
14 them to him."
16 dresser or nightstand?
109
1 Wright
8 A. He promised us.
9 Q. And --
14 equipment bus?
18 the time?
110
1 Wright
3 the time?
12 A. No.
14 the curtain?
15 A. No, no idea.
17 bus, Mike Reed didn't know who you and Mr. Damiano
18 were, right?
21 the lyrics?
22 A. Yes.
24 lyrics?
111
1 Wright
8 A. No, I don't.
10 song?
19 A. Yes.
23 impressed by it.
25 you about --
112
1 Wright
5 songs."
15 to him.
Brad Wright also testified under oath that on September 6, 1988, he accompanied James Damiano to yet another
concert backstage at Radio City Music Hall. Plaintiff was given Back stage passes at this concert. Brad also
testified that someone back stage took James Damiano's songs.
Although Brad's testimony along with depositional testimony of other witnesses in this case was much more in
depth and revealing of defendants solicitation of plaintiff James Damiano's songs it was disregarded Judge
Simandle. Why?
Motive:
Dylan had writers block for commercially viable songs during at least a portion of the relevant period of time,
from the early eighties to 1994 when defendants solicited James Damiano's songs.
Bob Dylan gave an interview to Associated Press reporter Kathryn Baker. .The interview took place while having
dinner at a restaurant in California. With Dylan's permission Ms. Baker recorded the interview.
When Ms. Baker's article appeared in the newspaper, it quoted Bob Dylan as saying:
"There is no rule that claims anyone must write their own songs and I do I write a lot of songs. but so what you
know? You could take another song somebody else has written and you could make it your own."
The article goes on to talk about the fact that this was the first time Dylan had ever used other writers on an
album. The article states that it was inevitable that Dylan did not have enough material of his own for an album.
"Writing is like such an isolated thing. You're in such an isolated frame of mind. You have got to get into that
place. In the old days I could get to it real quick. I can't get to it like that no more. It's not that simple.
Ms. Baker goes on to quote Bob Dylan: "I mean just being able to shut yourself off for long periods of time,
where you're so isolated, no one can get to you mentally or physically, you know. You need to do that to come
up with that kind of stuff."
Ms. Baker quotes Dylan once again: "You're always capable in your youth and especially if you're an unknown
and nobody cares, like if you're an anonymous person, but once that all ends, then you have to create not only
what you want to but you have to create the environment to do it in which is double hard." A true and correct
copy of this letter will be produced upon request.
4 JAMES DAMIANO,
6 VS. ) 95CV4795(JBS)
9 DEFENDANTS. )
14 KATHRYN BAKER
16 10:17 A.M.
6 SUBPOENA.
7 8 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
9 FOR PLAINTIFF:
11 ASSOCIATES
14 65TH FLOOR
16
17 FOR DEFENDANTS:
21 38TH FLOOR
23
25 CHRISTIAN MARTINEZ
(310) 556-1136
1INDEX
5 6 OBJECTIONS BY COUNSEL
8 25 17 29 21 37 17
9 42 6 43 14 43 21
13 E X H I B I T S
15 California.
23 of the plaintiff.
3 the witness.
5 KATHRYN BAKER,
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. KRAMER:
12 A. Good morning.
16 A. Yes, I did.
18 A. I'm a writer.
20 currently?
22 Q. In what capacity?
24 "Melrose Place."
2 Associated Press?
3 A. Yes.
11 BY MR. KRAMER:
11 BY MR. KRAMER:
24 A. Yes.
7 A. Yes.
15 him.
19 A. Right.
21 ma'am?
1 tape.
3 exist?
4 A. Yes.
14 deposition.)
15 BY MR. KRAMER:
22 ma'am?
5 A. Yes.
8 page.
11 Ms. Baker.
13 some location?
14 A. Yes.
18 A. Okay. Sure.
20 copy?
21 A. Yes.
2 Exhibit 2.
10 deposition.)
11 BY MR. KRAMER:
16 A. Yes, it does.
18 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
10
8 that.
10 with you?
15 A. A couple of times.
25 someone.
11
5 notes.
9 dinner.
12
1 A. Yes.
5 interview.
6 A. Mm-hmm.
8 A. Mm-hmm.
11 will be the same, and that is: Did Mr. Dylan say
12 that?
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. Do you understand?
15 A. Yes.
21 A. Okay.
13
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. "The album" --
3 A. Yes.
19 A. Actually, I -- this -- I --
22 Q. Okay.
25 sometime before.
14
4 A. Right.
10 "'Silvio,'" unquote.
13 A. Right.
23 A. Yes.
15
6 words?
7 A. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
22 straight.'"
24 A. Yes.
16
5 for an album."
16 A. Yes.
19 in that place.'"
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Quote:
17
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Quote:
7 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
19 kind of stuff.'"
21 A. Yes.
18
3 A. Yes.
5 A. Right.
11 double hard.'"
13 A. Yes.
15 questions.
The Associated Press filed a motion to block the production of the actual interview tape with Bob Dylan�s
voice.
1988 - Was the beginning of a trend in Dylan's career that documents his use of other songwriter�s materials on
his albums for profit.
1988 - Bob Dylan released the "Down In the Groove album. Three of the songs on this album were newly written
original songs by Bob Dylan, and one other one other was co-written with Robert Hunter of the Grateful Dead.
The other six or seven songs on "Down In The Groove" were songs taken from songs in the public Domain or
traditional folk songs in which Dylan did not write.
There is a good chance that Dylan did not pay any royalties to the owners of these songs that he recorded,
released to the public and profited from.
This also documents the fact that Dylan was not as prolific as he was in his earlier days and that he was in need of
material.
In 1989 Bob Dylan released the "Oh Mercy " album. On this album there were similarities between Bob Dylan's
material and Plaintiff James Damiano material.
On June 4th, 1990 James Damiano contacted a lawyer Thomas Ruff. Mr. Ruff wrote the following letter to Tony
Tiller of CBS Records. A true and correct copy of this letter will be produced upon request.
I write as a representative of James Damiano, who is now living in the Charlotte area. As you may recall, Mr.
Damiano has written numerous songs and has submitted many of them to you. He has also submitted material to
Bob Dylan on three occasions and receipt of those materials has been acknowledged.
James presently feels that there is no point in waiting for further progress on the question of producing his work.
He would like to contact other companies and artists in this regard. He feels that it would be best if he recovered
the previously submitted materials.
I would appreciate your reviewing this situation at your earliest convenience If there is any reason for you to
retain the works let me know. If you know any reason for Dylan's retention of works submitted to him, I would
also appreciate hearing from you. Otherwise I will look forward to receiving the previously submitted materials at
your earliest convenience.
Mr. Ruff told me he was surprised that Mr. Tiller disregarded his letter.
Tony Tiller neither sent the material back or contacted Tom Ruff.
When I talked to Tony Tiller on the phone he told me that the songs were safe with him and that I would be
better off if I left them with him in his office.
He told me that if someone stopped at his office, they would be able to hear the songs or read the lyric sheets.
On October 31, 1990 - Bob Dylan was playing a concert at Ovens Auditorium in Charlotte North Carolina. Tony
told me that there were complimentary tickets for me at the ticket window and asked me to bring some more of
my songs to Bob Dylan.
I called a few friends and asked them if they would like to go to the concert with me. One of the friends was Tom
Ruff. I picked up the tickets and went to the area where the busses were parked. I had an envelope in my hand. In
the envelope were lyric sheets of my songs. In my pocket I had two white cassette tapes of my music.
Four people approached me and asked me if I would like for them to give Bob Dylan the package of songs. One
of those people told me his name was Richard Fernandez and that he was Bob Dylan's tour manager. Tom Ruff
had advised me not to give the songs to anyone not even Bob Dylan.
Tom Ruff also advised me, that I should tell anyone from Dylan's organization who wanted me to give the songs
to them, that I was legally advised to say that I will not give them the songs but, that if Bob Dylan wanted to
seethe songs that I was willing to go back to the hotel room and let Dylan see them. That is what I told these four
people that approached me.
I was then approached by another person who asked me if I wanted to meet Dylan's bus driver. I knew that they
were controlling the situation so I went along with him. We walked over to a bus that was an older bus and
parked off in the distance.
As we approached the bus there was a man looking out the front window. The man I walked over to the bus with
motioned to the man looking out the window for him to come down off the bus.
He came off the bus, walked over to us and was introduced to me as Tom Masters. We talked for about fifteen
minutes and I explained that Tony Tiller told me to bring these songs here tonight.
Mr. Masters told me he was unable to take the songs. I then told Mr. Masters that I was legally advised to not give
the songs to anyone but that if Dylan wanted to see the songs that I was willing to go somewhere to let Dylan see
them.
Mr. Masters said Bob could not do that. We talked a little while longer and Tom told me that he had to leave. We
shook hands, he turned around, took a couple of steps, stopped and turned around toward me and said "But if
you want me to give the songs to Bob I will." I responded to Tom 's remark and said "I told you that I can't give
you the songs but here are two tapes of my music." as I handed him two tapes.
The tapes included plaintiff's song "Steel Guitars" also identified as "Dignity" on plaintiff's 1982 copyright
registration. Other versions of "Steel Guitars" however had been previously submitted to John Hammond and
Mikie Harris in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
"Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) was also submitted
to Tony Tiller and Dylan associate�s in 1987 and 1988.
Bob Dylan recorded "Dignity" in 1989 but he did not register his copyright of �Dignity� until
December,1991
One of the people who approached me that night, before I was introduced to Tom Masters was Richard
Fernandez. Richard gave me an address in Beverly Hills to send material to. I sent materials certified mail to that
address with return receipt requested. Richard Fernandez was also deposed:
His testimony verified that Tom Masters was on tour with Bob Dylan and Richard Fernandez in 1990 and 1991 in
which Bob Dylan played Ovens auditorium on that tour.
Mr. Fernandez's testimony also verified that Mike Reed was part of Bob Dylan's entourage.
-against- 95-4795
6 SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
7 and BOB DYLAN,
8 Defendants.
---------------------------------------x
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 A p p e a r a n c e s:
6 65th Floor
of Counsel
12
13
of Counsel
14
15 Also Present:
17
18 ***
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18 time of trial.
19
20
21
22 ***
23
24
25
3 record.
15 of Richard Fernandez.
17 themselves.
19 plaintiff.
21 defendants.
24 witness.
25 R I C H A R D F E R N A N D E Z,
4 testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. KRAMER:
11 Q. Thank you.
13 A. Right now?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Dannet, Inc.
17 A. A touring company.
24 Dylan?
1 Fernandez
8 New York.
10 New York?
11 A. No.
13 Angeles?
19 A. Uh-huh.
1 Fernandez
4 A. Yeah.
7 A. In '91?
11 certain.
14 Ovens Auditorium?
17 you know or is it --
18 Q. I don't know.
20 Ovens Auditorium.
22 A. Oh, yes.
24 Bob Dylan?
1 Fernandez
2 Q. Okay. When was the last time? 3 A. I don't recall. I mean it was --
4 Q. What decade?
8 A. That's correct.
10 A. Yes.
18 North Carolina?
19 A. Yeah.
21 hall was?
22 A. No.
25 Q. I understand.
1 Fernandez
2 A. Yeah.
9 A. No. No.
11 documents --
13 documents.
19 Q. Never?
22 them?
24 remember that.
10
1 Fernandez
11 A. Yeah.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. At home --
15 A. Yeah.
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Rob Stoner?
24 A. No.
11
1 Fernandez
11 familiar.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Bobby Neuwirth?
18 Q. Mike Reed?
21 tours.
23 A. Pardon?
25 A. Yes.
12
1 Fernandez
7 tour?
Although Dylan recorded "Dignity" in 1989 he did not release it until December of 1994, almost five years later.
Articles appeared on the internet stating that although Dylan finally had a hit song again he did not play it at any
of his concerts while on tour.
Note: Normal music business operations in the music industry is that when a band has a hit song, it tours on that
song, meaning that the reason for the tour is to promote the album or in this case being that "Dignity" was the
only newly written original song Dylan had released in almost four years, the song.
Note: If Dylan had toured with the intention of promoting his new material the "Dylan unplugged" video and CD
and his "Bob Dylan Greatest Hits Volume 3" CD ( which "Dignity" was the only newly written original song on
the CD and video ) , it is undisputable that "Dignity" bridged Bob Dylan's career from 1990 to 1997, when his
fans were aware that he had not released a new song in three years and eleven months.
Please note that after Dylan released "Dignity" in November of 1994 he had not released another newly written
original song for another four years until 1998 on the "Time Out Of Mind CD"
One must also wonder if it is true why Dylan had not played "Dignity" on his tour after it was released.
Sometime after the Ovens Auditorium concert Tom Masters called me at my home. I was not there but my Mother
in law who was visiting at the time answered the phone and told him that I was not there.
A couple weeks later Tom Masters called again. He told me that he had some friends over and that they just
listened to my tape. He told me one of my tapes was still on Bob Dylan's tour bus. I asked him if Bob heard the
tape and he replied "Yeah Bob heard it and he thought it was good." I said "really?" and Tom said "Yeah Bob
liked it."
I asked Tom "Is Bob There now?" Tom replied "No." When out of the clear blue sky Tom asked me where the
songs were that I said I was going to send him. I didn't know what he was talking about because I thought that we
had already established the fact that I was not going to send any more of my songs as per Tom Ruff's advise.
I told Tom "I told you I wasn't going to send anymore material." Tom then said "Oh I thought you told me you
were going to send me songs" I replied "Tom, how can I send you songs when I don't have your address?" Tom
replied "Oh, well if you want to send them my address is"[ and he gave me his address.]
I had no receipts for all the material that I submitted to Bob Dylan so I decided to send the songs to Tom Master's
certified mail with return receipt requested.
On January 18, 1991, someone at Tom Masters�s address signed for James Damiano's songs.
[Enter Tom Masters�s certified mail receipt dated January 18, 1991.]
On January 20, 1991, I (James Damiano) received a letter from Tom Masters transcribed below:
Dear Jimmy:
I received the certified letter with your lyrics, which I am returning to you. I am flattered of course that you
picked me to send them to, but let me reiterate the following:
I am Bob's bus driver no more. He does not discuss his music with me. I take care of the bus and he takes care of
the music. People hand me tapes all day long. hoping that Bob will listen to them. I tell them exactly what I am
telling you. Please do not send me anymore lyrics or tapes. They will be returned unopened or thrown in the
trash.
I wish you the best in your musical endeavors, however I am not the contact you think I am and I am requesting
that you neither call nor send me anymore of your work.
Sincerely
Tom Masters.
1990 Bob Dylan releases "Under the Red Sky" album. Similarities exist between James Damiano's material and
Bob Dylan's material.
On 1/30/91 January 30, 1991 Bob Dylan's publisher Jeff Rosen's office signed certified mail for James Damiano's
songs.
On June 19, 1991 Elliot Mintz of Dylan's organization signed certified mail receipt for James Damiano's songs.
[Enter all certified mail receipts Bob Dylan, Elliot Mintz and Jeff Rosen]
1992 No newly written original songs by Bob Dylan. Album released "As Good As I've Been To You."
The following recorded phone conversation between Tony Tiller and James Damiano recorded on December 5th,
1992 was produced to Judge Simandle by Plaintiff's attorney.
Tony - Hello
James - Anthony?
Tony - Hi.
James - Hello.
Tony - What time did you call? James - About five minutes after. You were on the line to Germany or something.
Tony - Gee well it's unfortunate that you choose right now to call.
James - Oh really. I just need to ask you a fast question. I'm going to Nashville. I wrote a book. Remember when
you said that when you got a promotion, that if it was in A&R, that I would have been the first person you would
sign? Would you write me a letter to that effect before I go. I'm going in two weeks, to meet some people in
Nashville about my songs. Could you write me a letter just so when I get down there I could show them that they
Or at least you were serious about the music.
Tony - Yeah"
Tony - The other call is costing a mint while they're on hold and I'm hoping they will still be there when I get
back.
James- Let me ask you one more question. Did Mitch call you?
Note : Mitch Berman works for Bob Dylan and in all the recorded conversations emphatically denies knowing
Tony Tiller of CBS Records. Mitch Berman is also know as Elliot Mintz.
James - Let me ask you one more question. Did Mitch call you?
Tony - Um recently?
James - Yeah.
Tony - No.
James - I wrote a book. Is it all right to put in the book that you told me to go back stage at Jones beach to give
Bob Dylan the material?
Tony - Uh No.
Tony - No.
Tony - No do not.
Tony - No, because that would make me as an employee of the company liable for telling you to do that, and that
would be uncool.
James - Okay.
All information contained within this document was produced to defendants during discovery in case CV
9547-54 (JBS), ((James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan and Sony Music Entertainment), no less than three and a half
years ago. Plaintiff wishes to note that the defendants have not denied any of the issues of fact stated herein with
specificity concerning all chronological events concerning correspondence between parties and witness.
1993 - No newly written original songs by Bob Dylan. Album released by Dylan, was "World Gone Wrong"
Honest about
Lies about
The religion
He sells
Damiano 88 Copyright
Plaintiff James Damiano's musical expert in this litigation Doctor Green who Graduated Magna Cum Laude from
Harvard University reports:
Dear Mr. Damiano: Following your requests, I have briefly reviewed the instrumental introduction to "Love is a
Miracle" on your audio cassette copyright 1982. This short introduction seems to bear melodic, harmonic, and
rhythmic similarities to "Steel Guitars"(also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright
registration) , as copyrighted in 1982 and 1988.
There is a good chance that a careful examination of this material may show that in 1982 you were experimenting
with many of the musical ideas that came together later in "Steel Guitars"(also identified as "Dignity" on James
Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) . Moreover, other elements of "Steel Guitars" can be heard in other songs,
not only on the 1982 cassette, but on the cassette copyrighted in 1988.
I propose that a careful analysis of several or all of your works leading up to "Steel Guitars" may allow me to
piece together a historical account of your creation of this composition. Sincerely Paul Green
Quotes from Doctor Green's comparative analysis of Dylan's song "Dignity" and James Damiano's song "Steel
Guitars"(also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration)will follow
Twelve years later Bob Dylan was nominated for a Grammy, for a song titled "Dignity" copyrighted by Dylan in
1991.
Judge Simandle writes in his opinion concerning access "Plaintiff asserts that 'the bulk of his life's work' was
submitted to Sony beginning in 1982.(Complaint. At 2) . He also alleges that he was told to bring his songs to
several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has produced evidence that after these concerts, he
was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano Declaration. At 2, 5, ; Deposition of
Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104: Deposition of Brad Wright at 105-112)."Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff
has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work."
"Plaintiff asserts that 'the bulk of his life's work' was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982.(Complaint. At 2) . He
also alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff
has produced evidence that after these concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his
agents. (Damiano Declaration. At 2, 5, ; Deposition of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104: Deposition of Brad
Wright at 105-112)."Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether defendants had access to his work."
Judge Simandle also states "This court will accept as true plaintiff's allegations that Sony represented to him that
he would be credited and compensated if Dylan used his work."
"This court will accept as true plaintiff's allegations that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and
compensated if Dylan used his work."
Doctor Green a musicologist who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University states that there is a
recurring vocal melody in the song "Dignity" released on Bob Dylan's 1994, MTV Unplugged album that is
strikingly similar to James Damiano's song "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982
copyright registration) that was copyrighted in 1988 and recorded with studio musicians in 1986 and whom have
submitted declarations to the court.
Doctor Green further states that the melodic arc found in both "Dignity" and "Steel Guitars"(also identified as
"Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) Is more than just a collection of shared pitches. It
seems to embody the melodic shape or character of both compositions. When played on it's own, it sounds like
both compositions."
Someday maybe
"During discovery, Bob Dylan will be producing, inter alias, unpublished and extremely valuable tape recordings
and written lyrics which document the evolution and independent creation of Mr. Dylan's musical compositions
which are at issue in this case. These materials are highly confidential and proprietary in nature because they were
created during private, songwriting sessions. These materials have never been never been released to the public in
any manner."
Please note: The above letter of March 1, 1996 was sent to Judge Rosen only after Defendants and Plaintiff
exchanged copyrights to compare the date of registration for the respective songs at issue in this case.
In other words would defendants have had to write this letter to the court if Dylan's copyrights predated
Damiano's copyrights ?
While Dylan and his attorneys claimed to have produced inter alias never before published Dylan creation
materials Doctor Green again asserts in his declaration:
"The [creation materials] tapes seem to document the experimentation with and creation of the lyrics, style and
instrumentation of "Dignity" but not the creation of the melody."
"Therefore I conclude that the melody of 'Dignity' was actually created before the production of the Dylan
creation tapes."
" The musical features I find similar in "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982
copyright registration) and "Dignity" therefore seem to me to be quite rare in the corpus of popular music."
"Of all the compositions I examined for this report, I find that the composition most similar to "Dignity" in terms
of the melodic and formal features specified in Section 1 is "Steel Guitars."
In Bright Tunes Music Corp. vs. Harrisongs Music Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976), aff'd. Abkco Music vs.
Harrisongs Music, 722 F 2d 988 (2nd Circuit 1983) , Beatle George Harrison unsuccessfully contended that the
phrases in question were trite. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court's finding of liability holding that it was
a question of fact as to whether the two works were similar in any substantial way. In Bright Tunes, the court
found that the repetition of two short, basic musical phrases, sol-la-do-la-do, created a "highly unique pattern"
sufficiently original to be protected by copyright, although each standing alone was in the public domain. 420 F.
Supp. at 178.
Plaintiff's argument about [public domain] is that the melodic arc in George Harrison's song was a common
melodic arc that had been played on the radio many times in many different songs. Harrison claimed that he must
have heard it on the radio and subliminally he wrote the song or that the melody line was a common musical or
blues clich�.
However the court still found Harrison guilty and he lost the suit in court.
I was told forty eight people have been deposed in this litigation . Some of who were in Dylan's entourage.
When asked by plaintiff's attorney "Have you ever lied to Mr. Damiano?", Elliot Mintz a ten year associate of Bob
Dylan's who is responsible for Bob Dylan's media relations replied "Yes". Mr. Mintz's deposition is one hundred
and eighty seven pages long. Mr. Mintz also testified that he had almost a half a dozen conversations with James
Damiano and that after keeping James Damiano's songs for over a year he "Shredded" them.
Also stating under oath that he recalled giving Mr. Damiano his fax number. [page 67 par. 15]
By plaintiff's attorney:- Do you recall ever giving Mr. Damiano your fax number?
Numerous recorded conversation between James Damiano, CBS and Dylan's entourage have been produced to
the defendants in this litigation. Discovery is well over three thousand pages.
Plaintiff's attorney asserts that : Professor Green also discovered from a review of the so called Dylan creation
materials that there are actually no Dylan creation materials for the melody at all. Professor Green states: "The
[creation materials] tapes seem to document the experimentation with and creation of the lyrics, style and
instrumentation of "Dignity", but not the creation of the melody. Therefore I conclude that the melody of
"Dignity" was actually created before the production of the Dylan creation tapes.
Professor Green concludes: "Because the shared melodic arc of James Damiano's "Steel Guitars (aka "Dignity")
and Bob Dylan's "Dignity" is rare in popular music, I conclude that similarities between the two songs are not due
to common incorporation of melodic clich�s of the blues or folk-rock music. So, either Damiano and Dylan
arrived at similar melodies independently, or one musician was influenced by the other. Since "Steel Guitars"
predates both "Dignity" and the Dylan creation materials, and since the Dylan creation materials do not document
an independent creation of the "Dignity" melody, I conclude there is a very good chance that the melody
"Dignity" may be based on that of "Steel Guitars."(also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright
registration) .
"Dignity" was the "Hit" off both the "Bob Dylan Unplugged" album and the "Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Volume
3" album.
Bob Dylan was in need of a commercially viable song. It had been twenty years since Bob Dylan released
"Knockin On Heaven's door" which was last hit song, released in 1974.
Since this law suit has been filed people tell me things that suggest that this is not the first time Dylan's songs
resembled other songwriter�s songs.
One allegation suggests that Dylan's song "Shelter From the storm" is extremely similar to John Fogerty's song
"Down on the corner." Fogerty's song was released and being played on the air in 1969, Bob Dylan's song was
released in 1974. [Five years after John Fogerty's song was released] I was shocked after hearing the resemblance .
Another allegation suggests that "Knock, Knock, Knocking On Heaven's Door" released by Dylan in 1974 is very
similar to the song "Helpless, Helpless, Helpless" released by Neil Young in 1968. [Six years before Bob Dylan's
song was released]
Of your reality
Plaintiff's also learned from deposition transcripts of other Dylan infringements and will they be produced upon
request of the court.
Trying to bring Dylan to the attention of the CD-buying audience of the Nineties, his record label again tried to
convert the indifferent mass market into purchasers. The title almost left room for legal action - only "Knockin'
On Heaven's Door" was a bona-fide hit. By no stretch of the imagination could the eleven minute "Brownsville
Girl" or nursery rhyme "Under The Red Sky" be termed "hits."
The necessary incentive for those who had everything anyway, was the inclusion of the contradictory "brand new
"Dylan classic" 'Dignity.' 'Dignity' was a rollicking , rock-a-billy chunk sliced off the "O-Mercy" sessions and
reproduced. It confirmed Dylan's inability to pronounce the word 'mirror' and a first for Bob -this name checked a
member of the British royal family. Otherwise Volume 3 was a satisfactory treading water exercise. Dignity was
nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.
In a sworn deposition Elliot Mintz a ten year associate of Bob Dylan and Bob Dylan's media relations� person
testified under oath :
"Under the subject of mistruths spoken to your client during these conversations, he would frequently ask me to
pass along information, ask questions about Bob, or to Bob about him. I in fact told him that I would and that I
did."
By Steven M. Kramer - Do you recall saying the following to Mr. Damiano, sir - - You state at the top of the
page, or at least it appears that you that you state, "My job here is to pass along information to Bob." Do you
recall saying that sir?
Elliot Mintz deposition: - "First of all it is untrue secondly Bob Dylan does just fine he writes and sings his own
songs."
[The above statement was testified to on May, 30, 1996. It had been over five and a half years since Bob Dylan
released one newly written original song.]
In a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997, Bob Dylan released only one newly written original song titled
"Dignity."
All other songs besides "Dignity" released by Bob Dylan during this seven year span, were songs previously
released by Bob Dylan, traditional folk songs, and songs taken from songs in the public domain. 's attorneys ask
Judge Simandle permission to file a motion to hold James Damiano, in contempt of court for the use of this Web
site. September 5, 1997.
"As we advised your chambers yesterday, September 4, 1997, it has come to our clients' attention that plaintiff,
James Damiano, is using a website located at virtue@planet.net to disseminate information about his claims
against Mr. Dylan and Sony."
"The purpose of this letter, therefore is to request leave of court to file a motion seeking to have plaintiff held in
contempt."
Judge Simandle incorrectly described the issues of fact in this law suit.
Judge Simandle opined in his decision that "Taking these allegations as true Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work."
The true issue of fact is that for years defendants CBS Records and Dylan associates, solicited Plaintiff James
Damiano's songs as specified in the complaint.
This solicitation more than suggests the "copying of "plaintiff James Damiano's songs. Although Plaintiff
Damiano's attorney did not submit much of the substantiating evidence to the court {why I don't know }
solicitation was still listed as an allegation. Judge Simandle never asked for any proof of that solicitation.
the most
hypocritical hypocrite
Damiano Copyright 92
Plaintiff has engaged in litigation with Bob Dylan for over five years and defendants have alleged to the court that
plaintiff committed fraud by trying to "extract" not "extort" but "extract" money from Bob Dylan.
Although Defendants suggest fraud as their defense, they do not back up their allegation with a counter suit. In
other words no counter suit or counter-claim has been filed by defendants and or Bob Dylan.
Any red blooded Attorney or Judge knows that if the defendants do not file a counter suit, this could only mean
that the issues of fact can not substantiate such a claim and that the defendants have no legitimate defense or
offense.
Defendants failure to contest the issues of solicitation creates a diversion of the truth so as to avoid having to
answer obligatory questions identifying the difference between Judge Simandle's description of Plaintiffs
demonstration of "access" as opposed to a more incriminating description of Plaintiffs demonstration of
Defendants "solicitation" of James Damiano's music.
It is these facts of solicitation which disable the defendants from filing a counter suit.
Please note that for everyday that this web site is up and running the fact is documented that the defendants do
not contest the issues of fact, the evidence of solicitation or the statements set forth in this web site declaration.
Therefore the reader can conclude that the statements and evidence set forth in this web site are true.
Otherwise Bob Dylan's attorneys would download this site, send it to Judge Simandle and then ask to hold James
Damiano in contempt.
Dylan's attorney's eventually downloaded Plaintiff's website and produced it to the court upon which Judge
Simandle eventually entered it upon the record during Plaintiff's hearing for contempt of violating Judge Joel B.
Rosen�s confidentiality order.
The court should note that in a sworn videotaped deposition Elliot Mintz testified below.
# 5. By Steven Kramer: During what period of time have you gone under that alias?
# 7. By Steven Kramer: Are there any documents that you have in your
possession, at your office or anywhere else that purport to identify you as Mitch Burman?
# 9. NOTE: Mr. Mintz testified that he went under an alias for sixteen years yet does have even one document in
his possession purporting to identify him as that alias.
# 12 By Steven Kramer: How long has Mr. Dylan been your client sir?
# 13 Mr. Mintz: Since, I believe, October of 1986 approximately - - ten years. [Page 7 par. 22]
# 14 By Steven Kramer: Do you recall ever giving Mr. Damiano your fax number? [page 67 par. 15]
# 16 By Steven Kramer: Thank you. When you need to reach Mr. Dylan, how do you reach him? [page 69 par. 3]
# 19 Elliot Mintz: If he is in Los Angeles, yes. If he is on the road I try and locate him that way. [page 69 par. 7]
# 20 At Mr. Mintz's deposition: [page 31 para. 22 through page 33 para. 13] Mr. Mintz testified:
# 25 By Steven Kramer: Can you list for me the times that you lied to him?
# 26 Elliot Mintz: First of all, all of my conversations with Mr. Damiano were telephonic. To the best of my
knowledge, I have never met him. During the course of these telephone conversation you are asking for specific
examples- -
# 27 NOTE: As per the testimony of Mr. Mintz, the record reflects that a conversation took place between Mr.
Mintz and Mr. Damiano in April of '91. This conversation was recorded on tape. In said conversation and in Mr.
Mintz own words he documents the date of the conversation by stating to Mr. Damiano So as of today, as of this
moment, as of the end of April 1991,". This conversation is chronologically important and of extreme importance
in it's context.
# 28 NOTE. Mr. Mintz testified to being in correspondence with Mr. Damiano, one and a half years prior to this
recorded conversation. [Mr. Mintz also testified to being in correspondence one year and five months after this
conversation. A total of two years and eleven months of correspondence between Mr. Mintz and Mr. Damiano.]
# 29 By Steven Kramer: Now, and I think your counsel has shown you the spot on the transcript that I am
referring to, that I have in my notes. In April of "91, do you remember stating to Mr. Damiano, sir, "I remember
talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago, and part of getting on the right track would be never calling this
number at the hour you called over the weekend." Do you recall saying that? [page 72 par. 19]
# 31 Second the court should please note that Mr. Mintz's statement "I remember talking to you very clearly a
year and a half ago", documents Mr. Mintz's involvement with James Damiano one and a half years prior to Mr.
Mintz's statement. A study of the context of this statement and viewed chronologically is of vital importance in
evaluating the credibility of Mr. Mintz's testimony and will be referred to later in this brief.
# 32 Also, Mr. Mintz's statement "part of getting on the right track would be" is a clear cut statement informing
Mr. Damiano, that Mr. Mintz, believes that Mr. Damiano is capable of getting on the right track.
# 33 Not only does Mr. Mintz testify to admitting that Mr. Damiano is capable of getting on the right track, he
even proceeds to tells him what not to do to get on that track. "Part of getting on the right track would be never
calling this number at the hour you called over the weekend."
# 34 Not ironically, Mr. Mintz also states to Mr. Damiano in this same conversation "So I'm hoping that this
conversation will be our last one with respect to this matter." The court should ask what other matter would Mr.
Mintz have with Mr. Damiano?
# 35 Referring to the same April 1991 recorded conversation between Mr. Mintz and Mr. Damiano, Mr. Mintz
testified:
# 36 By Steven Kramer: But you knew from conversations with Mr. Damiano, did you not, sir, that he had
consulted lawyers about his claims? In fact, when he told you that, you made comments that connoted some
feeling that you wanted to not have any further contact with him. Would that be fair? [page 50 par.]
# 37 Elliot Mintz: I recall him mentioning to me that he had consulted an attorney. Once he said that he had
consulted an attorney. I thought that, that would be an appropriate point for us not to have any additional
conversations.[page 50 par. 9]
# 38 Mr. Mintz's testimony reflects conflict: This testimony compared chronologically reflects total conflict:
# 39 Mr. Mintz's first testimony, "I remember talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago."[circa April 1991]
, documents correspondence between Mr. Mintz and Mr. Damiano as far back as November of 1989, one and a
half years prior to Mr. Mintz testifying that he thought April 1991 " was an appropriate point to not have any
additional conversations" with Mr. Damiano.
# 40 Why did Mr. Mintz, keep in correspondence with Mr. Damiano from November of 1989 to April of 1991.
# 41 Even more ironic and revealing of Mr. Mintz's involvement with Mr. Damiano is the fact that even after Mr.
Mint testified that he thought April 1991 was an appropriate point to not have any additional conversations with
Mr. Damiano, he still in fact did keep in correspondence with Mr. Damiano. Mr. Mintz testified to the fact that he
was still having conversations with Mr. Damiano in October of 1992. If Mr. Mintz thought to not have any
additional conversations with Mr. Damiano why did he proceed to do so?
# 42 Of equal importance is what was discussed between Mr. Damiano and Mr. Mintz during this period.
Testimony reflects that Mr. Mintz's testimony is once again in blatant conflict: Let's look at this statement once
again
# 43 Elliot Mintz: "Once he said that he had consulted an attorney, I thought that would be an appropriate point
to not have any additional conversations."
# 44 Note . The fact remains that Mr. Mintz did indeed keep on talking to Mr. Damiano until October of 1992.
# 45 Comparing Mr. Mintz's April 1991 statement to Mr. Damiano "I remember talking to you very clearly a year
and a half ago" [circa 1991] to Mr. Mintz's testimony " I thought that would be an appropriate point to not have
any additional conversations" [referring to circa April 1991] , one must ask why Mr. Mintz was talking to Mr.
Damiano one and a half years prior to thinking the thought "I thought that would be an appropriate point to not
have any additional conversations."
# 46 One can conclude that Mr. Mintz is not telling the truth :Let us compare side by side what Mr. Mintz
testified to saying to Mr. Damiano to what he testified to in his sworn deposition:
Statement # 1 Statement # 2
[Circa April 1991] [Circa April 1991]
"I remember talking to you "I thought that would be an
very clearly a year and a appropriate point to not
have half ago" have any additional
conversations."
# 47 Statement # 3 Statement # 4
# 48 Note: This "I remember talking to you very clearly a year and a half ago and part of getting on the right track
would be never calling this number at the hour you called over the weekend" was stated to Mr. Damiano by Mr.
Mintz in the April 1991 recorded conversation." Mr. Mintz also testified to having almost a half a dozen
conversations with Mr. Damiano: [page 131 par. 25 through 132 par. 25]
# 49 By Steven Kramer: When I just said, when you said you said in the transcript that you discussed it with Mr.
Dylan, that would be a lie; correct?
# 51 By Steven Kramer When you said to Mr. Damiano that Mr. Dylan had no recollection of receiving those
things, that was a lie?
# 53 By Steven Kramer: When you said that Mr. Dylan told you that he did not take any songs, that was a lie?
# 55. By Steven Kramer: When you said - - just to speed this up, at 152, the top of the page. When you said to
Mr. Damiano, "I can't help out more than I have helped out. We have had almost a half a dozen conversations. I
have asked Bob - - "That is Bob Dylan?
# 57 By Steven Kramer: "I have asked Bob the questions that you wanted to have asked to Bob." That was a lie:
correct?
# 59 Continuing into the deposition of Elliot Mintz and comparing the statements made to James Damiano by Mr.
Mintz as opposed to his sworn testimony .
Let us compare:
# 60 Statement # 5 Statement #6
# 61 Mr. Mintz's statement "Part of getting on the right track would be" clearly displays Mr. Mintz's intentions to
have further correspondence with Mr. Damiano.
# 62 Mr. Mintz also does not ask Mr. Damiano, to not call him any more. "Part of getting on the right track would
be never calling this number at the hour you called over the weekend."
# 63 Statement # 7 Statement # 8
# 64 Note: The court should also note that this testimony by Mr. Mintz, documents that as far back as November
of 1989, Mr. Mintz was having correspondence with James Damiano yet, in October of 1992 one month shy of
three years later Elliot Mintz testified to still having conversations with Mr. Damiano even though Mr. Mintz
testified :
# 65 Once again Mr. Mintz's testimony is in direct conflict. Mr. Mintz testified to admitting that in an April 1991
conversation with James Damiano, after Mr. Damiano mentioned the word attorney to him Mr. Mintz, concluded
that he should not have any more contact with Mr. Damiano yet, Mr. Mintz testified that a year and a half later,
in April 1991 he was still talking to James Damiano.
# 66 By Steven Kramer: When was the last time you recall you have spoken to Mr. Damiano, sir? [page 173 par.
11]
# 67 Elliot Mintz: What does the transcript reflect? The tape, what date did he affix to it? I will go by whatever he
put on the page. It seemed accurate to me.
# 68 [Note] Mr. Mintz's testimony "Once he said that he had consulted an attorney, I thought that would be an
appropriate point for us not to have any additional conversations" is in reference to the April 1991 recorded
phone conversation between James Damiano and Elliot Mintz. Mr. Mintz's testimony reveals that in prior
conversation the word "attorney" had not been mentioned by Mr. Damiano. [As per Mintz deposition] [emph.
added]
# 69 [NOTE] Also as per Mr. Mintz's testimony that if the word had been mentioned Mr. Mintz would not have
had any more correspondence with Mr. Damiano.
# 70 By Steven Kramer: The second transcript, I believe is October '92, if I am not mistaken. Is it your testimony
that the last time you spoke to Mr. Damiano was October of 1992, sir?
# 71 Elliot Mintz: I don't recall any conversations with Mr. Damiano after this.
# 72 By Steven Kramer: Let's see if that is the last date that appears on this transcript
# 74 By Mr. Snyder: The last date that appears on a transcribed conversation is October 2 of 1992. That is bates
stamped 227 and 228.
# 75 By Mr. Kramer: Is it your testimony, sir, that you have not spoken to Mr. Damiano since October of '92.
# 77 Mr. Mint testified to being in correspondence with Mr. Damiano for a total of two years and eleven months,
one month shy of three years, between the dates of November 1989 to October of 1992.
# 78 By Steven Kramer: Do you recall stating the following to Mr. Damiano, sir? This is regarding some faxes that
he sent to you. So you have it in context. He asks you the following question: "Are you going to send me my
songs back that I faxed to you?" And you replying, "Uh, they wouldn't even show up on the fax, because the
quality of the original faxes came through to me - - in other words, they didn't print out that well. They will just
be kept in a safe place." Do you remember saying that to Mr. Damiano? [page 47 par. 5]
# 87 Mr. Mintz: No
# 89 Elliot Mintz: The only way I can answer the question is to let you know that when the faxes originally came
through my machine, the printing was virtually illegible for one reason or another. [Page 48 para 12]
# 90 At page 48 paragraph 12, of his sworn deposition Mr. Mintz changes his testimony testifies' to the fact that
the faxes came through his machine hit the air then disappeared. Faxes don't normally do that.
# 91 Comparing Mr. Mintz's statement "for one reason or another" to what he next testified to at page 50
paragraph 23, of his sworn deposition, one must wonder why Mr. Mintz suddenly had a compelling need to
explain why the faxes from Mr. Damiano were allegedly illegible.
# 92 Mr. Mintz first testified to "The print was virtually illegible for one reason or another
# 93 In Mr. Mintz's next testimony regarding the quality of the Mr. Damiano's faxes to him, Mr. Mintz states "The
papers that I had destroyed were illegible papers as a result of the disappearing fax ink process."
# 95 Statement # 9 Statement # 10
# 96 Statement # 1. Mr. Mintz's statement # 2 reveals doubt as to why the faxes were allegedly illegible however
in Mr. Mintz testimony at statement # 2 he claims to not know why the faxes were illegible. It is this change in
Mr. Mint'z testimony that reveals and documents Mr. Mintz dishonesty, total disregard for the truth, and his
attempt to mislead the court.
# 97 Statement # 2. Mr. Mintz's statement, reveals no doubt as to the alleged reason the faxes were allegedly
illegible. Why?
# 99 May we now compare more of Mr. Mintz's testimony. Not only did Mr. Mintz change his testimony
concerning the alleged reason that the faxes were allegedly illegible, but he also changed his testimony
# 100 Mr. Mintz changed his testimony after testifying that the faxes were "virtually illegible" to "The papers that
I had destroyed were illegible papers as a result of the disappearing fax ink process." [page 50 para. 23]
# 101 Mr. Mintz's testimony at [50. 23] leaves an open question as to whether or not the faxes had print on them
him when he proceeded to file them in a file cabinet in his office. However sooner or later Mr. Mintz will have to
define the word "virtually" to the court and answer yes or no to whether there was readable print on the faxes that
came out of his machine. Either way even though he's changed his testimony from one statement, to another, to
another Plaintiff needs not say anymore and the court should grant a motion for the impeachment of Mr. Mintz as
a witness.
# 102 Note: Mr. Mintz will have to decide which one of his testimonies he would like to choose for the jury to
believe. The first: "Uh, they wouldn't even show up on the fax" the second: "In other words they didn't print out
that well" The third: "They were virtual illegible" or the fourth : "The papers that I had destroyed were illegible
papers as a result of the disappearing fax ink process." Mr. Mintz's testimony at page [50 para. 23]
# 103 It is my understanding that it would take at least seven years for the ink to disappear on a fax if not ten
years. I'm sure Dylan's management uses all state of the art equipment which is years ahead of its time. In fact the
Plaintiff still has in his possession the original fax receipts, documenting exact date of which the referenced faxes
are referred , and the print is still to this date and five years later extremely legible .Let us compare Mr. Mintz's
testimony side by side.
Statement # 11 Statement # 12
October 1992 April 1991
# 105 Then to top it all off Mr. Mintz testified that he took those blank pieces of paper, and put them in a file
cabinet until he decided to destroy them by shredding them four or five years later.
# 106 By Steven Kramer: You use the word "shred," is it that you shredded those documents, sir? [page 174 para.
14]
# 108 Please note not to mention the fact that Mr. Mintz destroyed the faxes anyway.
# 109 Relating back to Mr. Mintz's admission of stating to James Damiano "Uh, they wouldn't even show up on
the fax, because the quality of the original faxes, came through to me, in other words they didn't print out that
well."
# 110 A jury would have to believe that Mr. Mintz, eluding to the fact that he said to Mr. Damiano "Uh, they
wouldn't even show up on the fax," is blatantly in direct conflict with another statement made by Mr. Mintz in the
very same paragraph referring to the faxes when he testified that he stated to Mr. Damiano "in other words they
didn't print out that well"
# 111 There is a blatant conflict between the phrase "Print out that well" and "They wouldn't even show up on
the fax". Let us compare side by side what exactly Mr. Mintz did testify to saying:
# 112 To conclude that there is no difference between the four statements is absurd. It was only later, in his
deposition, that Mr. Mintz developed the idea and took the position that the faxes did not print out at all and that
they were "virtually illegible for one reason or another" which is in blatant conflict to what he testified to saying
to James Damiano that "They didn't print out that well" to "They wouldn't even show up on the fax" to what he
testified to the second time in his deposition that "The papers that I had destroyed were illegible papers as a result
of the disappearing fax ink process."
# 113 There is no difference between changing a testimony and changing a story, However there is no way to
change the truth.
# 114 The fact that Mr. Mintz initially testified to the fact that he stated that " The faxes did not print out 'that
well'" is a blatant admission that the faxes did indeed print out, if not as good as a freshly typed page, at least to
the extend that they would be recognizable enough for someone to at least able to identify who the faxes came
from. Any juror could conclude by Mr. Mintz's statement that these two statements made by Mr. Mintz are in
direct conflict of each other. This is a blatant lie spoken by, admitted by, and testified to by Elliot Mintz.
# 115 The blatancy of the conflicting testimony within the deposition of this witness in an insult to the integrity
of this court.
# 116 Mr. Mintz then testified he said to Mr. Damiano concerning Mr. Damiano's materials "so they will just be
kept in a safe place".
# 117 There would be no reason to keep twelve pieces of blank paper in a safe place which brings us to the next
blatant lie of Mr. Mintz.
# 118 If all of the above does not convince the court that Mr. Mintz is a blatant chronic liar perhaps more
conflictive testimony will reinforce the nature of his disgraceful integrity.
# 119 Other testimony that goes even further than far beyond just a suggestion of Mr. Mintz's dishonesty is the
fact that, if there was nothing on the page, how would Mr. Mintz, know the faxes were sent to him by Mr.
Damiano or someone associated to Mr. Damiano.
# 120 Mr. Mintz testified to the fact that he knew the faxes were sent by Mr. Damiano or someone associated
with Mr. Damiano.
# 121 By Steven Kramer: Let me make sure I am clear, so the record is clear. You don't dispute the fact that these
were, in fact, and I think you have said it, they came from Mr. Damiano? Yes, these documents, these pieces of
paper? [page 54 para. 3]
# 122 Elliot Mintz: They came through my fax machine. Could I say for an absolute certainty that they came from
Mr. Damiano, I couldn't say for an absolute certainty. It would be my guess that he sent them to me. It could have
come from somebody else, somebody who he was involved with possibly.
# 123 Other sworn testimony from Mr. Mintz's secretary Ms. Capre again goes of even further beyond just a
suggestion of Mr. Mintz's dishonorable, disgraceful disregard for the truth. Mr. Mintz's own secretary Ms. Capre
testified that she could read the faxed material from Mr. Damiano:
# 124 By Steven Kramer: Do you remember receiving any faxes from Mr. Damiano, my client?
# 125 Ms. Capre: I do recall receiving a fax from him, but I did not - -have time to look at it. It did not relate to
what I was currently working on. We got a lot of faxes each day. Unless it pertained to me, in something that I
was working on, I wouldn't have time to read it and I would just put it on his desk. [Capre deposition page 14
para. 18]
# 126 No where in Ms. Capre's testimony does she state that the faxes were illegible. It is obvious that she had no
problem reading the fax from Mr. Damiano. Ms. Capre's testimony is in direct conflict with Mr. Mintz's statement
"They wouldn't even show up on the fax" to They didn't print out that well", and "They were virtually illegible."
again reiterating the degree of Mr. Mintz's dishonesty.
Statement # 15 Statement # 16
# 129 This blatant obvious, conflictive testimony does not end there. Mr. Mintz on to testify :
# 130 Mr. Mintz then testified: With respect to the fax paper, I don't think it would make any difference at all. In
retrospect, if I came in here with 12 blank pieces of paper.
# 131 Mr. Mintz's sworn testimony at page 50 para. 9 is again in blatant conflict with his sworn testimony
# 132 By Steven Kramer: But you knew from conversations with Mr. Damiano, did you not, sir, that he had
consulted lawyers about his claims? In fact, when he told you, you made comments that connoted some feelings
that you wanted to not have any further contact with him. Would that be fair?
# 133 Elliot Mintz: I recall him mentioning to me that he had consulted an attorney. Once he said that he had
consulted an attorney. I thought that that would be an appropriate point for us not to have any additional
conversations.
# 135 By Steven Kramer: As of the time he said, "these people befriended me for eleven years, " did you
understand these people that he is referring to, he was talking to people at CBS?
# 136 Elliot Mintz: Referring to the transcript, in his own words, he does not say these people at CBS." Mr.
Mintz is correct. They are not Mr. Damiano's words. The actual person who spoke the words "these people at
CBS" were Mr. Mintz himself quote "but if you have some kind of legal problem with CBS then get the attorneys
to contact these people at CBS.".....[page 128 para 7]
# 137 By Steven Kramer: Who did you think he meant before you jumped to the opinion that he was delusional?
Who did you think he meant by these people"? [page 128 para. 8]
# 138 Elliot Mintz: It was my feeling that he was associating himself with people he claims over a period of
eleven years. What kind of people. I don't know other fans perhaps."
# 139 By Steven Kramer: Did you have any idea who he meant by "these people befriended me for eleven years"?
Yes or no?
# 140 Elliot Mintz: Did I have a specific idea as to who these people were that he was talking about, no.
# 142 Statement # 17 Statement # 18 "Did I have a specific idea as "But if you have some kind
to who these people were he legal problem with CBS
was talking about, no." get the attorney's to
contact these people at CBS." The Deposition continues:
# 143 By Mr. Mintz: "Did I have a specific idea as to who these people were he was talking about, no.
# 144 Steven Kramer: Yet you are telling the jury that even without a semblance of an idea of who he was meant,
you cite that statement, "these people befriended me for eleven years.' as evidence of Mr. Damiano suffering from
a delusional? [page 128 para. 22]
# 145 By Steven Kramer: Do you recall saying the following to Mr. Damiano, sir - - You state at the top of the
page, or at least it appears that you state, "My job here is to pass along information to Bob." Do you recall saying
that sir? [page 75 par. 10]
# 149 By Steven Kramer: You say "Which I think I have." Do you see that sir?
# 153 May we now once again compare Mr. Mintz's testimony. Mr. Mintz testified to having the transcribed
conversation with Mr. Damiano. A side by side comparison reveals the nature of Mr. Mintz's dishonesty:
# 156 Statement # 21 Statement # 22 "Which I think I have." " I thought that would be an appropriate point to
not have any additional conversations" # 157 By Steven Kramer: ....to exhaust your recollection and tell the jury
every time you lied to Mr. Damiano. Then I will ask you, have you now exhausted your recollect, so I hear
everything now.
# 158 Elliot Mintz: To the best of my recollection, I may have lied to Mr. Damiano when I have told him, "I cant'
talk with you any further, I have another call pending." I would be on the telephone and I would be buzzed and
I'd tell him, "Something very important has come up, I cannot continue this." Many times, not many times, but on
those occasions when he would ask me to pass along information to Mr. Dylan, I may have said to him, "I will try
to pass it along," or words to that effect.[page 32. para. 25 through page 33 para. 11.]
# 159 NOTE: Please note that these statements were only a some of many statements made to Mr. Damiano, and
recorded on tape.
# 160 By Steven Kramer: "What are your duties -- what have been your duties with Mr. Dylan in the last ten
years, sir?
# 161 Elliot Mintz responded: My duties fall under two basic categories. One is to function as a media
relation�s person or press person between Bob and the media. "The second is to deal with what we refer to as
delusional fans, problematic people who enter Mr. Dylan's life." [Page 10 par. 18 of deposition]
# 162 By Steven Kramer Are you telling the jury that Mr. Damiano was delusional? Yes or no? I want the answer
to that question please. If you would be so kind. Yes or no, was Mr. Damiano delusional?
# 163 Elliot Mintz responded: In my opinion, Mr. Damiano was at the time of these conversations delusional.
[page 82 par. 16]
# 165 Statement # 23 Statement # 24 "In my opinion Mr. Damiano "Many times, not many times was at the time
of theses but on those occasions, when conversations delusional." he would ask me to pass along along
information to Mr. Dylan I may have said to him "I will try to pass it along." # 166 Mr. Mintz's Testimony: [page
45 para. 20]
# 167 By Elliot Mintz: 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. I, in fact told him that I would and that I did."
# 169 Statement # 25 Statement # 26 "In my opinion Mr. Damiano "On those occasions when he was at the time
of these would ask me to pass along conversations delusional." information to Mr. Dylan, I may have said to him
I'll try and pass it along or words to that effect. # 170 Mr. Mintz testified to the jury that he thought Mr. Damiano
was delusional yet he told Mr. Damiano that he was passing along what something of Mr. Damiano's to Bob
Dylan. Whether Mr. Mintz identifies that something as information the fact is Mr. Mintz testified that he had in
his possession Mr. Damiano's songs. Once again Mr. Mintz's testimony:
# 173 3. I have asked Bob the questions that you wanted to have asked to Bob. Comparison of testimony:
# 174 Statement # 27 Statement # 28 "I have asked Bob the "It is my opinion that Mr. questions that you wanted
Damiano was at the time to have asked to Bob." of these conversations delusional." # 175 Statement # 29
Statement # 30 "I have relayed the messages " In my opinion Mr. that you wanted then to relay Damiano was at
the time of to Bob." these conversations, delusional." # 176 Statement # 31 Statement # 32 "In my opinion Mr.
Damiano "It is, my job here to pass was at the time of these along information to Bob." conversations delusional."
# 177 Mr. Mintz testified:[page 6 para. 3 through para. 25]
# 182 By Steven Kramer: Have you taken any seminars in psychology, psychiatry or mental health?
# 186 This testimony by Mr. Mintz goes without saying nor having to say anything about credibility:
# 187 Further testimony: There is no answer for this absurd testimony of Mr. Mintz. Mr. Mintz's testimony id in
blatant conflict with each and every one of these statements made by Mr. Mintz in his sworn deposition. How
many more lies will it take to dig Mr. Mintz out of this web of lies.
# 188 By Steven Kramer: You continue. "I have relayed the messages that you wanted to then relay to Bob." Got
that? That was a lie? [page 132 para. 11]
# 191 Statement # 33 Statement # 34 " I have relayed the messages "I thought that would be you wanted then to
relay an appropriate point Bob." to not have any additional conversations." # 192 How the court allows this
absurdity to continue is beyond all imagination however this is a documented account of the record
# 193 By Steven Kramer: When you said that to Mr. Damiano, "Which I think I have" were you lying to him?
[page 76 par 21]
# 195 By Steven Kramer: Going further down, sir. About midway, you say - - let's just put this in context. James
Damiano says, "You do remember about a year ago when I was at work, about a year and a half ago, when I was
at work and I asked you if you knew of anything, remember, you said Bob Dylan had the songs in his suitcase and
that he was going to read them." The transcript states you said "No, I never said that?" Then Mr. Damiano says,
you don't remember saying that? Then you say, "No, I did not say that. I remember our conversation, because I
checked my notes, that you said you gave some songs to a bus driver who claims he put them on Bob's bus." Did
you say those things? [page 77 par. 18]
# 199 By Steven Kramer: When you say, "I checked my notes," were you lying to him?
# 201 By Steven Kramer: Assuming the date to be correct, sir, would it be fair to state that you comment at page
148, towards the bottom of that paragraph, "Now if you feel that in some way you have been wronged here and
you have spoken to attorneys about this, I am not a lawyer an I am not in a position to make any legal judgment,
but if you have some kind of a legal problem with CBS, get the attorneys to contact these people at CBS." would
it be fair to state that you made that statement, if we are just trying to pinpoint what came first, the chicken or the
egg, that statement came before apparently years before, four years before you destroyed the documents: correct?
# 202 Mr. Mintz: Oh the faxes that disappeared, yes. Years before. Years before.
# 203 By Steven Kramer: When you said that to him were you being sincere?
# 204 Mr. Mintz: I was not being sincere. [page 121 par. 1 to 5]
# 205 Although Mr. Mintz is testifying that he lied to Mr. Damiano in an attempt to save face and make it appear
that he is retracting all his statements of solicitation Mr. Mintz's is once again in blatant conflict with his
testimony.
# 207 By Steven Kramer: I would like to ask you in point of time, Mr. Mintz, if you would, sir, whether the
statement that you made on page 148 occurred before or after you destroyed the faxes that you referred to earlier?
# 208 By Mr. Snyder: You are referring now to the document that begins with Bates stamp No. 143?
# 212 Mr. Snyder: It does and it is dated April, 1991. It comes from a document dated April, 1991.
# 213 By Steven Kramer: Assuming the date to be correct, sir, would it be fair to state that your comment at page
148, towards the bottom of that paragraph , "Now if you feel that in some way you have been wronged here, and
you have spoken to attorneys about this, I am not a lawyer, and I am not in a position to make any legal judgment,
but if you have some kind of legal problem with CBS, get the attorneys to contact these people at CBS," [circa
April, 1991] would it be fair to state that you made that statement, if we are just trying to pinpoint what came first
the chicken or the egg, that statement came before, four years before you destroyed the documents: correct? [pg.
119 through 120 par. ]
# 214 Elliot Mintz: Oh, the faxes that disappeared, yes. Years before. Years before.
# 215 When comparing the absurdity of Mr. Mintz's conflicting testimony " But if you have some kind of legal
problem with CBS, get the attorneys to contact these people at CBS." to Mr. Mintz's testimony at [ page 128
para. 6] "Referring to the transcript, in his own words he does not say these people at CBS" to Mr. Mintz's
testimony on page 119 & 120 "but if you have some kind of legal problem with CBS, then get the attorneys to
contact these people at CBS" is blatant proof that Mr. Mintz cannot keep his lies straight.
This changed testimony is reason enough for the impeachment of Mr. Mintz as a crucial witness and definite
grounds for reversal. Compared below side by side are the two statements:
# 216 Statement # 35 Statement # 36 "In his own words he does not "but if you have some kind of he does not
say these people legal problem with CBS, then these people at CBS." get the attorneys to contact these people at
CBS."
# 218 Statement # 37 Statement # 38 "It is my opinion that "but If you have some legal Mr. Damiano was at
problem with CBS, then get the time of these the attorneys to contact these conversations, was people at CBS."
delusional.
# 219 Mr. Mintz's emphatically continues to perjure himself: Additional testimony attempting to explain Mr.
Mintz's involvement with James Damiano proves to be in direct conflict with his initial testimony is transcribed
below. Once again Mr. Mintz changes his testimony:
# 220 By Steven Kramer: [page 132 para. 16] Going to 153, you agree with me that this statement at the bottom,
your last statement, quote - - in point of time, "Then you have got a real gripe with them. With these people. That
is who you have the gripe with." You made that statement before you destroyed the faxes: correct?
# 222 By Steven Kramer: Yes I just want the jury to be clear about the point of time that all these statements were
made prior to the destruction of the documents: correct?
# 224 Back tracking to what Mr. Mintz testified to saying to Mr. Damiano "Then you have a real gripe with them.
These people. That is who you have the gripe with" and comparing it to Mr. Mintz's testimony at page 128
paragraph 6 "referring to the transcript, in his own word he does not say these people at CBS", Mr. Mintz then
suddenly once again changes his testimony from his very previous testimony and answers Mr. Kramer's next
question:
# 225 By Steven Kramer: [page 128 para. 8] Who did you think he meant before you jumped to the opinion that
he was delusional?
# 226 Elliot Mintz: It was my feeling that he was associating with people he claims over a period of eleven years.
What kind of people, I don't know. Other fans perhaps. They tend to gravitate to each other. We notice that
profiles live with one another.
# 227 It is obvious that Mr. Mintz just lies whenever he feels. Let us compare Mr. Mintz's testimony side by side:
# 228 Statement # 39 Statement # 40 "Then you have a real gripe "Other fans perhaps" with them. These people.
That is who you have the gripe with." # 229 Blatant conflict:
# 330 Statement # 41 Statement # 42 "But if you have some kind of "Other fans perhaps" legal problems with
CBS then get the attorneys to contact these people at CBS."
# 331 The absurdity of Mr. Mintz's conflictive testimony is as highly an insult as a spit in the face. Let's go
further:
# 332 As of the time he (James Damiano) said, "These people befriended me for eleven years, " did you
understand these people that he was referring to, he was referring to people at CBS? He wasn't talking to people
# 333 Elliot Mintz: Referring to the transcript in his own words he does not say these people at CBS.
# 334 By Steven Kramer: Who did you think he (James Damiano) meant before you jumped to the opinion that
he was delusional? Who did you think he meant by " these people"?
# 335 Mr. Mintz: "It was my feeling that he was associating with people he claims over a period of eleven years.
What kind of people, I don't know. Other fans perhaps. They tend to gravitate to each other. We notice that
profiles live with one another."
# 336 Beside a tremendous lack appreciation of the mere people who buy Dylan's albums and buy Bob Dylan
concert tickets, and besides Mr. Mintz's again changing testimony Plaintiff notes to the court that, Mr. Mintz's
testimony is once again aversive, and in blatant conflict with his prior testimony.
# 337 On October 10th, 1992 in a recorded phone conversation between James Damiano and Mr. Mintz, and in
which Mr. Mintz testified to having with James Damiano the record and transcript reflects:
# 338 Mr. Mintz : James, I spoke to that man at CBS yesterday and I explained to him that there is nothing I can
do. That I cannot deliver any written material to Bob.
# 339 Mr. Damiano: The songs that I sent to you did you think they were any good?
# 340 Mr. Mintz: I cannot render an opinion 'cause I have nothing to do with songwriting. It's not what I do. I'm
the wrong guy to ask. I'm technically not in the music business. I don't know anything about them. But in terms of
presenting any unsolicited material and sending it over to Bob, that is something I am not legally allowed not to
do. I explained it to that man I spoke to yesterday as well."
# 342 Mr. Mintz: To Anthony and asked Anthony to explain it to you also.
# 343 Mr. Damiano: So, Bob won't get to see blind leading the Blind?
# 344 Mr. Mintz: Correct. In other words, there's a standard practice with all musicians, well, I won't say with all
musicians, but I know with Bob that he's not allowed to look at unsolicited material. This is what avoids any
technical problems in the future."
# 345 Not ironically in the same October 10th, 1992 recorded conversation when asked by Mr. Damiano "Right I
see, The number that you gave me is that in your home?"
# 356 Mr. Mintz responded: "They all go to an answering service and the answering service cross connects to
where ever I happen to be."
# 348 Mr. Damiano: So, if I faxed you something, you'll get it tonight?
# 349 Mr. Mintz: Yes but if its another song, the response will be the same. I can't physically send it over to him.
# 350 Plaintiff wishes to stop here and compare Mr. Mintz testimony at [page 48 para. 8] to statements made in
the October 10, 1992 conversation that Mr. Mintz testified to having with Mr. Damiano..
# 351 When Mr. Damiano asked Mr. Mintz "if I faxed you something You'll get it tonight" Mr. Mintz replied
"Yes."
# 353 Statement # 43 Statement # 44 "the printing was virtually "Yes " illegible.
# 344 Statement # 45 Statement # 46 "Uh they wouldn't even show "Yes, but if it's up on the fax." another song."
# 346 Statement # 47 Statement # 48 "as a result of the disappearing "Yes, but if it's fax ink process" another
song."
#347 The testimony of Mr. Mintz in this litigation is shameful. It is a pity that a man can in a court of law just
make up whatever answer he would like for the jury to believe..
# 348 Statement # 49 Statement # 50 "When the faxes originally "Yes but if its another song" came through my
machine they were virtually illegible"
# 349 Mr. Mintz's testimony is the epitome of dishonesty and disgrace. Mr. Mintz the extent of his disregard for
the truth, for the court, for the intelligence of the court. Not to mention that all the words and statements
compared have been Elliot Mintz's own words testified to under oath in a sworn deposition.
# 350 It is evident that Mr. Mintz could not keep his lies straight. Mr. Mintz's deposition is a perfect example of
the expression one lie leads to another.
# 351 May it be known that one and a half years later in a recorded phone conversation between Mr. Mintz and
Mr. Damiano, Mr. Mintz encouraged Mr. Damiano to write a letter to Bob Dylan: Mr. Mintz states:
# 352 Mr. Damiano: Okay, well I'm going to fax you one of the new songs and it's one of the best I've ever written.
# 353 Elliot Mintz: But James, didn't you hear what I just said?
# 355 Elliot Mintz: "This is my problem. I'm not allowed to. Legally I can't do anything with this written material.
The only thing you can do is you can write a letter to Bob through CBS, and in that letter you can say to him, do
you wish to receive any of my written material, any of my songs.
# 356 May we now take time to think about this statement made to James Damiano by Mr. Mintz "you can write a
letter to Bob"
# 357 Mr. Mintz goes on: You can write a letter to Bob through CBS, and in that letter you can say to him. Do
you wish to receive any of my written material any of my songs. Then if you should receive a letter from him,
signed by him where he says yes I definitely want to receive the material , please send it to me, with his signature
on it or a lawyer signing for him or something like that, then that is fine. Then he's asked for the stuff. If you hear
nothing back from him or any legal representative then you have to conclude that he would rather write his own
."
# 358 NOTE: Please note that the date that this statement was made by Mr. Mintz was October 10, 1992 after
Mr. Mintz correspondence with Mr. Damiano for over two years and eleven months since as per Mr. Mintz's
testimony [November of 1989][emph. added]. After Mr. Mintz received Mr. Damiano's materials he wanted Mr.
Damiano to write a letter to Bob Dylan. Must we go through every sentence of this statement and compare it to
Mr. Mintz's testimony.
# 360 Statement # 51 Statement # 52 "But if you have some kind of "You can write a letter of legal problem with
CBS, then to Bob, through CBS get the attorney's to contact and in that letter you can these people at CBS." say
to him. Do you wish to receive any of my material any of my songs"
# 361 Statement # 53 Statement # 54 "It is my opinion that Mr. "You can write a letter Damiano was at the time
of to Bob, through CBS, these conversation delusional." and in that letter you can say to him, "Do you wish to
receive any of material, any of my songs."
# 362 Need Plaintiff say more: Mr. Mintz must be stopped. This blatant lying cannot go on any longer. It is by
Mr. Mint's own testimony that he perjures himself to the court. Mr. Mintz must be impeached in regard to his
credibility.
The conversation continued: Mr. Mint'z testified that he read the transcript of this recorded telephone
conversation and that he did not take exception to it. Also sating that the date affixed during discovery the
conversation seemed "accurate" to him.
# 363 Mr. Damiano: Okay are you going to send me my songs back that I faxed to you?
# 365 Elliot Mintz: Uh, they wouldn't even show up on the fax cause the quality of the faxes came through to me.
In other words they didn't print out that well. They'll just be kept in a safe place.
# 370 May we back track to compare two statements Mr. Mintz testified to:
# 371 Statement # 55 Statement # 56 "Under the subject of mistruths "It is my opinion that Mr. spoken to your
client, during Damiano was at the time these conversations, he would of these conversations frequently ask me to
pass along delusional." information, ask questions about Bob or to Bob about him. I in fact told him that I would
and that I did.
# 372 Statement # 57 Statement # 58 "They will just be kept in a "It is my opinion that safe place" Mr. Damiano
was at the time of these conversations delusional."
# 374 By Steven Kramer: Going further down, sir. About midway, you say - - Let's just put this in context. James
Damiano says, "You do remember about a year ago when I was at work, about a year and a half ago, when I was
at work and I asked you if you knew of anything, remember, you said Bob Dylan had the songs in his suitcase and
that he was going to read them." The transcript states you said, "No I never said that." Then James Damiano says,
"You don't remember saying that?" Then you say, "No, I did not say that."
# 375 Once again Statement two reflects Mr. Mintz's reply to the question did you say to Mr. Damiano that Bob
Dylan had Mr. Damiano's songs in his suitcase and that he was going to read them. Please compare:
# 376 Statement # 59 Statement # 60 Under the subject of mistruths "In my opinion Mr. Damiano was spoken to
your client during at the time of these telephone these conversations, he would conversations, delusional"
frequently ask me to pass along information, ask questions about Bob, or to Bob about him. I in fact told him that
I would and that I did.
# 377 Although the question was never asked, let us now ask what information did Mr. Mintz pass along to Bob
Dylan concerning Mr. Damiano? Perhaps even more controversial is Mr. Mintz's testimony below:...[page 33
para. 7]
# 378 Statement # 61 Statement # 62 "Under the subject of mistruths "Many times, not many times spoken to
your client during but on those occasions, when these conversations, he would he would ask me to pass on
frequently ask me to pass along something to Mr. Dylan, I may information, ask questions have said to him, "I will
try to about Bob, or to Bob about pass it along," or words to that him. I in fact told him that I effect. [page 33
para. 7] would and that I did.
# 380 Statement # 63 Statement # 64 "I in fact told him" "I may have told him" # 381 Blatant conflict between
testimony only:
# 382 Statement # 64 Statement # 65 "That I would and "I will try to pass it that I did" along"
# 385 [page 148 par.9] By Orin Snyder: He also states that in a later conversation you told him "Dylan read the
songs and that he thought they were good and that he may use them." Did you say that to Mr. Damiano?
# 388 Elliot Mintz: I did not say that to Mr. Damiano. I would never say such a thing to Mr. Damiano or to any
other profile or suggest anything of that kind.
# 390 Elliot Mintz: First of all, it is untrue, secondly, Bob Dylan does just fine. He writes and sings his own
songs."
# 400 NOTE. The date Mr. Mintz testified to making the statement "Bob Dylan does just fine, he writes and his
own songs was made May 30th, 1996.
# 401 Note: In a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997 Bob Dylan released only one newly written original song
titled "Dignity".
# 402 As of Mr. Mintz testifying to "Mr. Dylan writes and sings his own songs" It had been six years and six
months that Bob Dylan had released one newly written original song. By Steven Kramer: Would you tell the jury
what you believe is delusional in that statement, if you could just quote the words, literally quote the words.
[page 93 par. 23]
Mr. Mintz.: Quoting from 0147, where he says, "They brought me back stage. Dylan walked directly toward me. I
handed him the book and he turned around and got on the bus." Then his sentence later indicates, Eleven years
with CBS. They have taken my songs for eleven years." His final sentence, "I mean what's that all about?" Well I
have problems with him. [page 94 par. 2 ]
Mr. Mintz: The following would support that hypothesis, in my mind. I am quoting, "I mean, these people
befriended me for eleven years." That is not the end of his sentence,
Mr. Mintz seemed to have forgotten the fact that he had previously admitted and eluded to other facts in his
testimony which blatantly conflict with his testimony.
Should the court need to evaluate the credibility of Mr. Mintz's testimony any further it need just ask.
May the court please note that Katheryn Baker testified that during her interview with Bob Dylan he stated to her
that he did not have enough songs that he wanted to put on an album.
From Katheryn Bakers deposition: "I went back in the transcript and that not entirely accurate what he did say
was that he didn't have enough songs that he wanted to put on an album"
By Steven Kramer: And was anyone else present at the interview?: . Baker: Yes Elliot Mintz who was at the time
Bob Dylan's publicist.
Elliot Mintz testified to the fact that as early as the middle of 1989 he was corresponding with James Damiano
Tony Tiller: Jim and I were friends. I considered Jim a very good friend.
Tony Tiller: I was promoted to associate director of marketing services. Referring to a Bob Dylan concert at Jones
Beach theater in Long Island Mr. Tiller also testified:
By Steven Kramer: Let's go back to the Jones Beach concert if we may to the time when you offered the tickets to
Mr. Damiano before the concert actually took place ok?
By Steven Kramer: During that point in time, when you offered the tickets to him and before he actually went to
the concert, did you ever say to him or suggest to him that maybe he should bring some of his songs with him.
By Steven Kramer: Any, do you deny saying that or is it that you just don't recall one way or the other?
By Mr. Tiller: I deny suggesting to Jim that he bring songs along with him. I did however concur with him when
he asked me do you think I should bring my songs with me, I said sure why not what could it hurt.
JAMES DAMIANO
Plaintiff
CV (95-4795-(JBS)
-against-
1. Defendants obtained a protective order designating all discovery materials as confidential granted by Judge Joel
B. Rosen based on the allegation that For several years preceding this lawsuit, Mr. Damiano sought to
commercially exploit his merit less allegations against Bob Dylan.
a. Plaintiff contests both statements "commercially exploit" and "Merit less allegations"
2. Orin Snyder's certification in support of defendants' motion to hold James Damiano in contempt for violations
of said protective order begins with the title language "Damiano's Pre-Litigation Attempts to Profit From His
fraudulent Allegations."
3. This is the same language that defendants used to obtained said protective order.
( A true and correct copy of the pages containing this language is attached here to see Exhibit A)
4. Plaintiff contests the statement "fraudulent allegation" made in this statement and draws the attention of the
court to a letter sent to James Damiano dated May 7, 1996 from the Library of congress containing the exact
language quoted herin :
"Dear Mr. Damiano: This is in response to your expedited request received in our office on March 26, 1996 via
Steven M. Kramer office for certified copies of the deposits PAU-103-561 and 3 others.
A search conducted at the Copyright Offices Deposit Copy Storage Area disclosed that the deposit entitled
Collective Songs By James Damiano registered under the number PAU 409-107 is in the progress of being
transferred to the Washington National Record Center.
At this time we are unable to provide you with a copy of that deposit. You may resubmit your request at a later
date and we will conduct another search for no additional search fee. (A true and correct copy of the May 7,
1996 letter sent to Mr. Damiano from the copyright office is attached hereto as Exhibit B)
5. Exhibit B is dated May 7, 1996 however defendants were able to obtain months before Damiano received said
letter from the copyright office.
6. Page 206 of the James Damiano deposition displays E X H I B I T S FOR IDENTIFICATION # 42 marked as
Mr. Damiano's certified 1982 copyright filing number PAU 409-107. This page factually documents that
defendants had in their possession plaintiff's copyright filing on May 16, 1996 whereas nine days before the
copyright office informed Mr. Damiano that it was unable to locate Plaintiff's copyright filing and that he may
resubmit his request for certified copies of the filing at a later date preferably 180 days later. (A true and correct
copy of the Page 206 of the James Damiano deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit C)
7. Again plaintiff draws the attention of the court to page 116 para 20 through page 117 para 15 of the Damiano
deposition.]
By Orin Snyder: Let me have the court reporter now mark, please, three documents for identification.
First will be Mr. Damiano's certified 1988 copyright filing number TXU 547786 bearing plaintiff's Bates stamp
L-003 through and including L 0073. Can we mark that as the next exhibit (Whereupon, Mr. Damiano's certified
filing number TXU 547786 marked defendants' Exhibit 41 for identification as of this date.)
By Orin Snyder : Next will be Mr. Damiano's certified 1982 copyright filing again certified with the number PAU
409-107 marked defendants' Exhibit 42 for identification as of this date.
pages 116 through 117 of the James Damiano deposition further documents that defendants were able to obtain
access to plaintiffs 1982 copyright filing months before plaintiff was able to obtain access.(A true and correct
copy of page 116 para 20 through page 117 para 15 of the Damiano deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit D)
8. Defendants cannot deny this fact issue certifies a deficiency in the credibility of the copyright office.
9. May this court also take into consideration other scenarios that might come into play. During the James
Damiano deposition plaintiff was caught dumbfounded when it appeared that song lyrics were missing from his
copyright filing of materials deposited for registration to the Copyright office. How is it that the defendants were
able to obtain access to plaintiff's 1982 copyright filing from the copyright office before plaintiff himself was able
to obtain access to his own registration? This fact issue exhibited in Exhibit's B, C and D offers an explanation to
the court.
10. PLAINTIFF CAN ALSO SUPPLY THE COURT WITH OTHER DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING
DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO PLAINTIFF'S COPYRIGHTS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO GAIN
ACCESS.
10A. How is it that the copyright office supplied defendants with a certified copy of James Damiano's 1982
copyright filing on or before May 16th 1996 yet were unable to supply plaintiff with a copy until months later?
11. Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Simandle acknowledge with consideration, Exhibit's B, C and D in
contention to defendants groveled description of plaintiff's allegations as being fraudulent and declare if not at
least as neutrally as possible the fact that human error exists and that plaintiff's materials deposited to the
copyright office could have been misplaced or lost either purposely or unintentionally.
12. Defendants highlight their own guilt by way of motion to the court to hold Damiano in contempt for allegedly
violating Judge Joel B. Rosen�s order designating all discovery materials as confidential.
13. Plaintiff denies and contests Orin Snyder's allegation that James Damiano sought to commercially exploit his
merit less allegations against Bob Dylan.
14. No factual unbiased evidence or testimony exists supporting Mr. Snyder's allegations of Mr. Damiano's
alleged exploitation of Mr. Damiano's allegations against Bob Dylan, other than Mr. Snyder's own opinion of Mr.
Damiano's correspondence to certain entities in which the defendants purport to identify as exploitation.
It is unconstitutional for this court to accept as truth, the biased opinion of the opposing parties attorney when no
unbiased facts exist, to support defendants statement regarding the alleged exploitation of Mr. Damiano's claims
against Mr. Dylan.
15. Secondly it was someone other than Mr. Damiano who initially suggested that these entities be contacted for
the purpose of searching for an attorney in assuming that these entities employed the best attorneys in the
respective areas of entertainment, copyright and intellectual property law.
"For several years preceding this lawsuit, Damiano sought to commercially exploit his merit less allegations
against Bob Dylan. Damiano completed an unpublished manuscript totaling over 100 pages entitled "Eleven
Years," which purport to document his now-discredited allegations of copyright infringement. After writing the
manuscript, Damiano sought to market it to various publishers. In addition, Damiano sent copies to, inter alias,
the television tabloid show a "A Current Affair", and The "New Yorker magazine. Damiano also placed an
advertisement for his defamatory claims in Rolling Stone magazine, a leading music industry publication, which
read "WOULD BOB DYLAN STEAL SONGS?' Read 'Eleven Years' w/recorded phone Calls. $15.95, Virtue
Books."
16. No unbiased fact issue exists that Mr. Damiano sought to market the manuscript "Eleven Years" to various
publishers.
17. The above certified statement of Orin Snyder highlights defendant�s own guilt by way of motion to the
court to hold James Damiano in contempt for allegedly violating Judge Joel B. Rosen�s order designating all
discovery materials as confidential. Defendants never officially or unofficially refuted, contested or denied any of
the issues of fact concerning their solicitation of James Damiano's songs, plaintiff's eleven year association with
CBS Records and his affiliation with Dylan associates, in which they contend Mr. Damiano allegedly sought to
exploit.
18. Without a denial from defendants, of plaintiff�s allegations concerning their solicitation of James Damiano's
songs, this court must consider Mr. Damiano's denial of defendant�s allegations of plaintiff's alleged
exploitation of his allegations against Bob Dylan as valid by fact. This fact must be acknowledged by the court
and the court must realize that any and all alleged allegations of exploitation of Plaintiff's claims against Mr.
Dylan are the mere opinion of Orin Snyder alone of which must be considered, as biased in nature and void by
fact.
19. Again plaintiff denies the allegation that he sought to commercially exploit his allegations against Bob Dylan
and that plaintiff's motive in contacting "A Current Affair", "The New Yorker" magazine and "Rolling Stone
magazine was to find an entertainment attorney capable of competing against the caliber of attorney's that Bob
Dylan and Sony Music Entertainment could monetarily afford.
20. Plaintiff's motive was also to officially and chronologically document through a published document,
defendants solicitation of plaintiff's materials by defendants. Both plaintiff's manuscript and website have now
been officially published.
21. No court can deny that the publishing of a document in itself has a value of truth especially if it is not
contested by anyone. This value of truth has carried a tremendous amount of weight in standing up for my rights
against the enormous giant Sony Music Entertainment, Bob Dylan and all of their resources.
22. Through the absence of a denial of these allegations by defendants and through the publishing of plaintiff's
manuscript "Eleven Years", I'm sure your Honor can see that plaintiff's motive was to chronologically document
his eleven year affiliation with John Hammond, John Hammond associates, CBS Records, Bob Dylan and also
defendants solicitation of Plaintiff's songs.
23. James Damiano, in his manuscript "Eleven Years" and in Plaintiff's website "Eleven Years" (designated as
Exhibit E ) merely stated the factual truth. The law provides as a matter of law that the truth cannot be libelous.
Therefore the truth cannot be exploited.
24. Defendant's also do not specify exactly what statement Mr. Damiano published in which they contend is
either factually incorrect, damaging to Bob Dylan, or an exploitation of merit less or fraudulent claims against
Bob Dylan.
25. It is possible to be found guilty in a court of law when the specific crime was never cited to the court? What
defendants are stating to Your Honor is Damiano is guilty but we'd rather not tell you what he is guilty of. What
defendants are stating is to just find Damiano guilty. But keep off the record exactly what it is he is guilty of.
26. Defendants only contention is that James Damiano disseminated discovery materials on the internet. What
defendants do not say is that James Damiano disseminated a portion of the testimony of Bob Dylan's publicist (
Elliot Mintz ) in which Mr. Mintz testified under oath in a video taped deposition:
"Many times not many times but on those occasions when he would ask me to pass along information to Bob, I
may have told him I'll try and pass it along or words to that effect"
27. Or that Mr. Damiano disseminated a portion of Elliot Mintz's testimony in which Mr. Mintz testified under
oath in a video taped deposition:
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"
28. Mr. Mintz's testimony is in blatant conflict with his previous testimony as displayed below:
"In my opinion Mr. Damiano was at the time of these conversations delusional"
29. In other words Mr. Mintz testified that he told Mr. Damiano that he was giving Mr. Damiano's songs to Bob
Dylan yet he accused Mr. Damiano of being delusional. Plaintiff invites any person in the legal world from
Kenneth Star to Laurence Tribe to compare this testimony and refute the fact that this testimony is not conflictive
and blatantly adverse.
30. Does the court chose to refuse to see the irony of Mr. Mintz's testimony?
31. Defendants Sony Music Entertainment and Bob Dylan do not contend that Plaintiff James Damiano is not
telling the truth about the issues of fact published in his manuscript "Eleven Years" (Exhibit # 5) nor do
defendants contend that Mr. Damiano is not telling the truth about issues of fact published on his website
concerning their solicitation of his songs, the eleven years history of Damiano's affiliation with CBS Records and
Bob Dylan through Mikie Harris, Tony Tiller, Elliot Mintz, Jeffrey Rosen, Mike Reed, Tom Masters, Richard
Fernandez, and John Hammond Sr. office.
32. Plaintiff's motive was also to officially document through a published document, defendants solicitation of
plaintiff's materials by defendants. Both plaintiff's manuscript and website have now been officially published.
34. The court must acknowledge and rule in light of the following evidence and that the truth cannot be libelous:
35. That the publishing of this truthful information cannot be libelous and that the truth cannot be exploited.
36. That plaintiff has the right to publish this information under the first amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
37. The court must acknowledge and rule in light of the absence of a denial by defendants of plaintiff's allegations
of defendant�s solicitation of plaintiff James Damiano's songs.
38. The court must acknowledge that any denial by defendants could have been made to the court more than four
years ago when the suit was filed.
39. To reiterate defendants guilt even further defendants never contested any of the issues or facts set forth in
Plaintiff's manuscript "Eleven Years" even after defendants were made aware of the following advertisement
which was published in Rolling Stone magazine that read "WOULD BOB DYLAN STEAL SONGS?' Read
'Eleven Years' w/recorded phone Calls. $15.95, Virtue Books."
40. Defendants do not contend that plaintiff is not telling the truth about the fact issues published in his website
alleging that they made promises to the plaintiff concerning his songwriting career.
41. In fact Defendants do not contend that plaintiff James Damiano is not telling the truth about any of the
information published on his website therefore the information contained in plaintiff's website cannot be libelous.
In fact Defendants do not contend that plaintiff James Damiano is not telling the truth when he published the fact
that in a span of seven years from 1990 to 1997 Bob Dylan only released one newly written original song titled
"Dignity" in which he claimed to have independently written. All other songs released on Bob Dylan albums
during those years were songs taken from songs in the public domain, traditional folk songs and previously
written and released Bob Dylan songs. Should the court lay out all seven albums on a table and review the credits
it will reveal that the albums were produced or arranged by Bob Dylan (Not written by Bob Dylan). I believe the
albums display just the title of the songs and do not display the name of the original author of the songs. It would
also be interesting to know whether Dylan played royalties to any of the families of the original authors of these
songs. Nevertheless Defendants do not contest said statement published on Mr. Damiano's website.
42. Again the truth cannot be libelous therefore the truth cannot be exploited.
43. Without a denial from defendants of the allegations published on plaintiff's website, defendants admit to their
own guilt by contending that the issues of fact cited on Plaintiffs' website are damaging to Bob Dylan. Here,
clearly the defendants admit to the court themselves that the issues of fact they refuse to contest and refuse to
deny are damaging to Bob Dylan. Apparently admitting that plaintiff's allegations are meritous. Again the truth
cannot be libelous.
44. The absence of a denial by defendants is evidence enough to vacate Judge Joel B. Rosen's confidentiality
order designating all discovery materials as confidential and to also reverse Judge Simandle's decision of finding
James Damiano guilty of contempt for violations of that order.
45. Not many songwriters can honestly say that their material was solicited by Bob Dylan and or CBS Records.
This fact alone is of public interest.
Defendants manipulated Judge Joel B. Rosen to grant said protective order based on the biased testimony of the
following biased witness's both of whom have submitted materials and projects to Sony Corporation with hopes
of gaining Sony's services such, as distribution and promotion. Both of whom could monetarily benefit from a
contract with Sony Corporation.
Scott Patterson: I draw the attention of the court to the following testimony of Scott Patterson's deposition which
reveals that Mr. Patterson's testimony was biased: And that at the time of Mr. Patterson's depositions, he was
awaiting a response from Sony concerning the submission of a musical projected that Mr. Patterson's company
had submitted to Sony Music.
25 BY MR. KRAMER:
144
1 Patterson
14 companies.
20 a country label.
Further, defendants contend in the Orin Snyder certification that "Damiano subsequently entered into a written
agreement with an individual named Nicholas Kuntz regarding the commercial exploitation of his claims". The
agreement provided as follows:
This is to certify that on this day January 28th, 1994 that James Damiano assigns the monetary [sic] settlement of
any legal issues awarded to James Damiano regarding his legal suits [sic] involving CBS Records and / or Bob
Dylan to both Nicholas G. Kuntz and James Damiano cooperatively and any and all profits derived [sic] from the
sale or production of this material adapted to the mediums of publishing, recording, video, television or film are
to be shared and distributed equally.
The sale and or development of any project based upon the property "Eleven Years" the manuscript written by
James Damiano documenting this matter, for the mediums of publishing, recording, video, television or film shall
be developed, produced and distributed through the mutual efforts of this alliance between the consenting parties
and no other rights regarding the property "Eleven Years" for the purposes of publishing, recording, video,
television or film development, production or distribution may be assigned or acted upon without the express
written consent of both parties.
Defendants fail to mention Mr. Kuntz has rescinded this contract. Also in a letter to James Damiano Mr. Kuntz
writes:
" I understand that "For the record you are in need of a clarification from me as to the nature of the "agreement"
that I testified to in my deposition for your law suit involving Bob Dylan and yourself. I would like to add that I
am offering this information willingly and that the agreement we had has been voided, as I have previously
submitted in writing, and that there exists no further "agreement" between us.
Mr. Kuntz acknowledges that at the time this alleged, invalid agreement was signed plaintiff James Damiano was
under not only duress but under a great deal of duress as follows.
At the time that this agreement was drawn up between us, there was a great deal of stress and tension personally
in both out lives., as you well know. You were at a time in your life that had a great deal of confusion and turmoil
involving almost every aspect of your life - Your relationship with your parents, your marriage as well as the
severed relationship with your son, who meant a great deal to you. As if those things were not enough, you were
also facing a tremendous number of questions and issues regarding the situation with your prior dealings with Bob
Dylan, his associates and Sony Music.
I, on the other hand, was also facing numerous professional and personal issues that were also demanding.
Together we puzzled daily as to how to manage your situation so that a more positive handling of those issues
could be arranged. It was not always possible to make the best decision as to what should be done at any given
time.
Mr. Kuntz goes on to explain the intentions of his actions and his goal involving correspondence written in James
Damiano's behalf which was to find an attorney.
One thing is and was always clear regarding the matter involving Bob Dylan and Sony Music. That was that you
needed a lawyer to assist you in bringing this matter forward in the manner necessary. That was always our goal,
right from the beginning. In our respective personal positions, however that was easier said than done and
required a considerable effort over many months.
That night that you called me, around 11pm, I believe you had been out with your Dad and your anticipation
before that evening was high that this would be a positive meeting with him apparently it was not, because you
called from a diner in Toms River and he had left you there with no way to get back to my office in Wall
Township where you had been staying at the time.
It became apparent to me, after you called asking if I would come to get you, that my commitment, if I was going
to proceed to help you any further that I already had, was going to be the primary source of support for you. That
would mean more time that would have to be devoted, money that would have to be spent to carry out whatever
needed to be done - i.e. trips to New York City - and other resources or expenses that would have to go for things
like printing, phone calls, and other incidentals such as Fed-Ex charges.
I was working at the time with extremely limited funds, trying to support a family and working desperately to keep
a failing business alive. So, I made a decision and that was that if I was going to be devoting all of this to your
effort, I wanted to be assured that I would have a say in what was going to be the path and circumstances we
would be facing. I decided that I wanted to have an official and signed agreement with you, more for the sake of
your realizing that I was making this decision and what this commitment on my behalf might mean.
We had never talked about this kind of a thing prior to that evening, however, I wanted you to realize that I was
making a much bigger commitment than just helping a friend out who needed a hand. In short, I was now about to
devote almost all of my efforts and attention to helping you get a lawyer and that I was going to do my best to not
have any further distractions to that goal.
So, I hastily wrote up the agreement and brought it with me to pick you up from the diner. I walked in and you
were very distraught. You had just been left there by your father and that was because you had another
problematic confrontation with him.
I told you that from here on in that if I was going to have to be your support, in every sense of the word, that I
wanted to know that we were not going to make any mistakes. To insure that, we were going to be "partners" in
the sense that we discussed and agreed upon future courses of action. I then presented you with the agreement.
Mr. Kuntz reiterates the amount of duress plaintiff James Damiano was under the night the agreement was signed
by Mr. Damiano. I would like to draw the courts attention to the following statement made to James Damiano by
Nicholas Kuntz the night the agreement was signed. Mr. Kuntz stated to Mr. Damiano in a rural diner at 12:30 in
the morning quoting Mr. Kuntz himself "Well, if you're not going to agree and sign it, I will leave you here!"
Mr. Kuntz continues: You had just had a very trying evening, one of many at that time, and said that you couldn't
think of anything like that at the time. I told you, "Well, if you're not going to agree and sign it, I was going to
leave you here!" That took you by surprise, which it was intended to do and you thought for a moment. Then you
said something like "Oh, what the hell," picked up the pen and signed it. Then it was over. We never talked about
it again, we didn't need to. That's why it was such a surprise that I even mentioned it in the deposition. Due to the
nature of the questioning at the deposition, I couldn't not mention it and not be truthful. It probably would have
been easier if I hadn�t brought it out, however, I knew that the truth of how it came about and why, would be
important, regardless of how the defense would perceive it and try to use it to their advantage, which they
obviously have.
I think it's obvious, though, that our only intent was to make sure that you got a lawyer to help bring your case
forward, because that's all we did. That's all we ever worked on, that's all we ever planned. My intent in even
creating that agreement was so that, in effect, you would have no other choice but to consult me on major issues
so that I could help you not make a mistake. At the time it was important, however, after that night we literally
forgot about it.
I would like to direct the courts attention to the specific sentence in Mr. Kuntz's letter which states:
"Well, if you're not going to agree and sign it, I was going to leave you here!"
Clearly no court would decide that this is or ever was a valid binding agreement, especially since Mr. Kuntz
specifically acknowledged even other duress that James Damiano had been under at the signing of this document.
The order for confidentiality granted by Judge Joel. B. Rosen was based on the incompleted and misrepresented
testimony of Nicholas G. Kuntz.
This is war
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 2
C. DEFENDANTS HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION PLAINTIFFS MATERIALS FOR ELEVEN YEARS FROM
WHICH THE INSTANT LAW SUIT DERIVES.
E. PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY ROBERT CHURCH THAT JUDGE ROSEN'S
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER WAS BROADLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
G. TO THIS DAY DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT CONTESTED THE ISSUES JAMES DAMIANO'S SONGS.
THE COURT THAT DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT CONTEST THE ISSUES OF SOLICITAITON OF
PLAITIFF'S INTELECTUAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THEY STILL HAVE NOT DONE. THIS IS GROUNDS
ENOUGH FOR LIFTING SAID PROTECTIVE ORDER
L. PLAINTIFFS THIRD MOTIVE WAS TO HAVE DEFENDANTS DOWNLOAD THE WEBSITE AND
PRODUCE IT TO THE COURT. AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN GUILT.
T. PLAINTIFF AGREES TO NOT SELL ANY INFORMATION WHICH WAS PROTECTED UNDER JUDGE
ROSENS CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
U PLAINTIFF JAMES DAMIANO HAS A RIGHT TO TELL HIS STORY UNDER THE THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
V. PLAINTIFF'S FORMER ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED HIM IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS
DISBARED WHICH PREJUDICED PLAINTIFF AND CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION.
Argument
1A. The court must acknowledge and rule in light of the following evidence:
1B. That defendants Sony Music Entertainment and Bob Dylan do not contend that Plaintiff James Damiano is
not telling the truth about the issues of fact published on his website concerning their solicitation of his songs, the
eleven years history of his association with CBS / Sony Music and Bob Dylan's entourage and therefore the
publishing of this information cannot be libelous and plaintiff has the right to publish this information under the
first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
1C. The court must acknowledge and rule in light of the absence of a denial by defendants of plaintiff's
allegations of defendant�s solicitation of plaintiff James Damiano's songs.
1D. Defendants do not contend that plaintiff is not telling the truth about the issues of facts published in his
website alleging that they made promises to the plaintiff concerning his songwriting career.
1E. In fact Defendants do not contend that plaintiff James Damiano is not telling the truth about any of the
information published on his website therefore the information contained in plaintiff's website cannot be libelous.
The truth cannot be libelous AND THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD HAVE NO INTEREST IN
CONCEALING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. OR THE HISTORY OF
DAMIANO'S ELEVEN YEAR ASSOCIATION WITH CBS , SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT AND BOB
DYLAN'S ENTOURAGE.
1F. Without a denial from defendants of the allegations published on plaintiff's website, defendants admit to their
own guilt by contending that the issues of fact cited on Plaintiffs website are damaging to Bob Dylan. Here,
clearly the defendants admit to the court themselves that the issues of fact they refuse to contest and refuse to
deny are damaging to Bob Dylan and apparently admitting that plaintiff's allegations are meritous. Again the truth
cannot be libelous. The absence of a denial is evidence enough to vacate Judge Joel B. Rosen's confidentiality
order designating all discovery materials as confidential and defendant�s motion is proven to be a nullity.
1G. Without a denial from defendants this court must accept these issues of fact as truth and plaintiff has the right
to publish this information under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
1H. WHAT INTEREST DOES THE COURT HAVE FOR CONCEALING THE HISTORY OF FACTS OF THIS
CASE . IT IS NOT EVERYDAY THAT AN AMATUER SONGWRITER HAS HIS SONGS SOLICITED BY A
SONGWRITER OR RECO0RD COMPANY OF THE MAGNITUDE OF BOB DYLAN AND OR SONY MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT. THIS FACT IN ITSELF IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
1F. No part of James Damiano's website is damaging to Bob Dylan unless of course it is not the truth, otherwise it
is the defendants here who admit by lack of contesting the issues of fact and by not contesting Plaintiff's
allegation of defendants solicitation of his music that it is indeed the truth and by which in no possible lawful way
libels or makes liable James Damiano for delivering the truth for the truth cannot be exploited and therefore
cannot be libelous.
1G. All witness's deposed in this litigation were sworn to tell the truth.
a. This motion is also based in part on new findings of fact, of which were unknown to Plaintiff until very recently
and also other new findings of fact which were unavailable to Plaintiff also until very recently. These same finding
of facts incriminate defendants counsel and plaintiffs counsel of serious ethics violations which are detrimental to
the outcome of this law suit and by which acknowledged by and upon consideration of this court conclusively
constitute reversible error and judicially defeat summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Said new findings of fact found in 2a. are detrimental to the outcome of this law suit by which upon consideration
of this court conclusively constitute reversible error.
The opening statement of defendant�s motion in response to Plaintiff's motion of reconsideration pleads to the
court "This court is familiar with the troubled history of this case?" Plaintiff objects to this statement : Although
Mr. Johnson believes that this case has been troubling, he was still paid a hundred and fifty dollars an hour for his
trouble that's given, however what may have troubled Mr. Johnson's is that defendants counsel are caught red
handed of committing ethic violations serious enough to revoke their license to practice law.
With the development of the internet more and more facts come to light everyday. Plaintiff has discovered new
facts concerning key persons and key witnesses in this litigation that were simply unavailable before.
Defendants are caught red-handed committing ethical violations whereby the following evidence upon
consideration of this court shall be deemed conclusive. Said new findings of fact set forth in 3a are detrimental to
the outcome of this law suit by which acknowledged and upon consideration of this court conclusively constitute
reversible error.
Although Mr. Johnson does not state exactly what "troubling history" he is referring to, Plaintiff can only guess
that it may have something to do with the fact that the Plaintiff's former counsel Steven M. Kramer had a conflict
with the parties in this litigation.
It has come to the attention of the Plaintiff that Plaintiff's former attorney Steven M. Kramer ( now suspended
from the practice of law and disbarred in New York, Pennsylvania and other states ) was an associate of and an
attorney for the Defendants prior to his agreement to represent the Plaintiff. Mr. Kramer took numerous
depositions in this litigation. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Kramer refused to ask enough pertinent questions to
these witness's. It appears as almost evident and intentional that in some instances and on the most pertinent
questions Kramer dropped his line of questioning and in other instances suggested to the witness "Or is it that you
just don't recall" thus protecting the defendant's witness's. These unethical, and extenuating circumstances upon
consideration of this court conclusively constitute reversible error and it's existence defeats summary judgment.
May the court that that was not all.
During the video taped depositions both Mr. Kramer and Orin Snyder (Defendant's attorney) forgot that the
microphone was on. The conversation between Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kramer documents their collusion to the
record.
I respectfully direct the courts attention to the following two articles published in The Philadelphia Daily News in
which Steven M. Kramer is mentioned in both articles.
Not only does the Steven M. Kramer conflict legally constitute reversible error, It is also criminal for this court to
ignore Steven M. Kramer's conflict. Plaintiff respectfully request that this court refer Mr. Kramer's conflict to the
proper criminal and civil authorities.
Mr. Kramer's involvement in the following cases further support Plaintiffs allegation of Mr. Kramer's fraud and
conflict See also WMOT Enterprises, et al., v. Bank Leumi Le - Israel, B.M., st al. No. 84-2065 Also see CA
84-2622 Vedatsky vs. Kramer
Steven M. Kramer also entered his appearance in the Frankie Smith vs. WMOT Records lawsuit concerning
royalties on Frankie Smiths hit song "Double Dutch Bus" case identified as NO. CA 82-1275-NS. Steven Kramer
represented WMOT Records an affiliate of CBS / Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Plaintiff identifies the following exhibit below as " MELVIN, BLUE NOTES SUE OVER CASINO DRUG BUST
" and marked as Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 13
The suit, filed in Superior Court in Trenton, alleges Caesars gave the press false information about the arrests.
Melvin and the three group members were among 10 Philadelphia-area residents arrested at Caesars on drug
possession charges after police allegedly found cocaine and met amphetamine in an adjoining room.
The suit alleges Caesars falsely told the press that the group had rented the room where the cocaine was found,
making it appear the drugs belonged to the group. The lawsuit says the drugs didn't belong to any member of the
group, and the room was rented by a person with no connection to the group.
Steven Kramer, a Philadelphia lawyer representing the group, said Melvin and his musicians stayed at the Village
Motel and not Caesars during their stay in Atlantic City.
The suit seeks $10 million in damages each for Melvin, 44, and the three Blue Notes arrested: George Prettyman,
35, Cornell Grant, 25, and Rufus Thorne, 31.
A small amount of marijuana and a .32-caliber revolver were found in the room where the arrests were made,
police said. In addition to drug charges, Melvin and the others arrested were charged with conspiracy and
possession of a concealed weapon.
Plaintiff respectfully submits to this court Exhibit 2 in support of Plaintiff's assertion that Steven M. Kramer (
Plaintiff's former counsel) had a conflict in this litigation.
Exhibit 14
The following marked as exhibit 2 is titled LAUNDERING' TOOK RECORD CO. TO CLEANERS and identified
as Exhibit 2. Steven M. Kramer is mentioned in the article.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia Nov. 2, Jonathan H. Ganz, trustee of WMOT Enterprises
Inc., contends that Lavin and Stewart obtained an interest in the firm "by fraud," used it to "launder" profits from
Lavin's alleged drug dealings, then stripped it of its assets and threw it into bankruptcy.
Lavin and Stewart were aided in the alleged conspiracy by two officials of Bank Leumi's Philadelphia branch,
loan officer James Patterson and vice president Irving Feldman, the suit says.
Lavin, 29, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 10 and charged with being the kingpin of a 13-member
He was released the next day after posting 10 percent of $150,000 bail and has since disappeared, along with his
wife, Marcia, 28, who is six months' pregnant, and their 3-year-old son. He subsequently was indicted on Oct. 1
for allegedly evading $548,000 in income taxes.
Stewart, 42, was indicted the same day and charged with conspiring with Lavin to impede the collection of the
dentist's taxes.
Stewart, of Margate, N.J., was the boxing promoter at the former Playboy Casino Hotel and now operates a
limousine service in Atlantic City.
The trustee's lawsuit accuses Stewart, Lavin, Patterson, Feldman and Bank Leumi of engaging in "an organized
pattern of racketeering activity" and of ''unlawful diversion of WMOT's assets."
Patterson and Feldman, the suit charged, aided Stewart "to conceal their prior approval of loans" to
Stewart-owned companies that "were incapable of generating funds from legitimate sources to reduce the
outstanding indebtedness" of more than $1 million.
Donald C. Marino, Patterson's attorney, dismissed the allegations as "pure nonsense." "They don't have a single
witness to testify to any of this," said Marino.
Feldman said he left Bank Leumi 2 1/2 years ago and has no knowledge of the matter.
Edward S. Ellers, Bank Leumi's Philadelphia attorney, said the bank ''denies any wrongdoing, denies any liability
to any of the plaintiffs, and will vigorously defend its position."
Stewart could not be reached for comment. Joining trustee Ganz as plaintiffs in the suit are the new owners of
WMOT, lawyer Michael Goldberg, accountant Allen Cohen and brothers Jeffrey and Mark Salvarian.
Among the artists recording for WMOT, which has been inactive in recent years, were Fat Larry's Band, Philly
Creme, Blue Magic, Slick, Brandi Wells and Frankie Smith, whose single, "Double Dutch Bus," sold more than a
million copies.
A separate federal suit seeking $2 million in damages is pending in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against
Bank Leumi, Stewart and Patterson by attorney Steven Kramer, who represents the former owners of WMOT,
Steve Bernstein, Alan Rubens and David Chackler.
Kramer said he is seeking permission from U.S. District Court Judge Louis Bechtle to add Lavin as a defendant.
WMOT, incorporated in 1971, developed a reputation as an aggressive independent record producer specializing
in the "Philly sound."
In June 1980, the company reached an agreement with CBS Records that would ''assure effective marketing and
distribution of WMOT's records nationwide," said the Ganz lawsuit.
WMOT obtained an $80,000 line of credit from Bank Leumi in July 1980, the suit said, and by December of that
year had drawn out all $80,000.
Although the company had "earned substantial amounts" through record sales, WMOT was at that time
experiencing cash-flow problems because of a time lag between sales and actual receipt of money, the suit stated.
The agreement with CBS specified that WMOT would not begin receiving royalties until February 1981, the suit
said, causing the company to be faced with a cash shortage from December 1980 to February 1981.
Steve Bernstein, who was then WMOT's president of operations, said in an interview that he and his partners
asked Bank Leumi to increase WMOT's line of credit by at least $25,000 to keep the company going until its
royalties came in.
In return, Bernstein said, he and his partners offered in writing to assign $116,500 in royalties to Bank Leumi and
to mortgage their homes.
The bank officials WMOT dealt with, according to the suit, were Patterson and Feldman, who also were the loan
officers in charge of Stewart's Bank Leumi accounts.
Stewart owned four companies that owed Bank Leumi a total of $1,149,291 in December 1980, when WMOT
was seeking the credit increase, the suit said. In mid-December, Patterson and Feldman rejected WMOT's request
for a credit increase, and the record company turned to Stewart for help, the suit stated.
The lawsuit said Feldman "endorsed Stewart as a good customer of the bank with substantial financial resources
and a good deal of management experience." Feldman did not disclose that Stewart owed more than $1 million to
Bank Leumi, the suit said.
Bernstein said in the interview that he and his partners entered into an agreement with Stewart on Dec. 24, 1980.
Under the agreement, Bernstein said, Stewart would set up a new company, TEC Corp., which would assume all
WMOT's debts, pay the company's operating expenses, negotiate credit terms and lines with Bank Leumi, and
provide new capital.
In return, Stewart, through TEC Corp., would receive a 60 percent ownership interest in WMOT, said Bernstein.
Over the next nine months, according to the suit, "large sums of cash" were delivered by Lavin to Stewart, who
allegedly "laundered" the money by depositing it in WMOT's Bank Leumi account and other accounts Stewart
maintained at the bank. These funds were then transferred out to Stewart or Lavin "in a manner intended to make
tracing the funds difficult or impossible," the suit stated.
From January 1981 until March 1982, Lavin was paid $700 a week by WMOT although "he performed no
services whatsoever," the suit alleged.
Between January 1981 and May 1982, the suit stated, WMOT received more than $1 million in royalty checks,
including $841,123 from CBS. Bank Leumi permitted Stewart to use $540,000 of this to reduce the debt owed to
the bank by another Stewart company unrelated to WMOT, the suit said.
In addition, the suit said, "Leumi permitted to be improperly endorsed, negotiated and deposited to accounts
other than accounts of WMOT" CBS royalty checks totaling $288,000.
During the same period, the suit alleged, Stewart increased WMOT's debt to Bank Leumi from $80,000 to $1.3
million.
The Bank Leumi loans to WMOT were used by Stewart to pay off debts other Stewart companies owed Bank
Leumi, according to the suit.
"WMOT received more than $1 million in royalty checks, including $841,123 from CBS."
Steven M. Kramer also entered his appearance in the Frankie Smith vs. WMOT Records lawsuit concerning
royalties on Frankie Smiths hit song "Double Dutch Bus" case identified as NO. CA 82-1275-NS
Plaintiff�s former attorney, Steven M. Kramer also had executive orders sent directly to him from CBS
Records. (Now acquired by Sony Music.)
It is not only Plaintiff's opinion that Mr. Kramer�s involvement with WMOT Records is a conflict but also the
opinion of other attorneys.
Upon consideration of the evidence contained herein it is conclusive that Plaintiff's attorney as well as defendants
counsel prejudiced plaintiff James Damiano's case by the Steven M. Kramer conflict.
Said new findings of fact set forth in Exhibit 1, and 2 are detrimental to the outcome of this law suit by which
acknowledged and upon consideration of this court conclusively constitute reversible error.
Mr. Kramer has had other ethical problems in the past. Exhibit 15
Exhibit 3, is a segment of an article downloaded from the internet about Mr. Kramer citing Mr. Kramer's 38
sanctions and his "whole repertoire of habitual misdeeds".
Plaintiff moves the court to conclusively deem as truth the existence of the Steven Kramer conflict.
Plaintiff also moves the court to deem as truth that the Steven Kramer conflict prejudiced Plaintiff's case.
At this time this court cannot deny the existence of the Steven M. Kramer conflict.
In re Steven M. Kramer, 677 N.Y.S.2d 576 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Sept.24, 1998). The Respondent was admitted to
practice in New Jersey in 1983 and in New York the following year. Over the past 11 years, he has been
sanctioned, criticized, or otherwise punished by various courts 38 times for professional misconduct involving
numerous clients. In 1997, New York suspended him on an interim basis. See N.O.B.C. Current Developments
Summary (Nashville, February 1998). According to the New York Court, an abbreviated survey of his long
history of official reprimands reveals a "whole repertoire of habitual misdeeds" from refusing to cease acting on
behalf of a client who fired him, flagrantly violating discovery orders, filing frivolous claims, and making false
statements to a court.
In Re: Steven M. Kramer, M.R. 14573, 98 RC 1503 (Ill., March 23, 1998). Mr. Kramer was admitted in Illinois
in 1975 and New Jersey in 1983. The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended him for six months, and until
further order of the court, for failing to abide by his client's wishes to settle a case and for obtaining a proprietary
interest in the subject matter of his client's litigation. See N.O.B.C. Current Developments Summary (Nashville,
Feb., 1998). The Illinois Supreme Court suspended Mr. Kramer for six months and until he is reinstated in New
Jersey, as reciprocal discipline.
The facts stated within this document are detrimental to the outcome of this law suit by which upon
acknowledgement and consideration of this court conclusively constitute reversible error and judicially defeat
summary judgment in favor of the defendants
These unusual, unethical, and extenuating circumstances, issues of fact, statements of fact, admissions of guilt in
sworn statements made by the defendants, defendants continuous attempts to divert the true and incriminating
evidence from the court concerning all aspects of this litigation preclude this court from entering summary
judgment in favor of defendants Bob Dylan and Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
[E-mail] James_Damiano@excite.com
JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff, v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and BOB DYLAN, Defendants.
Background
The central claim of plaintiff's complaint is that Bob Dylan infringed six separate works which plaintiff had
composed and copyrighted. (Compl. at 3-6). As discussed in this court's Opinion of December 16, 1996, five of
the purported works were actually compilations of lyrics by plaintiff which were created for the first time in the
complaint. (Op. at 2-3). The sixth piece in plaintiff's complaint was an instrumental composition referred to as
"Steel Guitars." (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration)
In opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, rather than pursuing the five "works," plaintiff
formulated his argument to address fourteen different lyric fragments, eight of which were not even in the
complaint. The court nevertheless addressed each of the fourteen lyric claims and dismissed all of them on the
grounds that they were either non-copyrightable or had not been copyrighted prior to the lawsuit. Six lyric
fragments which were presented in plaintiff's complaint were not among the fourteen addressed by plaintiff in the
summary [**3] judgment papers and at oral argument. Those six claims were dismissed because plaintiff failed to
come forth with any evidence or argument in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to
those particular lyrics. (Op. at 6).
The court also granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's music infringement claim and his accompanying state
and federal claims. Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its decision with respect to the dismissal of his music
infringement claim, several of his lyric claims, and his state law claims. The court will address each argument
below.
II. Discussion
A. Standard for Reconsideration
Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, contains the standard to be
applied to motions [*634] for reconsideration. n2 L. Civ. R. 7.1(g) requires that the moving party set forth
concisely "the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Oritani v. Sav. &
Loan Ass'n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990). The Rule "does not
contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not originally presented." Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron [**4] U.S.A., Inc. 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988). Rather, motions for reargument succeed only
where a "dispositive factual matter or controlling decision of law" was presented to the Court but not considered.
Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987).
Further, there is a strong policy against entertaining reconsideration motions based on evidence that was readily
available at the time that [**5] the original motion was heard; and so the court may, in its discretion, refuse to
consider such evidence. Florham Park Chevron, 680 F. Supp. at 162-63. "Because reconsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, requests pursuant to these rules are to be granted 'sparingly.'" NL
Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996) (citing Maldonado v. Lucca,
636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986).
Defendants argued in their motion papers and at oral argument that the Exhibit 71 version had never been
registered with the Copyright Office. For that reason, the court dismissed plaintiff's musical infringement claim
with respect to the Exhibit 71 version [**6] of "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's
1982 copyright registration) because plaintiff failed to meet the prima facie element of proving ownership of a
valid copyright. See Whelan Assoc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1231 (3d Cir. 1986); Universal
Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975); Jarvis v. A & M Records, 827 F. Supp. 282, 288
(D.N.J. 1993).
The second version of "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright
registration) was registered with the Copyright Office in 1988, and although it was not originally identified by
plaintiff as an infringed work, the court analyzed the copyrighted version and found that there was no substantial
similarity between it and "Dignity." Therefore, summary judgment was granted on plaintiff's musical infringement
claim as plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.
Plaintiff now argues that the court erred in failing to consider the Exhibit 71 version, which he claims was finally
registered with the Copyright Office on December 5, 1996 -- after the summary judgment motion was briefed by
both sides, after oral argument on the motion, and nearly fifteen months after plaintiff's complaint was filed.
Plaintiff insists he is entitled to amend the complaint to include [**7] his post-complaint registration, citing the
liberal construction of Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P. He also points to the fact that the parties have already analyzed
the tape and submitted expert testimony on that version.
Significantly, plaintiff never sought to amend his complaint at any time prior to this court's decision on
defendants' summary judgment motion. In fact, plaintiff has still not sought leave of this court to amend his
[*635] complaint. Thus, there is nothing for the court to "reconsider" because plaintiff's amendment argument was
raised for the first time in this motion for reconsideration. See NL Industries, Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516
("Reconsideration motions . . . may not be used . . . to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.").
Moreover, even a liberal construction of Rule 15 would not permit the amendment of a complaint that has been
dismissed after more than a year of litigation. Bermingham v. Sony Corp., 820 F. Supp. 834, 862 (D.N.J. 1993)
(leave to amend complaint denied after action dismissed when plaintiff had opportunities to amend prior to
dismissal). Plaintiff could have sought leave to amend his complaint [**8] as early as June of 1996, when he
should have become aware through defendants' motion for summary judgment that the Exhibit 71 version was not
registered with the copyright office. He did not do so, however, and chose to join issue upon the non-copyrighted
version. At the time defendants' summary judgment motion was argued, the court could not consider the Exhibit
71 version of "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) as the
basis of an infringement claim because it was not registered with the Copyright Office. Plaintiff has offered no
justification for reconsidering that decision.
Plaintiff also argues that the court overlooked the "striking similarity of the background melodies" between
"Dignity" and the Exhibit 71 version of "Steel Guitars." (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982
copyright registration) As previously discussed, the court did not consider the Exhibit 71 version because it was
not registered, and thus could not have overlooked any portion of it. The court did however, determine that the
1988 version of "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) was
not substantially similar to Dylan's "Dignity" as it differed "in total concept and feel." (Op. at 16).
Plaintiff's moving papers do not indicate that he is seeking reconsideration of that finding. Thus, the court was
surprised to [**9] receive a document on March 18, 1997, entitled "supplement in support of motion for
reconsideration." Attached to the supplement is a statement by plaintiff's expert Paul D. Greene, Ph.D. pertaining
to the 1988 version of "Steel Guitars," (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright
registration) which had been fully analyzed and dismissed after the court concluded that there was no substantial
similarity from which appropriation could be inferred. In short, plaintiff now seeks to generate new expert opinion
testimony, after judgment has been entered, to contradict this court's finding upon matters which the court had
thoroughly considered when the matter was extensively briefed and argued. Neither L. Civ. R. 7.1 (g), nor any
known concept of jurisprudence, permits a party to generate new expert opinions and offer them, after the fact, as
evidence that the court had somehow overlooked.
The court will not, at this late date, consider evidence which could and should have been submitted earlier. This
court has previously held that "we are in fact bound not to consider such new materials, lest the strictures of our
reconsideration rule erode entirely." Resorts International v. Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc., 830 F. Supp.
826, 831 (D.N.J. [**10] 1992). Even if the court were to consider Dr. Greene's report, however, it would not
disturb the court's determination that summary judgment was appropriate as to plaintiff's music infringement
claim. As discussed in the court's Opinion of December 16, 1996, the final step of an infringement analysis is not
dependent on expert testimony. (Op. at 16). Instead, "the general test for determining substantial similarity is
whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the
copyrighted work." Warner Bros. v. American Broadcasting Co., 654 F.2d 204, 208 (2d Cir. 1981).
Finally, plaintiff attempts to argue in his motion for reconsideration, as he did prior to dismissal of the music
infringement claim, that the Exhibit 71 version is substantially similar to Dylan's "Dignity". Incredibly, to support
this argument, plaintiff submits for the very first time in his reply brief on this motion for reconsideration affidavits
from twelve individuals. Their purported "lay testimony" consists of form affidavits which all include the
following statements:
I have listened to James Damiano's song "Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982
copyright registration) marked exhibit # 71.
[*636] I [**11] have listened to Bob Dylan's son "Dignity" released on the Bob Dylan, Greatest Hits volume III
album.
It appears to me that the melody of "dignity" is similar to "Steel Guitars"(also identified as "Dignity" on James
Damiano's 1982 copyright registration)
Each of the affidavits is dated March 1, 1997, which was two and one-half months after this claim was
adjudicated. There is no explanation given for why these affidavits were not submitted earlier, in response to
defendants' summary judgment motion and prior to the resolution of this issue on summary judgment. This
evidence, like the supplemental expert statement, will not be considered on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
It should be abundantly clear to plaintiff that "[a] litigant seeking reconsideration must show that any new
evidence presented to the court was unavailable or unknown at the time of the original hearing." DeLong Corp. v.
Raymond Int'l, Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980). Plaintiff does not attempt to make such a showing, and
by his various attempts to relitigate previously resolved issues with the aid of previously unrevealed evidence,
mocks the reconsideration process.
Thus, the court will not reconsider its decision regarding the 1988 version or the Exhibit [**12] 71 version of
"Steel Guitars" (also identified as "Dignity" on James Damiano's 1982 copyright registration) as plaintiff has failed
to show that a dispositive factual issue or controlling decision law was overlooked. The entry of summary
judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's music infringement claim will not be disturbed.
Indeed, the court previously carefully considered more than fourteen separate lyrics by plaintiff, some which were
not even included in his complaint, before concluding that plaintiff could not establish a lyric infringement claim
for any of those lyrics. Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider six of his lyrics, which were all previously
dismissed for various reasons.
1. "Conceit is a disease"
Plaintiff contends that this phrase was infringed by the lyrics of Bob Dylan's 1989 [**13] song "Disease of
Conceit." In the Opinion of December 16, 1996, the court noted that plaintiff had not registered this lyric with the
copyright office. Although plaintiff asserted at oral argument that he was in the process of registering this lyric
when he submitted his opposition brief, he failed to produce any proof of filing to support his claim of pending
registration. (Op. at 8). Thus, summary judgment was granted as to this lyric because plaintiff failed to establish a
prima facie case of infringement.
Plaintiff now claims that he registered this lyric with copyright office on December 5, 1996, and argues that "by
way of amendment to the complaint it must be considered." (Pl. Br. at 6). As noted above, plaintiff has never
moved to amend his complaint as to either his music infringement claim or any of his lyric infringement claims,
nor does he now seek leave to amend. Moreover, as a practical matter, the court does not see how plaintiff could
establish that Dylan infringed a lyric copyrighted by plaintiff in 1996, in a song released by Dylan in 1989.
Plaintiff fails to provide a justification for reconsidering this claim which was dismissed for failure to provide
proof of [**14] ownership of a valid copyright. Plaintiff's post-complaint registration does not cure the defect
when he made no attempt to amend his complaint prior to the entry of summary judgment.
3. "Truer words have not been spoken [**15] and once again the truce is broken." This lyric, allegedly infringed
by Dylan's lyric "Truer words have never been spoken or broken" was fully considered by the court when it
rejected plaintiff's argument that Bob Dylan could not, without infringing plaintiff's work, use the clich� "truer
words have not been spoken" in combination with the rhyming word "broken," even when separated by many
intervening lines and ideas. (Op. at 11). Plaintiff has offered no reasons to reconsider this determination.
5. "I'm not sure of anything half the time anymore"/"Lost days and forgotten years"
These two claims which appear in plaintiff's complaint were among six lyrics expressly abandoned [**16] by
plaintiff when he failed to address them in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. These six lyric
were reproduced in the court's Opinion at page six, footnote 2, and summary judgment was granted as to each of
them since plaintiff failed to come forth with any evidence or argument with respect to those claims. (Op. at 6).
Further, at oral argument upon defendants' summary judgment motion, plaintiff's counsel assured the court that he
was limiting his case to the 14 lyrics contained in his opposition brief, and would not be seeking any further
consideration as to the claims which he failed to pursue. Defendants cite to the pertinent colloquy at oral
argument:
THE COURT: But the complaint, I understand I should more or less set aside because the infringements that are
alleged are the 14 items [contained in the Opposition Brief]
MR. KRAMER: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: Is that right? MR. KRAMER: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: Because if I decide
this case based on those 14 items, I don't then want a reconsideration motion by either side that says the dispute
was really different; it had to do with these six songs [contained in the complaint]. MR. KRAMER: [**17] I don't
think Your Honor would face that. THE COURT: All right. MR. KRAMER: At least not from plaintiff. (Tr. at
86). Despite these clear representations by plaintiff's attorney, the court now faces exactly what it was assured it
would not -- a reconsideration motion which seeks to revive two of the abandoned claims. Needless to say, the
court is not impressed with Mr. Kramer's cavalier disregard for his word as an officer of the court. Claims in
litigation are not fungible items to be abandoned and revived at will, rendering plaintiff's theories a moving target.
These claims will not now be considered when plaintiff had every opportunity to make these arguments in
response to defendants' motion for summary judgment but chose not to. Plaintiff's final point, that the court
overlooked plaintiff's overall argument that it was not the use but the combination of common words that formed
the basis of his claims, is completely without merit. Plaintiff argued this point at oral argument and in his papers.
Since he now does no more than express disagreement with the court's decision, his [*638] motion for
reconsideration as to his lyric infringement claims will be denied. See [**18] Panna, 760 F. Supp. at 435. E.
Plaintiff's State Law Claims
In his final argument, plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider the dismissal of his pendent state law
claims, arguing that although a work may not be copyrightable, it may still be the subject of a state claim. Plaintiff
originally raised claims for misappropriation of property, breach of confidence and fraud. He does not indicate
which of these causes of action is the basis of an argument that the court overlooked a dispositive fact or
controlling decision of law.
Plaintiff merely asserts that he presented evidence that plaintiff gave his lyrics to the defendants and that the lyrics
had not been used by defendants prior to plaintiff's submission. Plaintiff does not explain how this evidence, even
if accepted as true, establishes any of his state law claims. The court held in the December 16, 1996 Opinion that
plaintiff's misappropriation claim was pre-empted by federal copyright law. (Op. at 18). The court further held
that plaintiff failed to establish his breach of confidence claim because he offered no proof that defendants owed
him a duty or that such a duty could have been breached by their actions. [**19] Finally, the court held that
plaintiff failed to produce proof of direct misrepresentations by defendants or that his work was ever used,
incorporated or copied by Dylan. (Op. at 19). While plaintiff obviously disagrees with the court's conclusions, he
has pointed to no factual issue or controlling decision of law which was overlooked by the court in reaching these
decisions. To the extent that plaintiff cites case law that was not previously presented to the court and is not
controlling in this court, those cases will not be considered as support for this motion. Also, the court will deny
plaintiff's request that the court rely upon the recent case of Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396,
690 A.2d 575 (1997), because it has no relevance to this case. Sons of Thunder deals with a breach of contract
claim, which plaintiff has not asserted in this case. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his state law
claims is insufficient and will be denied. III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's Opinion of December 16, 1996,
granting summary judgment to defendants on all of plaintiff's claims, will be denied. [**20] Defendants shall have
twenty (20) days to apply for sanctions under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., and/or for statutory attorney's fees, as
previously detailed in the Opinion and Order of December 16, 1996. n3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - n3 Defendants' initial application for summary judgment on the merits was accompanied by
an application for dismissal as a sanction under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., for the filing of a complaint not
well-grounded in fact or law. (See Op. filed Dec. 16, 1996, at 2-3). The court deferred consideration of Rule 11
sanctions and/or for attorney's fees under Rule 11 or under the less demanding standard of the Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. � 505, until such an application could be filed, within fourteen days thereafter. (Id. at 3-4). When
defendants sought to enlarge the period to seek attorney's fees because of the prospect that plaintiff would be
seeking reconsideration, the court extended the application deadline until fourteen (14) days after decision of any
reconsideration motion, which is now further enlarged to give sufficient time to include costs and fees expended
in defense of this reconsideration motion as well. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**21] An appropriate order follows. JEROME B. SIMANDLE United States District Judge ORDER This matter
having come before the court upon plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's Opinion and Order dated
December 16, 1996, in which the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's
federal and state claims; and the court having considered the submissions of the parties; and for the reasons set
forth in the Opinion of today's date; IT IS this 20th day of August, 1997, hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration be and hereby is DENIED, and that any application by defendants for sanctions under
Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., [*639] and/or for statutory attorney's fees shall be filed within twenty (20) days hereof.
JEROME B. SIMANDLE United States District Judge
The New York law journal released the following article below.
It wasn't until a Web site carrying confidential deposition transcripts had attracted more than a million hits that
attorneys for Bob Dylan and Sony Records even caught on to the fact that there was a problem. Dylan and his
record company had been unsuccessfully sued by a New Jersey man who alleged that the veteran songwriter had
stolen lyrics from him. A confidentiality order for discovery material had been granted in 1996 after the
defendants argued that James Damiano sought to commercially exploit his allegations against Dylan. When the
case was thrown out of district court and then dismissed by the appellate court ( Damiano v. Sony Music
Entertainment Inc. , 975 F.Supp. 623), the defense attorneys figured that the defendant would continue to respect
the confidentiality order. But Damiano, who wound up representing himself after his attorney was disbarred in
New York and suspended in New Jersey, says he was frustrated by the injustice of his situation and has "a right to
tell my story," he said. After realizing that the information had been posted on Damiano's Web site, defense
lawyer Steven Johnson, of Philadelphia's Hecker Brown Sherry and Johnson, moved for a contempt finding
against Damiano, which was granted Oct. 29. The consequences have yet to be determined. Damiano, meanwhile,
has pulled down his Web site and has promised to try to contact those who've elsewhere posted deposition
testimony taken from the site. Johnson, for his part, says the case has taught him the need to make absolutely
clear -- as in perfectly plain English -- to opposing parties what their obligations are and make sure that a
confidentiality order explicitly addresses information that finds its way to the Internet. http://www.callaw.com
/weekly/glitz/glitzy15.html
Di Mari Ricker, a contributing writer at California Law Week , covers entertainment law for American Lawyer
Media.
Even after this article was published in the law journal Bob Dylan did not file a slander suit.
The song displayed below was submitted to Elliot Mintz,Tony Tiller and other members of Dylan's entourage.
Village coffeehouse
In a daze of thoughts
he took a break
the haze
He claimed to be a Christian
Christianity
Wanted me to see
To pray over me
Allegations exist that the melody line of "Knockin on Heavens Door" is the same melody line as Neil Young's
song "Helpless". Please note Neil Young's was released and played on the radio five years before Bob Dylan
released "Knockin on Heavens door". A similar allegation exists as to Bob Dylan's song "Like A Rolling Stone"
and "Hang On Sloopy". The melody line is the same. "Hang on Sloopy" was released and played on the radio
seven years before Dylan released "Like A Rolling Stone" Other allegations exist that Bob Dylan "Shelter From
The Storm" is the exact same melody line as John Fogerty's "Down Around The Corner" It is unconstitutional for
this court to accept as truth the biased contention of Bob Dylan's attorney, Orin Snyder, when no unbiased facts
exist to support Mr. Snyder�s allegation that James Damiano attempted to commercially exploit his claims
against Mr. Dylan, in which defendants utilized to obtain a confidentiality order in this law suit designating all
discovery materials as confidential and which Judge Simandle cited as the primary basis for the dismissal of this
law suit. It is also difficult to display the extent of Bob Dylan's guilt when the evidence which incriminates Mr.
Dylan is designated as confidential. "Bob Dylan's surreptitious solicitation of James Damiano's songs warrants a
mandate for justice to be corrected." Library of Congress registration number TXU 547-786 A paramount
signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System
Bob Dylan has pertinent information concerning allegations brought forth by his attorney's on his behalf and must
come to court to answer pertinent questions concerning his Motion to hold plaintiff James Damiano in contempt
for alleged violations of Judge Joel B. Rosen�s order designating all discovery materials as confidential. See
below notice for Bob Dylan to appear.
VS.
CV95-4795 (JBS)
BOB DYLAN. ET AL
NOTICE TO APPEAR
Please take notice that plaintiff, James Damiano shall subpoena Bob Dylan on November 11, 1999 at 1:30 PM, at
One John F Gerry Plaza, Camden New Jersey, 08010 to testify in the above case in reference to defendants
motion to hold plaintiff James Damiano in contempt for violations of Judge Joel B. Rosen�s order for
confidentiality.
Dated 11/11/99
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
James Damiano certifies that he served the foregoing notice to appear to Steven D. Johnson counsel for Bob
Dylan.
This lawsuit James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement Civil # 95-4795 (JBS) was dismissed
without prejudice by The Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle (Federal Court)Camden, District of New Jersey).
All documents and statements contained in this document have been produced to Bob Dylan's attorney Orin
Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder 500 5th Avenue New York New York.
against
Due to the amount of fraud committed in this suit Plaintiff James Damiano is forced to serve Bob Dylan through
the internet. A CD ROM containing the information cited in this website was sent to Bob Dylan's attorney Orin
Snyder of Parcher Hayes and Snyder
James Damiano hereby serves Bob Dylan via E-mail to Steven D. Johnson.
This website address has been e-mailed To Bob Dylan's attorney Steven D. Johnson
After six and a half years, thirty five hours of depositions, and after three and a half million dollars have been
spent on this litigation there has not been a counter-suit, libel suit, or defamation suit filed by Bob Dylan and or
Sony Music Entertainment.
Plaintiff's website declaration containing the material facts cited in this document was posted on the world wide
internet for six years and five months and defendants still to this date, June 1 2002 have not contested the issues
of fact or the issues of solicitation by defendants of plaintiffs songs cited herein.
James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
No unbiased facts, no unbiased evidence or no unbiased testimony exists to support Judge Jerome B. Simandle of
the United States federal court, District of New Jersey's decision to dismiss Plaintiff James Domino's lawsuit
against Bob Dylan for copyright infringement case no 95- 4795 (JBS).
the constituitional separation of powers prohibits the Governor's involvement in judicial matters. Given the nature
of your correspondence, I have asked Richard J. Williams, acting administrative director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts, which is part of the judicial branch of government, to review your concerns and respond to
you directly. I trust that the reply you receive will be helpful to you. Should you wish to contact Acting
Administrative Director Williams, you can write to the Administrative Office of the Courts, Richard J. Hughes
Justice Complex, P.O. Box 037, Trenton, NJ 08625, or call (609) 984-0078. Again, thank you for writing to
Governor Whitman. Best wishes. Sincerely, Matthew J. Buckley Aide to the Governor
Who brought it up
I wrote
Rosie
An aerial view of the "Reunion on the Mall" held as part of the Clinton/Gore Inaugural. With tents stretching
from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, it was reported to be the largest festival ever held on the Mall.
This photo was taken from a U.S. Park Police helicopter hovering so the top of the Monument is in the
foreground of the picture.
A dramatic night photo of the Washington Monument covered by lights during the ceremonies marking the
opening of the Clinton/Gore Inaugural. The Lincoln Memorial and a bank of spotlights are in the background.
This photo was taken from the top of the clock tower on the Smithsonian Castle building on the Mall.
Hillary Clinton greets visitors and shakes hands along a fence on the Mall in Washington during her visit to "The
Reunion on the Mall" held as part of the Clinton/Gore Inaugural.
An aerial view of the Lincoln Memorial during the "Call for Reunion," a two-hour outdoor concert kicking off the
Clinton/Gore Inaugural. Hundreds of thousands of people crowded onto the Mall for the free concert which
featured such entertainers as Aretha Franklin, Michael Bolton, Tony Bennett, Bob Dylan, Diana Ross and rapper
L-L Cool J.
The Clintons and the Gores wave to the crowd at the opening to the "Call for Reunion" a two-hour outdoor
concert kicking off the Clinton/Gore Inaugural. Hundreds of thousands of people crowded onto the Mall for the
free concert. Dec. 20, 2004 11:26am ET
The Early Show CBS Evening News 48 Hours 60 Minutes (SUN) 60 Minutes (WED) All Broadcasts
Bob Dylan appears on 60 Minutes in his first television interview in nearly 20 years. (Photo: CBS)
"I never wanted to be a prophet or a savior. Elvis maybe. I could see myself becoming him. But prophet? No."
Bob Dylan
The music legend talks to Ed Bradley about his career, the press, and his family. (Photo: CBS/60 Minutes)
(CBS) There is no living musician who has been more influential than Bob Dylan.
Over a 43-year career, his distinctive twang and poetic lyrics have produced some of the most memorable songs
ever written. In the '60s, his songs of protest and turmoil spoke to an entire generation.
While his life has been the subject of endless interpretation, Dylan has been largely silent. Now, at 63, he has
written a memoir called "Chronicles, Volume One." Correspondent Ed Bradley got to sit down with this music
legend in his first television interview in nearly 20 years.
Over more than four decades, Dylan has produced 500 songs and more than 40 albums. Does he ever look back at
the music he's written with surprise?
"I used to. I don't do that anymore. I don't know how I got to write those songs. Those early songs were almost
magically written," says Dylan, who quotes from his 1964 classic, "It's Alright, Ma."
"Try to sit down and write something like that. There's a magic to that, and it's not Siegfried and Roy kind of
magic, you know? It's a different kind of a penetrating magic. And, you know, I did it. I did it at one time."
Does he think he can do it again today? No, says Dylan. "You can't do something forever," he says. "I did it once,
and I can do other things now. But, I can't do that."
Dylan has been writing music since he was a teenager in the remote town of Hibbing, Minn. He was the eldest of
two sons of Abraham and Beatty Zimmerman.
How was his childhood? "I really didn't consider myself happy or unhappy," says Dylan. "I always knew that
there was something out there that I needed to get to. And it wasn't where I was at that particular moment."
In his book, Dylan writes that he came alive at 19, when he moved to Greenwich Village in New York City �
which at the time was the frenetic center of the '60s counterculture. Within months, Dylan had signed a recording
"You refer to New York as the capital of the world. But when you told your father that, he thought that it was a
joke," says Bradley. "Did your parents approve of you being a singer-songwriter? Going to New York?"
"No. They wouldn't have wanted that for me. But my parents never went anywhere," says Dylan. "My father
probably thought the capital of the world was wherever he was at the time. It couldn't possibly be anyplace else.
Where he and his wife were in their own home, that, for them, was the capital of the world."
"I listened to the radio a lot. I hung out in the record stores. And I slam-banged around on the guitar and played
the piano and learned songs from a world which didn't exist around me," says Dylan.
He says that he knew even then that he was destined to become a music legend. "I was heading for the fantastic
lights," he writes. "Destiny was looking right at me and nobody else."
"It's a feeling you have that you know something about yourself - nobody else does - the picture you have in your
mind of what you're about will come true," says Dylan. "It's kind of a thing you kind of have to keep to your own
self, because it's a fragile feeling. And if you put it out there, somebody will kill it. So, it�s best to keep that all
inside."
When Bradley asked Dylan why he changed his name from Robert Zimmerman, he said that was destiny, too.
"Some people � you're born, you know, the wrong names, wrong parents. I mean, that happens," says Dylan.
"You call yourself what you want to call yourself. This is the land of the free."
Dylan created a world inspired by old folk music, with piercing and poetic lyrics, in songs such as "A Hard
Rain�s A-Gonna Fall." These were songs that reflected the tension and unrest of the civil rights and anti-war
movements of the '60s.
It was an explosive mixture that turned Dylan, by 25, into a cultural and political icon - playing to sold out
concert halls around the world, and followed by people wherever he went. Dylan was called the voice of his
generation � and was actually referred to as a prophet, a messiah.
Yet Dylan says he saw himself simply as a musician: "You feel like an impostor when someone thinks you're
something and you're not."
What was the image that people had of him? And what was the reality?
"The image of me was certainly not a songwriter or a singer," says Dylan. "It was more like some kind of a threat
to society in some kind of way."
What was the toughest part for him personally? "It was like being in an Edgar Allan Poe story. And you're just not
that person everybody thinks you are, though they call you that all the time," says Dylan. "'You're the prophet.
You're the savior.' I never wanted to be a prophet or savior. Elvis maybe. I could easily see myself becoming him.
But prophet? No."
He may not have seen himself as the voice of the '60s generation, but his songs were viewed as anthems that
sparked a moment.
"My stuff were songs, you know? They weren't sermons," says Dylan. "If you examine the songs, I don't believe
you're gonna find anything in there that says that I'm a spokesman for anybody or anything really."
"It's ironic, that the way that people viewed you was just the polar opposite of the way you viewed yourself," says
Bradley.
Dylan did almost anything to shatter the lofty image many people had of him. He writes that he intentionally
made bad records, and once poured whiskey over his head in public.
He also writes that, as a stunt, he went to Israel and made a point of having his picture taken at the Wailing Wall
wearing a skullcap. When he went to Israel, he writes that the newspapers changed him overnight into a Zionist.
How did this help?
"If the common perception of me out there in the public was that I was either a drunk, or I was a sicko, or a
Zionist, or a Buddhist, or a Catholic, or a Mormon � all of this was better than 'Archbishop of Anarchy,'" says
Dylan, referring to being considered the voice of a generation opposed to everything.
Dylan was especially opposed to the media, which he says were always trying to pin him down. He wrote, "The
press, I figured, you lied to it." Why?
"I realized at the time that the press, the media, they're not the judge - God's the judge," says Dylan. "The only
person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn't either of them. And I
just figured they're irrelevant."
Dylan tried to run away from all of that. In the mid-'60s, he retreated with his wife and three young children to
Woodstock, N.Y. But even there, he couldn�t escape the legions of fans who descended on his home, begging
for an audience with the legend himself. He says people would actually come to the house, wanting to "discuss
things with me, politics and philosophy and organic farming and things."
What did Dylan know about organic farming? "Nothing," he says. "Not a thing."
What did he mean when he wrote that "the funny thing about fame is that nobody believes it's you"?
"People, they'll say, 'Are you who I think you are?' And you'll say, 'I don't know.' Then, they'll say, 'You're him.'
And you'll say, 'OK, you know, that � yes,'" says Dylan. "And then, the next thing they'll say, 'Well, no, you
know? Like are you really him? You're not him.' And, you know, that can go on and on."
He says he doesn't like to eat in restaurants because of all the attention he gets. And he says he has never gotten
use to it.
At his peak, fame was taking its toll on Dylan. He was heading toward a divorce from his wife, Sara. And in
concerts, he wore white makeup to mask himself. But his songs revealed the pain.
About his ex-wife, Dylan says: "She was with me back then, through thick and thin, you know? And it just wasn't
the kind of life that she had ever envisioned for herself, any more the than the kind of life that I was living, that I
had envisioned for mine."
By the mid-1980s, Dylan felt he was burned out and over the hill. And he wrote some pretty harsh words about
himself: "I'm a '60s troubadour, a folk-rock relic. A wordsmith from bygone days. I'm in the bottomless pit of
cultural oblivion."
"I'd seen all these titles written about me," says Dylan. "I believed it, anyway. I wasn't getting any thrill out of
performing. I thought it might be time to close it up. � I had thought I'd just put it away for a while. But then I
started thinking, 'That's enough, you know?'"
But within a few years, Dylan said he had recaptured his creative spark, and went back on the road. He performed
more than 100 concerts a year. And he won three Grammy awards in 1998 for his album, "Time Out Of Mind."
At 63, Dylan remains a voice as unique and powerful as any there has ever been in American music.
His fellow musicians paid tribute to him when he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, joining him
in a rousing rendition of his most famous song, "Like a Rolling Stone." That song was recently named by Rolling
Stone magazine as the No. 1 song of all time. And he has 12 other songs on their list of the Top 500.
"Oh, maybe this week. But you know, the list, they change names, and you know, quite frequently, really. I don't
really pay much attention to that," says Dylan.
"This week it is," Dylan replies. "But who's to say how long that's gonna last?"
His success, however, has lasted a long time. Dylan is still performing all of his songs on tour, and he says he
doesn't take any of it for granted.
"It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I'm holding up
my end � to get where I am now," says Dylan.
And with whom did he make the bargain? "With the chief commander," says Dylan, laughing. "In this earth and in
the world we can't see."
Dylan has been nominated this year for the Nobel Prize in literature for his songwriting. His new book has been a
bestseller for the past seven weeks. It was published by Simon & Schuster, which is owned by Viacom, the parent
company of CBS. Dylan is planning to write two more volumes of his memoirs.
http://www.geocities.com/proposal112000/james_Damaino.html
The following article was written by Geoff McMaster on February 21, 2003 Bob Dylan's loving thievery Is Bob
Dylan a genius or a thief? by Geoff McMaster Folio Staff
Bob Dylan often walks a fine line between plagiarism and allusion, and therein lies his genius.
That was the conclusion of Dylan biographer and former University of Alberta professor Dr. Stephen Scobie at a
unique symposium sponsored by the English Department. Scobie, a celebrated poet in his own right,
demonstrated myriad ways in which Bob Dylan unabashedly weaves an intertext of quotations in many of his
lyrics.
Pointing to the song High Water (for Charley Patton) from Dylan's 2001 release, "Love and Theft", Scobie noted
that the song included more than a dozen quotations from sources as varied as English Nursery Rhymes, African-
American Blues, an obscure 1950s pop song, and even Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. In some instances, whole
lines and even couplets are lifted verbatim from the source.
The title of the album itself, "Love and Theft", deliberately set in quotation marks on the CD cover, can be seen
as Dylan's acknowledgment that songwriting intensely engages with both acts.
"Dylan takes the whole idea of love and theft very seriously," said Scobie. "He loves the stuff, but also
unashamedly steals it." You could call it post-modern intertextuality, or "good old-fashioned plagiarism," said
Scobie. "At what point does allusion become quotation or become theft?"
But the result, at least under the stroke of Dylan's pen, is a dazzling and evocative tapestry. The song becomes
more suggestive, opens up more thematic directions, upon each listening. And, Scobie asks, what act of writing
isn't on some level an act of theft anyway?
Scobie has spent enough time with Dylan's lyrics, with the tradition of English literature, and with the "love and
theft" of writing poetry to know. He's written two books on Dylan, one a critical work called Alias Bob Dylan
(soon to be re-released), and one a poem sequence called And Forget My Name: A Speculative Biography of Bob
Dylan. The University of Victoria English professor has also won the Governor General's Award for McAlmon's
Chinese Opera.
Since Scobie was on campus as external examiner for a doctoral defense, the English department's visiting speaker
chair, Dr. Ted Bishop, thought it would be the perfect opportunity to snag him for a talk in the Culture on the
Edge lecture series.
"What I'm trying to do with all of these is to arrange talks of interest to a wider community than just honours
English students, or indeed students from the Faculty of Arts," Bishop said. Previous talks have taken up The
Sopranos television series and motorcycle culture.
The Dylan talk was held at Fiore's Cantina on 109th Street to provide some distance from the sometimes-stifling
environment of academia, says Bishop. "The idea is to try and take something into the community; people have a
different kind of discussion when they are off campus."
Bishop also invited local CKUA radio announcer and musician Lionel Rault to play a few Dylan songs and talk
about Dylan's influence on his own songwriting. Rault pointed out that Dylan's borrowing of material is an
organic feature of both the blues and folk music traditions in North America. Indeed, many blues artists would
just add a single verse, or even just one line, to a song in circulation and call it their own, he said.
"Bob was also messing around with the persona of the beat poet, and it was a very attractive combination of
things," said Rault, recalling his own early days as a professional musician hugely influenced by the master
songwriter.
"I went right down that lost highway as quickly as I could get there after I heard Bob Dylan doing it."
Jim Edwards of the New Jersey Law Journal has written a factually inaccurate article about the James Damiano /
Bob Dylan copyright infringement litigation. The facts contained in this motion are the true facts and uncontested
facts of this case. To display the motive behind Jim Edwards' publishing of his inaccurate article we have this to
say:
Mr Edwards did not include the following website address of this motion http://www.geocities.com
/proposal112000/James_Damiano.html )in his article which disabled his readers from drawing a subjective and
unbiased opinion of this litigation.
Plaintiff James Damiano also contends that it is uncontested that Bob Dylan's lead attorney Orin Snyder Esq. has
comitted an abundance of fraud in this litigation and that he has notified Judge Simandle and Mr. Snyder's
attorney Mary Jo White of said fraud and that Mr. Snyder has been aware of Mr. Damiano's statements against
him for a number of years and that Orin Snyder has not contested James Damiano's documented statements about
him.
News Release December 5, 2003 James Damiano has released a new cd "Justice" and also The movie "Dignity"
Episode 1
A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may, at
any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action or after service of a motion for
summary judgment by the adverse party, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in
the party's favor upon all or any part thereof.
A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought may, at
any time, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor as to all or any
part thereof.
(c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the
hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits.
(e) Form of Affidavits; Further Testimony; Defense Required. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made
on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively
that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts
thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to
be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for
summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise
provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse
party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the
party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may
refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions
to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.
(g) Affidavits Made in Bad Faith. Should it appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any of the
affidavits presented pursuant to this rule are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay, the court
shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses
which the filing of the affidavits caused the other party to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any
offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt. On June 18th James Damiano E-mailed the
Telephone: 215-446-6264
Fax: 215-636-0366
Suite 412
Telephone: 856-796-9000
Fax: 856-796-9006
sjohnson@heckerbrown.com
http://www.heckerbrown.com
You are beyond the date returnable to answer James Damiano's motion. In fact you are more than sixty days late.
You cannot hide from this matter anymore. There are witnesses that you have been served. You must notify Orin
Snyder which I'm, sure you have done. I spoke to the US marshal's service and they wanted to know when you
were served initially. I told them you were served through E-mail in June 2002.
We are out of courtesy sending it to you via your E-mail address at sjohnson@heckerbrown.com once again.
Dear Mr. Johnson: Please find enclosed a link to Plaintiff's motion to vacate Judge Joel B. Rosen's order for
confidentiality, Motion for Admissions, and other motions RE James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for Copyright
Infringement CV 95-4795 JBS.
Bob Dylan's suppression of the truth (The confidentiality order) is adverse to the truth being a defense for libel
and the first amendment, (Freedom of Speech).
Basic and simple: In every deposition of this lawsuit the witness's were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a
perfect defense for libel yet, all depositions were designated confidential by Judge Joel B. Rosen.
Damiano was found guilty of contempt for posting the truth on the Internet. He was unable to protect himself
with deposition's that incriminate Bob Dylan.
He was unable to protect himself with the truth. That concept is un-American.
deposition materials on the Internet in violation of the courts confidentiality order designating all discovery
materials confidential in James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement ( CV 95-4795 JBS )
jeopardizes the first amendment Rights, of every American.
Elliot Mintz who is Bob Dylan's publicist testified in a video taped deposition the following:
"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 to Bob, asked 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. [Deposition of
Elliot Mintz]
Plaintiff asserts that "the bulk of his life's work" was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982. (Compl. at 2). He also
alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has
produced evidence that after these [**18] concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his
agents. (Damiano Decl. at PP 2, 5; Dep. of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104; Dep. of Brad Wright at 105-112).
Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
defendants had access to his work. From Judge Simandle's Decision END OF E-MAIL
The following letter has been E-mailed to Bob Dylan's attorney Steven D. Johnson and all the partners and
associates of the firm Hecker Brown Sherry & Johnson. Dear Firm:
Please be informed that Steven D. Johnson and Orin Snyder have committed an abundance of fraud in their
motion to hold James Damiano in contempt Re: James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement. CV
95-4795 (JBS).
Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson both were aware that there were eleven years of documented facts of James
Damiano's association with Bob Dylan and Dylan's management.
Not only did Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson ignore Mr. Damiano's testimony regarding, Mr. Damiano
working with CBS for eleven years. They never denied or Contested, Mr. Damiano's testimony.
Also, Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder and or Mr. Johnson never contested or denied Mr. Damiano's Testimony regarding
Bob Dylan's solicitation of plaintiff Damiano's music.
All of said facts incriminate Mr. Dylan and were left disregarded and unresolved after Judge Simandle's decision
to dismiss the case . The courts dismissal endorsed the appearance of partiality by Judge Simandle.
Disregarding Judge Simandle's subjective decisions, Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson's knowledge of these
facts document the extent of their fraud in filing a motion to have James Damiano held in contempt of the courts
confidentiality order. The legality of the confidentiality order is irrelevant given the fact that someone
anonymously published and posted Mr. Damiano's website on the World Wide Internet for the last six and a half
years and defendants Bob Dylan and Sony Music have not filed a motion to have it taken off the internet.
Judge Simandle's decision to dismiss is inconsistent with the evidence produced to the court. Many lawsuits have
survived summary judgment with only a few material facts .In this case Damiano has fifty hours of video taped
depositions which incriminate Bob Dylan and Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder ( who forgot he was wearing a
microphone at the Elliot Mintz's deposition ), eleven years of documented facts of Dylan's solicitation of
Damiano's music, extremely credible expert testimony from a Harvard musicologist with a PH-D, and sworn
blatant admissions of guilt by defendants.
All of the above evidence was disregard by the court when Judge Jerome B. Simandle dismissed the lawsuit in
summary Judgment. ( Defendant first procedural motion, which was not legally substantial enough to warrant
summary judgment.)Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson filed their contempt motion to hold JamesDamiano in
violation of the confidentiality order based on Damiano disseminating said facts and deposition materials on the
Internet, all of which incriminate their client Bob Dylan.
Plaintiff Damiano produces the following transcript in support of his proof that it is conclusive that Orin Snyder
and Steven D. Johnson were aware of Damiano's "Eleven Years" association with Bob Dylan and CBS Records
thus both Snyder and Johnson who are attorneys for Bob Dylan committed fraud.
In the following transcript James Damiano testified under oath in his contempt hearing in front of The Honorable
Judge Jerome B. Simandle :"I feel like there is so much testimony and documentation of your clients solicitation
of my music over a period of eleven years, and there's deposition materials to that effect which no one made
reference to in the lawsuit, I feel it's an unfair decision. I feel that I wrote songs for eleven years with Mikie Harris,
those songs showed up on Bob Dylan's albums. No one ever made referenceto the eleven years that I worked with
CBS. No, No, one's ever contested those issues."
NEW EVIDENCE
It is judicially conclusive that Judge Simandle's decision to dismiss this lawsuit violated standard law procedure as
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Throughout the litigation and discovery of this lawsuit and after the dismissal of Plaintiff's reconsideration motion
Bob Dylan's lead attorneys Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson engaged in unlawful, unscrupulous illegal and
unethical practices.
Mr. Snyder's, as well as Steven D. Johnson's, unlawful and nefarious behavior is documented in this motion.
Plaintiff has learned of allegations that Mr. Snyder and or other associates of Mr. Snyder's law firm have
committed this same unlawful and unscrupulous behavior in another lawsuit.
In James Damiano Vs. Sony Music Inc and Bob Dylan Judge Simandle wrote in his decision �
Thus, there is nothing for the court to "reconsider" because plaintiff's amendment argument was raised for the first
time in this motion for reconsideration. See NL Industries, Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516 ("Reconsideration motions . .
. may not be used . . . to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.").
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.
Plaintiff notified Mr. Snyder's attorney Mary Jo White via Ms. White's E-mail address. See document below.
Mary Jo White
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.
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.
I will be filing an ethics complaint with the office of attorney ethics against Orin Snyder. I will also be submitting
this motion, as an exhibit.
I am also requesting that you forward the following E-mail which contains a link to my Motion to reverse the
courts decision to dismiss to Orin Snyder and Parcher and Hayes.
I was surprised to learn Parcher Hayes and Snyder do not have a website for their firm.
In the near future or when time permits Mr. Damiano will be visiting the Manhattan Court where this matter is
being adjudicated to read a copy of the complaint and review the pleadings . After doing so Plaintiff Damiano will
submit a copy of that complaint to this court.
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
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.
Mikie introduced James to the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond Sr.
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 and
upheld by Judge Jerome B. Simandle.
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 of
John Foggerty's "Down Around The Corner" which Foggerty released years before Bob Dylan released "Shelter
From The Storm"
As James learns of allegations about "Masters Of War" the melody line written by Jackie Washington.
Please note there is a website on the Internet which has been left uncontested stating that Jackie Washington
wrote the melody line for "Masters of War"
Another songwriter Eric Von Schmidt who personally knew Bob Dylan published his allegations in a book
released by The Cambridge Press" that he wrote "Baby Let Me Follow Down". Von Schmidt also published his
allegations in the Cambridge press.
As the table starts to turn and "Eleven Years" enters the genre of mystery and comedy as the big fifth avenue
corporate machine becomes helpless in defending against the true documented facts.
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.
"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.
This E-mail was sent to me from one of the most prominent intellectual property Attorneys in the country: Please
review. Thank You.
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.
END OF E-MAIL
Exhibit A
CV 95-4795 (JBS
against
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST BOB DYLAN, MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, MOTION TO REVERSE ALL RULINGS IN THIS LITIGATION, MOTION
TO VACATE PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIAL ORDERS ENTERED IN THIS LITIGATION , MOTION FOR
ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS BOB DYLAN AND SONY MUSIC INC, MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE
SIMANDLE'S DISMISSAL
After seven years, fifty hours of video taped depositions, and after three and a half million dollars have been spent
on this litigation there has not been a counter-suit filed by Bob Dylan and or Sony Music Entertainment.
Plaintiff's website declaration containing the enclosed issues of facts cited in this document has been posted on
the world wide internet for six years and nine months and defendants still to this date, March 29th, 2003 have not
contested the issues of fact or the issues of solicitation by defendants of plaintiffs songs cited herein.
Defendants did however filed a motion for contempt against plaintiff for violating Judge Joel B. Rosen's order
designating all discovery as confidential, including expert testimony, and deposition transcripts.
All witness's in this litigation were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel. It is impossible
to exploit the truth.
This court should know that Plaintiff has been counseled by many attorney's and some Judges who believe that
the outcome of this lawsuit so far is unjust and as a matter of law and at the very least the unresolved issues of
facts could have only been decided by a jury.
James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
No unbias facts, no unbias evidence or no unbias testimony exists to support Judge Jerome B. Simandle's decision
to dismiss Plaintiff James Damiano's lawsuit against Bob Dylan for copyright infringement case no 95- 4795
(JBS).
This motion conclusively refutes the courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
This motion also conclusively refutes the foundation of defendant�s bias, fabricated, primary defense that
Plaintiff was delusional and documents to the record that Defendants have intentionally made false statements to
this court.
There are issues of facts left unresolved after the courts dismissal.
This court is attempting to hide from the public, deposition materials which incriminate Bob Dylan.
An Example of this would be Elliot Mintz Bob Dylan's publicist of ten years testified under oath in a video taped
deposition when deposed by Plaintiff's attorney:
"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 in fact told
him that I would and that I did ond on those occasions that of course was a mistruth."
The primary Defendant in this litigation ( Bob Dylan ) refuses to take a deposition.
The primary Defendant in this litigation ( Bob Dylan ) never submitted an affidavit of denial or an affidavit
addressing the unresolved issues cited herein.
Plaintiff stipulates that 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 anyone. 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 Defendants solicitation of Plaintiff James Damiano's songs,
will be deemed admitted after thirty days unless defendants deny the forgoing with specificity. pursuant to
FRDCP rule 36.
The Early Show CBS Evening News 48 Hours 60 Minutes (SUN) 60 Minutes (WED) All Broadcasts
Bob Dylan appears on 60 Minutes in his first television interview in nearly 20 years. (Photo: CBS) "I never
wanted to be a prophet or a savior. Elvis maybe. I could see myself becoming him. But prophet? No." Bob Dylan
The music legend talks to Ed Bradley about his career, the press, and his family. (Photo: CBS/60 Minutes)
Chronicles, Volume One (advertisement)
(CBS) There is no living musician who has been more influential than Bob Dylan.
Over a 43-year career, his distinctive twang and poetic lyrics have produced some of the most memorable songs
ever written. In the '60s, his songs of protest and turmoil spoke to an entire generation.
While his life has been the subject of endless interpretation, Dylan has been largely silent. Now, at 63, he has
written a memoir called "Chronicles, Volume One." Correspondent Ed Bradley got to sit down with this music
legend in his first television interview in nearly 20 years.
Over more than four decades, Dylan has produced 500 songs and more than 40 albums. Does he ever look back at
the music he's written with surprise?
"I used to. I don't do that anymore. I don't know how I got to write those songs. Those early songs were almost
magically written," says Dylan, who quotes from his 1964 classic, "It's Alright, Ma."
"Try to sit down and write something like that. There's a magic to that, and it's not Siegfried and Roy kind of
magic, you know? It's a different kind of a penetrating magic. And, you know, I did it. I did it at one time."
(Does he think he can do it again today? No, says Dylan. "You can't do something forever," he says. "I did it once,
and I can do other things now. But, I can't do that."
(Dylan has been writing music since he was a teenager in the remote town of Hibbing, Minn. He was the eldest of
two sons of Abraham and Beatty Zimmerman.
(How was his childhood? "I really didn't consider myself happy or unhappy," says Dylan. "I always knew that
there was something out there that I needed to get to. And it wasn't where I was at that particular moment."
(In his book, Dylan writes that he came alive at 19, when he moved to Greenwich Village in New York City �
which at the time was the frenetic center of the '60s counterculture. Within months, Dylan had signed a recording
contract with Columbia Records.
("You refer to New York as the capital of the world. But when you told your father that, he thought that it was a
joke," says Bradley. "Did your parents approve of you being a singer-songwriter? Going to New York?"
("No. They wouldn't have wanted that for me. But my parents never went anywhere," says Dylan. "My father
probably thought the capital of the world was wherever he was at the time. It couldn't possibly be anyplace else.
Where he and his wife were in their own home, that, for them, was the capital of the world."
(So what made Dylan different? What pushed him out there?
("I listened to the radio a lot. I hung out in the record stores. And I slam-banged around on the guitar and played
the piano and learned songs from a world which didn't exist around me," says Dylan.
(He says that he knew even then that he was destined to become a music legend. "I was heading for the fantastic
lights," he writes. "Destiny was looking right at me and nobody else."
("It's a feeling you have that you know something about yourself - nobody else does - the picture you have in your
mind of what you're about will come true," says Dylan. "It's kind of a thing you kind of have to keep to your own
self, because it's a fragile feeling. And if you put it out there, somebody will kill it. So, it�s best to keep that all
inside."
(When Bradley asked Dylan why he changed his name from Robert Zimmerman, he said that was destiny, too.
"Some people � you're born, you know, the wrong names, wrong parents. I mean, that happens," says Dylan.
"You call yourself what you want to call yourself. This is the land of the free."
(Dylan created a world inspired by old folk music, with piercing and poetic lyrics, in songs such as "A Hard
Rain�s A-Gonna Fall." These were songs that reflected the tension and unrest of the civil rights and anti-war
movements of the '60s.
(It was an explosive mixture that turned Dylan, by 25, into a cultural and political icon - playing to sold out
concert halls around the world, and followed by people wherever he went. Dylan was called the voice of his
generation � and was actually referred to as a prophet, a messiah.
(Yet Dylan says he saw himself simply as a musician: "You feel like an impostor when someone thinks you're
something and you're not."
(What was the image that people had of him? And what was the reality?
("The image of me was certainly not a songwriter or a singer," says Dylan. "It was more like some kind of a threat
to society in some kind of way."
(What was the toughest part for him personally? "It was like being in an Edgar Allan Poe story. And you're just
not that person everybody thinks you are, though they call you that all the time," says Dylan. "'You're the
prophet. You're the savior.' I never wanted to be a prophet or savior. Elvis maybe. I could easily see myself
becoming him. But prophet? No."
(He may not have seen himself as the voice of the '60s generation, but his songs were viewed as anthems that
sparked a moment.
("My stuff were songs, you know? They weren't sermons," says Dylan. "If you examine the songs, I don't believe
you're gonna find anything in there that says that I'm a spokesman for anybody or anything really."
("It's ironic, that the way that people viewed you was just the polar opposite of the way you viewed yourself,"
says Bradley.
(Dylan did almost anything to shatter the lofty image many people had of him. He writes that he intentionally
made bad records, and once poured whiskey over his head in public.
(He also writes that, as a stunt, he went to Israel and made a point of having his picture taken at the Wailing Wall
wearing a skullcap. When he went to Israel, he writes that the newspapers changed him overnight into a Zionist.
How did this help?
("If the common perception of me out there in the public was that I was either a drunk, or I was a sicko, or a
Zionist, or a Buddhist, or a Catholic, or a Mormon � all of this was better than 'Archbishop of Anarchy,'" says
Dylan, referring to being considered the voice of a generation opposed to everything.
(Dylan was especially opposed to the media, which he says were always trying to pin him down. He wrote, "The
press, I figured, you lied to it." Why?
("I realized at the time that the press, the media, they're not the judge - God's the judge," says Dylan. "The only
person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn't either of them. And I
just figured they're irrelevant."
(Dylan tried to run away from all of that. In the mid-'60s, he retreated with his wife and three young children to
Woodstock, N.Y. But even there, he couldn�t escape the legions of fans who descended on his home, begging
for an audience with the legend himself. He says people would actually come to the house, wanting to "discuss
things with me, politics and philosophy and organic farming and things."
(What did Dylan know about organic farming? "Nothing," he says. "Not a thing."
(What did he mean when he wrote that "the funny thing about fame is that nobody believes it's you"?
("People, they'll say, 'Are you who I think you are?' And you'll say, 'I don't know.' Then, they'll say, 'You're him.'
And you'll say, 'OK, you know, that � yes,'" says Dylan. "And then, the next thing they'll say, 'Well, no, you
know? Like are you really him? You're not him.' And, you know, that can go on and on."
(He says he doesn't like to eat in restaurants because of all the attention he gets. And he says he has never gotten
use to it.
(At his peak, fame was taking its toll on Dylan. He was heading toward a divorce from his wife, Sara. And in
concerts, he wore white makeup to mask himself. But his songs revealed the pain.
(About his ex-wife, Dylan says: "She was with me back then, through thick and thin, you know? And it just wasn't
the kind of life that she had ever envisioned for herself, any more the than the kind of life that I was living, that I
had envisioned for mine."
(By the mid-1980s, Dylan felt he was burned out and over the hill. And he wrote some pretty harsh words about
himself: "I'm a '60s troubadour, a folk-rock relic. A wordsmith from bygone days. I'm in the bottomless pit of
cultural oblivion."
("I'd seen all these titles written about me," says Dylan. "I believed it, anyway. I wasn't getting any thrill out of
performing. I thought it might be time to close it up. � I had thought I'd just put it away for a while. But then I
started thinking, 'That's enough, you know?'"
(But within a few years, Dylan said he had recaptured his creative spark, and went back on the road. He
performed more than 100 concerts a year. And he won three Grammy awards in 1998 for his album, "Time Out
Of Mind."
(At 63, Dylan remains a voice as unique and powerful as any there has ever been in American music.
(His fellow musicians paid tribute to him when he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, joining him
in a rousing rendition of his most famous song, "Like a Rolling Stone." That song was recently named by Rolling
Stone magazine as the No. 1 song of all time. And he has 12 other songs on their list of the Top 500.
("Oh, maybe this week. But you know, the list, they change names, and you know, quite frequently, really. I don't
really pay much attention to that," says Dylan.
("This week it is," Dylan replies. "But who's to say how long that's gonna last?"
(His success, however, has lasted a long time. Dylan is still performing all of his songs on tour, and he says he
doesn't take any of it for granted.
("It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I'm holding up
my end � to get where I am now," says Dylan.
(And with whom did he make the bargain? "With the chief commander," says Dylan, laughing. "In this earth and
in the world we can't see."
(Dylan has been nominated this year for the Nobel Prize in literature for his songwriting. His new book has been a
bestseller for the past seven weeks. It was published by Simon & Schuster, which is owned by Viacom, the parent
company of CBS. Dylan is planning to write two more volumes of his memoirs.
(The following article written by Jim Edwards was published in the New Jersey Law Journal on March 27 2003.
The article reveals just how bias the media can be.
(Litigation Like a Rolling Stone A songwriter's copyright infringement suit against Bob Dylan is still in the federal
courts after eight years
Fifteen years ago, Bob Dylan met amateur guitarist James Damiano in a dark, rain-soaked parking lot outside a
concert theater in Jones Beach, N.Y. The storied singer had just left the stage and was about to get on his tour bus
when Damiano slipped through an unlocked gate to intercept him, the fan claims.
Damiano handed Dylan's bus driver a package, and was so nervous that he managed to utter only seven words to
the star: "Tony Tiller, Tony Tiller at CBS Records."
Dylan said nothing. The meeting lasted only a few seconds. "Dylan nodded to me, turned around and walked
back to the bus," Damiano says. "The door shut and the bus drove away."
That meeting, the contents of the package and the meaning of Damiano's seven words have since spurred eight
years of litigation in Newark, N.J., federal district court. Damiano claims that the package contained songs he
wrote for Dylan on the recommendation of Tiller, a CBS Records producer, and that Dylan turned those songs
into hits and neither credited nor paid him.
Specifically, Damiano claims that several Dylan songs, including "God Knows," "Disease of Conceit," "Most of
the Time" and "Dignity" -- the latter was on Dylan's Greatest Hits Vol. 3 -- were written by him.
The most interesting aspect of the case, however, is not the tantalizing notion that Dylan may have stolen some of
his best work -- Judge Jerome Simandle ruled Damiano's claim bogus in 1996, noting that the songs "just don't
sound alike" -- rather, it is the question of why the case is still going on after all this time.
The case has been closed and reopened three times. Almost every ruling on every motion has gone against
Damiano, and his appeal was turned back by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals five years ago. Nonetheless,
Simandle is considering new reconsideration briefs from Damiano and Dylan on whether the litigation should
continue -- the third set of such motions in the life of the case.
In fact, the saga of Damiano v. Sony Music and Bob Dylan, No. 95-4795, is mostly about the ability of a pro se
plaintiff to keep the object of his obsession tied up in court seemingly indefinitely, despite a meritless complaint.
"Every circuit has what they call frequent filers," says Prof. Ira Robbins of American University Washington
College of Law, a former pro se law clerk at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "They can bog down the
court."
Paul Thompson, a former Essex County presiding civil judge and now of counsel to Tompkins, McGuire,
Wachenfeld & Barry in Newark, agrees, noting, "Ultimately they go away, but not without a great deal of
difficulty."
BAD COMPANY
Back in 1995, when Damiano filed his initial complaint, it could have been an open-and-shut case. Damiano had
to prove only three things: that Dylan had access to Damiano's songs prior to publishing; that the recorded songs
were similar to Damiano's; and that Damiano's original material was copyrighted.
On its face, the complaint seemed plausible. It listed the similar lyrics of both men. It provided a detailed timeline
of alleged meetings between Damiano and Dylan's associates, including occasions when songs were handed to his
record company. It also contained a transcript of an expert's analysis of Damiano and Dylan's songs, which
concluded that the two are similar.
Indeed, three months after the complaint was filed, Damiano won his claim by default when Dylan failed to
answer. It was a short-lived win. It was also the last. It turned out that neither Sony nor Dylan had been served
with papers; they had no idea they were being sued. The default was quickly overturned.
Failing to serve the defendants was not Damiano's first mistake. That occurred before he even got near the
courthouse. Damiano retained litigation pit bull Steven Kramer of Steven Kramer & Associates in New York to
write the complaint.
In 1991, Kramer's reputation was riding high. He won $239.4 million in an antitrust case, followed the next year
by a $61.5 million verdict in a similar action, two of the largest awards New Jersey had ever seen. He was widely
regarded as an eccentric, intense trial lawyer whom juries loved and judges hated.
Those awards did not withstand post-trial scrutiny, however, and by the time Damiano retained him, Kramer's
victories had crumbled in a series of disciplinary actions, appeals and fee disputes.
It was only in 2002 that the true extent of Kramer's eccentricities became apparent, when he was finally disbarred
by the state supreme court after 38 instances of professional misconduct across various jurisdictions. That
misconduct included the hiring of a private detective to "investigate" Chief Judge John Bissell, who was presiding
over one of Kramer's cases, in hopes of finding material that could be used to blackmail him. Back in 1995,
however, Kramer's problems had not fully bloomed.
Once Dylan was served, his lawyers filed a summary judgment motion.
Looking for a genuine issue of material fact, Simandle could not find one. The songs did not sound similar and
the evidence indicated it was Damiano's songs that were probably stolen from Dylan, not the other way around,
wrote the Camden-based judge. Even if they were not stolen, the judge continued, Damiano certainly had created
them for the sole purpose of filing suit.
"Plaintiff's complaint, consisting of various snippets of various origin that are rearranged and stitched together
under made-for-litigation titles, is a cut-and-paste job," the judge said. Damiano's songs had not even been
copyrighted -- the very first hurdle a plaintiff has to cross in a copyright infringement suit.
But Damiano was undeterred. He had already engaged the defense in a year of discovery proceedings, including
the deposition of several witnesses -- two of whom gave credence to Damiano's alleged meeting with Dylan in the
parking lot -- and garnered some personal letters and other correspondence.
So Kramer filed for a motion of reconsideration. Between the filing and ruling, however, Kramer's misdeeds in
other cases caught up with him and he was suspended from the practice of law. In 1997, Simandle again ruled in
favor of Dylan, dismissing the reconsideration motion.
At this stage, most plaintiffs would realize that they had lost. But Damiano, now working pro se, began to exhibit
the kind of magical thinking common to obsessive pro se litigants. Specifically, he believed that Kramer's
discovery had provided proof of his case.
In particular, Kramer had managed to depose a former Associated Press reporter who had taped an interview with
Dylan upon the release of "Down in the Groove," Dylan's 1988 album on which he sung other people's songs. The
reporter, Kathryn Baker, had asked Dylan in the interview why he had composed so little original material.
Dylan replied, "There's no rule that claims that anyone must write their own songs." Dylan went on to tell Baker
he did not have enough material for an album of his own work, and that his songwriting ability was not what it
used to be.
"In the old days, I could get to it real quick," Dylan said. "I can't get to it like that no more. It's not that simple."
Damiano regarded that exchange as a smoking gun, indicating Dylan's motive for stealing his songs: In the same
year Dylan admitted he had writer's block, he was handed Damiano's package at Jones Beach. Even Dylan's bus
driver said in a separate deposition that he had received a package from Damiano.
At this time, Damiano had come to believe that Dylan and Simandle were conspiring against him. The judge had
not allowed Damiano to depose Dylan, after all. In his pleadings, Damiano regards himself as "the little guy"
locked in a "daunting struggle against big business and [the] legal system, [which is] covertly manipulated by
powerfully sinister forces."
An obsessive pro se "will come to court believing firmly that he or she has been wronged," says Robbins, the
former 2nd Circuit clerk. "It's a real problem when the litigant doesn't know even the rudiments of judicial
process."
Clark Alpert of West Orange's Alpert, Butler, Sanders, Norton & Bearg, who has made dealing with insistent,
unlawyered litigants something of a specialty, agrees: "Pro se's will kind of do or say anything," he notes.
Damiano did not respond to repeated attempts to reach him by telephone and e-mail to addresses listed on his
Web sites. The various addresses given for him in the pleadings appear without telephone numbers, or are out of
date. Calls made to people with the same name in the towns he lists as home were unsuccessful -- there was no
answer, the people answering said they were not James Damiano or messages were not returned.
Believing that the suit was over, Dylan's attorney, Orin Snyder of Parcher, Hayes & Snyder in New York, decided
to recoup the singer's legal costs. He filed motions demanding fees and contempt fines.
As far back as 1996, Snyder had found Damiano trying to sell Dylan mementoes obtained through discovery in
Rolling Stone magazine's classifieds section. Damiano also had sent a manuscript to The New Yorker and the
tabloid TV show "A Current Affair." Snyder also found that Damiano and an acquaintance had agreed to attempt
to sell the movie rights to Damiano's saga.
"He was going to use the information he got for financial gain," Snyder says.
Snyder obtained a protective order rendering all discovery confidential, but Damiano repeatedly offered items for
sale or posted copies on the Internet. By August 2000, Simandle had found Damiano in contempt of two of his
confidentiality orders and had ordered he pay costs and Snyder's legal bills -- $14,000.
Rather than pay the bill, Damiano went back to where he started. Two weeks after the fines were levied, he filed
another motion for "reconsideration" of the 1996 order, the first substantive ruling in the case. In November 2000,
Simandle denied the motion.
OBSESSION UNBROKEN
Damiano then disappeared from the court's docket for two years. Snyder, Dylan and Simandle could have been
forgiven for thinking they would never hear from him again. But last December, Damiano filed yet another
reconsideration motion.
Unlike the papers filed by Kramer, which bore the appearance of regular pleadings, Damiano's motions provide a
nonlegal look inside the plaintiff's mind. It's a disconcerting landscape: The motions, which are hundreds of pages
long, start off in similar form to those a lawyer might file. But after the first page they quickly devolve into the
story of his life, copies of correspondence between him and various music industry figures, news clippings about
unrelated pop stars and their achievements, and long lists of pretty much everything Damiano knows about Dylan.
Snyder says Mary Jo White, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and now a partner at
Debevoise & Plimpton there, received Damiano's e-mails, which claim that Snyder lied in an unrelated copyright
case in which he defended Mariah Carey. White's current office confirms she received the e-mail.
Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman also received a letter, according to Snyder's deposition of Damiano.
"He's writing to everyone, anyone he knows who has a relationship to me," Snyder says.
Hateful letter writing is common to an obsessive pro se, according to Bettina Plevan, a partner at Proskauer Rose
in New York. "It's particularly disconcerting, I find, to junior lawyers who have not perhaps experienced it
before," she says. Plevan should know. In the late 1980s she defended Chase Manhattan in a sexual harassment
suit brought pro se by former bank employee Carolee Koster. When the judge finally ruled against Koster after
years of litigation, Koster's father hunted the judge down and shot him to death.
No one is suggesting that the Damiano case is heading in that direction. Snyder says he has asked the judge to
enjoin Damiano from continuing to file -- a common remedy for vexatious litigants -- but Simandle's recent
correspondence with the parties does not indicate that will happen.
Damiano's last motion reads, "[Now] is as good a time as any to review the facts. ... After six and a half years [sic],
thirty five hours of videotaped depositions, and after three and a half million dollars have been spent on this
litigation there has not been a counter-suit slander or libel suit filed by Bob Dylan."
The pages also accuse Simandle of partiality and demand his recusal. Damiano seems to believe that because
Snyder did not contest certain Web sites Damiano created about Dylan that his allegations must therefore be true.
Fat man lookin' in a blade of steel Thin man lookin' at his last meal Hollow man lookin' in a cottonfield For
dignity
Fat man lookin' in a blade of steel Thin man lookin' at his last meal Hollow man lookin' in a cottonfield For
dignity
Wise man lookin' in a blade of grass Young man lookin' in the shadows that pass Poor man lookin' through
painted glass For dignity
Somebody got murdered on New Year's Eve Somebody said dignity was the first to leave I went into the city,
went into the town Went into the land of the midnight sun
Searchin' high, searchin' low Searchin' everywhere I know Askin' the cops wherever I go Have you seen dignity?
Blind man breakin' out of a trance Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance Hopin' to find one circumstance
Of dignity
I went to the wedding of Mary-lou She said �I don't want nobody see me talkin' to you� Said she could get
killed if she told me what she knew About dignity
I went down where the vultures feed I would've got deeper, but there wasn't any need Heard the tongues of angels
and the tongues of men Wasn't any difference to me
Chilly wind sharp as a razor blade House on fire, debts unpaid Gonna stand at the window, gonna ask the maid
Have you seen dignity?
Drinkin' man listens to the voice he hears In a crowded room full of covered up mirrors Lookin' into the lost
forgotten years For dignity
Met Prince Phillip at the home of the blues Said he'd give me information if his name wasn't used He wanted
money up front, said he was abused By dignity
Footprints runnin' cross the silver sand Steps goin' down into tattoo land I met the sons of darkness and the sons
of light In the bordertowns of despair
Got no place to fade, got no coat I'm on the rollin' river in a jerkin' boat Tryin' to read a note somebody wrote
About dignity
Sick man lookin' for the doctor's cure Lookin' at his hands for the lines that were And into every masterpiece of
literature for dignity
Englishman stranded in the blackheart wind Combin' his hair back, his future looks thin Bites the bullet and he
looks within For dignity
Someone showed me a picture and I just laughed Dignity never been photographed I went into the red, went into
the black Into the valley of dry bone dreams
So many roads, so much at stake So many dead ends, I'm at the edge of the lake Sometimes I wonder what it's
gonna take To find dignity
Wise man lookin' in a blade of grass Young man lookin' in the shadows that pass Poor man lookin' through
painted glass For dignity
Somebody got murdered on New Year's Eve Somebody said dignity was the first to leave I went into the city,
went into the town Went into the land of the midnight sun
Searchin' high, searchin' low Searchin' everywhere I know Askin' the cops wherever I go Have you seen dignity?
Blind man breakin' out of a trance Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance Hopin' to find one circumstance
Of dignity
I went to the wedding of Mary-lou She said "I don't want nobody see me talkin' to you" "Said she could get killed
if she told me what she knew About dignity"
I went down where the vultures feed I would've got deeper, but there wasn't any need Heard the tongues of angels
and the tongues of men Wasn't any difference to me
Chilly wind sharp as a razor blade House on fire, debts unpaid Gonna stand at the window, gonna ask the maid
Have you seen dignity?
Drinkin' man listens to the voice he hears In a crowded room full of covered up mirrors Lookin' into the lost
forgotten years For dignity
Met Prince Phillip at the home of the blues Said he'd give me information if his name wasn't used He wanted
money up front, said he was abused By dignity
Footprints runnin' cross the silver sand Steps goin' down into tattoo land I met the sons of darkness and the sons
of light In the bordertowns of despair
Got no place to fade, got no coat I'm on the rollin' river in a jerkin' boat Tryin' to read a note somebody wrote
About dignity
Sick man lookin' for the doctor's cure Lookin' at his hands for the lines that were And into every masterpiece of
literature for dignity
Englishman stranded in the blackheart wind Combin' his hair back, his future looks thin Bites the bullet and he
looks within For dignity
Someone showed me a picture and I just laughed Dignity never been photographed I went into the red, went into
the black Into the valley of dry bone dreams
So many roads, so much at stake So many dead ends, I'm at the edge of the lake Sometimes I wonder what it's
gonna take To find dignity proposal112000@yahoo.com
A paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System
Lead attorney for Bob Dylan Orin Snyder has committed an abundance of fraud in this litigation. Orin
Snyder has also been accused in the Carey Selletti lawsuit of falsifying information and lying to the court.
Plaintiff has produced evidence to Judge Simandle of Mr. Snyders ethics violations. Judge Simandle has up to this
date disregarded this information
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,
to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.
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 as best rock song of the year. 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 multimillion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.
Plaintiff's music analysis in this litigation was prepared by Dr. Paul Greene who graduated magna cum laude from
Harvard University. The expert comparative music analysis of James Damiano's song "Steel Guitars" and Bob
Dylan's song "Dignity" prepared by Dr. Greene who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University has
been ordered confidential by The Honorable Judge Joel B Rosen and enforced by Judge Jerome B. Simandle
It is uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan's law firms Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Parcher Hayes & Snyder,
and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher that Bob Dylan and hecker Brown and Sherry that people in Bob Dylan's
entourage have solicited James Damiano's songs and music for over ten years and eleven months.
James Damiano pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, declares under penalty of perjury that:
1979
Years ago I read an unauthorized biography about Bob Dylan, in which the author made reference to a man who
at one time was considered to be the president of CBS Records. His name was John Hammond, Sr. He was family
to the Vanderbilts, Attended Yale law school, the most sought after record producer in the United States, and had
signed Pete Seeger to Columbia Records 1960.
In fact John Hammond Sr. was and probably will always be considered the most influential music executive in the
world by music industry professionals.
After years of working in the music industry, Mr. Hammond established himself as a legend and accomplished a
reputation as having the best ears in the business by signing a fascinating number of legendary artists to the record
world.
Billy Holiday, Count Basie, Charlie Christian, Duke Ellington, Aretha Franklin, George Benson, Bob Dylan,
Bruce Springsteen along with many other artists including Stevie Ray Vaughan were John Hammond affiliates.
Inspired by the book I read, I decided to take a long shot and called CBS Records on the phone. The operator
answered and I asked to be put through to John Hammond's office. The receptionist rang his office and a woman
named Mikie Harris answered the phone.
Mikie Harris
Mikie Harris I told Mikie that I was a lyricist and asked her if she had a few seconds to listen to one lyric. She
replied yes by saying "Shoot." I then recited a lyric to her that I had recently written and said "the lyric is: Just
think how beautiful you'd feel if you knew your love was real." Within a few seconds I could tell Mikie liked the
lyric.
I in turn did not want to push to hard on the first phone call fearing that I might put her behind schedule, so I
tried to inch my way out of the conversation politely while trying not to show my emotions but before the
conversation ended between Mikie and me, she made it explicit that she wanted me to call again. She repeatedly
told me to feel free to call her there at the office. So began a relationship where we would converse through
actual meetings or correspond over the phone, that lasted close to seven and a half years.
Mikie told me that her name would be appearing in the credits on Stevie Ray Vaughan's album that was released
in 1983. When the album was released it listed John Hammond Sr. As Executive producer and Mikie Harris as
Production Assistant.
Stevie Ray Vaughan later recorded on Bob Dylan's "Under the Red Sky" album, released in 1990.
Stevie Ray Vaughan played on Bob Dylan's album "Under the Red Sky." In fact, numerous musicians that played
on the "Bob Dylan Unplugged" album also shared similar credits on Stevie Ray Vaughan albums.
Mikie Harris is given production credits as Assistant to Producer John Hammond on Stevie Ray Vaughan's album.
When I (James Damiano ) received the June 15th, 1987 letter from Mikie Harris stating that she could not be of
assistance to me, I called her at CBS and asked to speak to her. A man answered the phone and told me that
Mikie was at the hospital with Mr. Hammond. His name was Tony Tiller and he said that he was watching over
the office while Mikie was out.
Mr. Tiller then asked me if I was the person who wrote the material on Mr. Hammond' s desk. I asked him what
material he was referring to and he replied the songs in the big black notebook. I replied yes and we started to
converse about the songs. He told me that he liked them and invited me up to CBS to meet with him. Tony
showed a great deal of enthusiasm for my material. We started meeting or corresponding over the phone as Mikie
and I had and Anthony started inviting me to parties in New York that other CBS people would attend.
On August 31st 1988 I (James Damiano) received the following letter from CBS
It is my belief and opinion that in the matter of the law suit James Damiano vs. Sony Music and Bob Dylan that
defendants' attorney Orin Snyder did misrepresent and misconstrue my deposition testimony to the court. In that
action, Mr. Snyder made false accusations that James Damiano and I attempted to perpetrate against Mr. Dylan
and Sony Music claims that were without merit for personal gain. In reality, nothing could be further from the
truth and that characterization is and has been disingenuous from what our intentions and actions were, at that
time. In addition, it is my further opinion that Steven Kramer, who had personal experience and knowledge of
what our genuine intentions and actions were, at that time, did assist Mr. Snyder's in his intentions to obviscate
the truth of the matter by not arguing to the contrary.
Nick Kuntz
908-456-1641
This website, the book and manuscript "Eleven Years" and the movie "dignity" of which was based upon the
manuscript "Eleven Years" is protect under copyright law and copyrighted under James Damiano's name through
the Library of Congress.
All rights are reserved. Permission to use any or all of this material must be addressed to the publisher at
JamesDamiano_justicecd@yahoo.com
The video taped depositions of Brad Wright, Tony Tiller Katheryn Baker Elliot Mintz, Mohammad Marhoumy,
and Pam Damiano, have been removed from this website as per order of Judge Jerome B. Simandle and Judge Joel
B. Rosen. All deposition materials have been designated confidential by the order of the Judge and magistrate.
It has been estimated that Bob Dylan and sony Music made over 70 million dollars on songs written by James
Damiano and released by Bob Dylan.
"Dignity" alone was the hit on Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Volume 3 CD, and cassette tape. Dignity was also the hit
on Bob Dylan's MTV unplugged video tape, DVD and the unplugged soundtrack CD.
Dignity was also the title track for Bob Dylan's release of "Dignity" in Europe
Please note
Sponsored by
Email: Law_Review@yahoo.com
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher take on high profile Bob Dylan defense with no defense.
On or about, December 18, 2003 Parcher Hayes & Snyder ( The firm representing Bob Dylan in this action)
merged and or (changed their name) to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
We suspect that with the growth of the internet and given all the fraud that Parcher Hayes & Snyder committed
during the Damiano Dylan litigation it was a calculated maneuver and in their best interest to change the name of
the law firm.
This Parcher Hayes & Snyder "name change" seemed odd given the fact that the Parcher Hayes & Snyder�s law
firm was identified as one of the "premier boutique entertainment firms", a description that took an enormous
amount of time and effort to accomplish.
So why after all of this would "Parcher Hayes & Snyder" dissolve It's name?
After extensive research we believe that Orin Snyder and Peter Parcher miscalculated the growth, and
development of the internet and that Peter Parcher and Orin Snyder's legal advice given to Bob Dylan during this
litigation has ruined Bob Dylan's reputation.
On December 18, 2003 the following article was reported by the New York Law Journal
By Anthony Lin
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has acquired the 12-lawyer New York firm of Parcher, Hayes & Snyder, a litigation
boutique heavily focused on the entertainment industry.
The move gives Los Angeles-based Manatt prominent entertainment practices on both coasts.
Clients of the Parcher firm include rock stars such as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Paul Simon. Manatt's
Los Angeles entertainment practice counts actors Michael Douglas and Robin Williams among its clients. Both
firms also represent media companies and studios such as Time Warner, Sony and DreamWorks.
Paul H. Irving, managing partner of Manatt, said Wednesday the firm was on its way to "becoming one of a
handful, if not the dominant, entertainment and media law firms in the country."
The 290-lawyer firm will now have between 40 and 50 lawyers working in entertainment, media and advertising
practices, he said.
Parcher Hayes partners Peter Parcher, Steven Hayes, Orin Snyder, Cynthia Arato and Gregory Clarick will
become partners at Manatt. Three counsel and four associates will also join Manatt from Parcher Hayes. Snyder
will join Manatt's board of directors.
Parcher said Wednesday his firm had joined forces with Manatt in order to serve clients in areas other than
litigation.
"We're trial lawyers," he said. "Now many, many cases are filed in California and many of our clients have
interests that go far beyond the courtroom."
Manatt's already strong focus on the entertainment and media industries made it the natural platform for Parcher
Hayes to grow, he said.
The addition of the Parcher Hayes lawyers will increase the size of Manatt's New York office to 65 lawyers. At
the beginning of last month, Manatt brought aboard 10 lawyers, including name partners Linda Golstein and
Felix Kent, from the advertising group of New York's Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood.
Snyder said Manatt's addition of Goldstein's "top-notch" advertising promotion practice had been a strong impetus
to the Parcher Hayes lawyers, given the increasing integration of entertainment and advertising.
"This puts us on the map overnight as an elite firm in the field of media and advertising," he said. "This makes us a
magnet for clients who need help in those areas."
Beyond the creation of a bicoastal entertainment and media group, Irving said the acquisition will form the basis
of an expanded East Coast litigation practice headed by Snyder.
Manatt first entered the New York market in February with its acquisition of Kalkines, Arky, Zall & Bernstein, a
42-lawyer firm specializing in the health care industry.
May we reiterate that after extensive research we believe that Orin Snyder and Peter Parcher miscalculated the
growth, existence, and development of the internet and that Peter Parcher and Orin Snyder's legal advice given to
Bob Dylan during this litigation has ruined Bob Dylan's reputation.
Parcher and Hayes may have earned the benefit of the doubt but here's the kicker.
Orin Snyder has now taken what we believe to be the most high profile case in the federal court to Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher but only after docking it at Manatt Phellps & Phillipps for fifteen months.
Date: 17-Mar-2005
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's New York office is ramping up its media and entertainment presence with the hire of a
five-lawyer team from Manatt Phelps & Phillips.
The former head of Manatt's New York litigation group, Orin Snyder, has quit the firm to join Gibson Dunn,
taking with him a group of four associates. The team focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation
with an emphasis on media and entertainment disputes and white collar defence.
Snyder counts among his clients Time Warner, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Atlantic
Records, Bob Dylan, Julie Andrews and Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne. He reported to Los Angeles-based litigation
co-chairs Barry Landsberg and Craig de Recat, both of whom remain with the firm.
One must ask why, would Bob Dylan leave his attorneys "Peter Parcher" and "Steven Hayes" after they were his
lawyers for many years.
The answer my friend is not blowin in the wind the answer may just be the question "why would Bob Dylan leave
Parcher & Hayes to let Orin Snyder represent him after Orin Snyder ruined Dylan's reputation?"
Trouble must have stirred at the offices of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips formerly (Parcher Hayes & Snyder) in order
for Orin Snyder to quit the firm.
Orin Snyder
Untill we are officially notified by Orin Snyder whether he still represents Bob Dylan in this litigation we feel that
it is safe to report what we have reported concerning Bob Dylan's legal representation on this website.
As of today August 6, 2005 we have not been notified by Mr. Snyder. This is the same tactic Dylan attorneys
used when Plaintiff James Damiano asked Sony house counsel and Dylan's prior attorneys the question "who
represents Bob Dylan?" explaining to them that he wanted to file a copyright infringement law suit against Bob
Dylan.
It took Sony house counsel and Dylan's previous attorneys over a year to answer James Damiano.
It has been published in the media that the integrity of the United States Federal Judicial System has diminished
to the level that it is unable to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit. This motion not only supports
that allegation it conclusively documents, to the record the validity of said statement.
Our comments about Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds LLP. will soon be posted.
Robert Church an attorney who played the guitar represented James Damiano on Mr. Damiano's appeal. Mr. Church played on the song
Digntiy years before Dylan ever released it.
Robert attained employment at a law firm in North Carolina which would not allow him to have any outside cases so he had to withdraw
from the Damiano Dylan litigation.
-------------------------------
:
JAMES DAMIANO :
:
Plaintiff, : 95 CV 4795 (JBS)
:
v. :
: ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, as :
successor to SONY MUSIC :
ENTERTAINMENTINC., and BOB DYLAN, :
:
Defendants, :
:
-------------------------------
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Background
This Court has published four (4) opinions respecting James Damiano’s copyright infringement claims against
Bob Dylan. Mr. Damiano is now brought before the Court on a contempt motion for the offensive manner in which
he publishes his opinions about his case on the internet. In support of this motion, Defendants’ attach
photographic images of video-taped testimony from Defendant’s publicist, Mr. Damiano’s wife and other
deponents in the case.
The Damiano case history is amply set forth in this Court’s last published opinion finding Mr. Damiano in contempt
for violating the protective order. See Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, 2000 WL 1689081 (D.N.J. 2000).
While Mr. Damiano clearly violates the confidentiality order by publishing depositions on the internet, the Court
must consider balancing the interests set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court under the First Amendment before
further finding Mr. Damiano contempt. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941)(subjecting a contempt
order to review under the First Amendment).
I.
Damiano’s Cause for Publishing Information from His Case Overrides Defendant’s Interest in Sanctioning the
Speech.
This Court weighed competing considerations for and against entry of a confidentiality order in this case before
the claims where adjudicated. Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment and Bob Dylan , 168 F.R.D. 485 (D.N.J.
1996). Given the change in circumstance over ten years and the final adjudication of the claims dismissed on
summary judgment in 1996, considerations weigh in favor of lifting the confidentiality order.
A.
The Confidentiality Order is Overbroad for Not Allowing Damiano to Publish Even His Own Deposition
Despite this Court’s prior findings of contempt against Mr. Damiano, this Court should evaluate the instant motion
by asking whether the information published by Mr. Damiano on this occasion causes harm sufficient to support a
contempt citation. The Court must determine whether its secrecy order “[furthers] an important or substantial
governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.'” Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada 501 U.S.
1030, 1054 (1991)(quoting Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 30 (1984)).
This Court found a need for continuing the injunction against Mr. Damiano’s web publications in its published
2000 contempt decision. The interest weighing against Mr. Damiano’s publication was stated as follows:
“Furthermore, plaintiff's sole purpose for gaining access to the commercially sensitive information about Sony and
Dylan, including the organization of their business, profit and royalty information, and private financial data, in
addition to the creative process of Dylan, was to inflict harm on defendants by embarrassing them and exposing
confidential business information. Exposure of Sony and Dylan's business practices could threaten their
competitiveness and financial position within the recording industry. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.
2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, 2000 WL 1689081 (D.N.J. 2000)
As a prior restraint, this Court’s Protective Order needs to demonstrate an ongoing rational basis to sanction
speech. See Anderson v. Cryovac, 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986). In Gentile v.State Bar of Nevada, the Supreme
Court discussed the balancing test for evaluating a prior restraint on speech in connection with the Nevada Rules
of Professional Conduct. Without questioning the validity of Nevada’s disciplinary rules, Justice Kennedy points
out how a valid rule may become invalid under the First Amendment by its application to particular speech. He
states:
Neither the disciplinary board nor the reviewing court explains any sense in which petitioner's statements had a
substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice. The only evidence against Gentile was the videotape of his
statements and his own testimony at the disciplinary hearing. The Bar's whole case rests on the fact of the
statements, the time they were made, and petitioner's own justifications. Full deference to these factual findings
does not justify abdication of our responsibility to determine whether petitioner's statements can be punished
consistent with First Amendment standards.
Rather, this Court is
‘compelled to examine for [itself] the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to
see whether or not they do carry a threat of clear and present danger to the impartiality and good order of the
courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.’
'Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech . . . are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a
defendant to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if
any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction
interposed by the legislature.'" Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1038-1039 (1991)(citations
omitted).
The confidentiality order entered in Mr. Damiano’s case should be modified to address the specific concerns
expressed by the Court in its opinion and order entered in 2000. Those concerns are clear: protect the
proprietary and privacy interests of Dylan and Sony. The testimony gathered from the case applicable to those
concerns is not clear. Defendants’ motion for contempt does not discriminate between deposition testimony
which touches upon the Court’s concern and testimony which does not. By failing to make this distinction,
Defendants’ leave the court with an order that may be constitutionally overbroad.
The protective order entered by Judge Rosen while the case was proceeding was designed to address concerns
related to the litigation at the time. The Court said:
“if the plaintiff were allowed to commercially exploit discovery materials (i.e. deposition transcripts) through the
media before any issues have been decided, it would constitute an unfair and highly prejudiced disadvantage to
the defendants. Any public access to allegations concerning a celebrity may jeopardize a fair hearing if the case
were to go to trial. Moreover, if the court were to protect all discovery motions from the public, each litigant would
still have equal access to these documents, and neither party would have an advantage over the other.” Damiano
v. Sony Music Entertainment, 168 F.R.D. 485, 492 (D.N.J. 1996)(emphasis added).
Given these considerations, Judge Rosen entered a confidentiality order that is so broad that Mr. Damiano is
prohibited from publishing even his own deposition. The opinion and order states:
“This court finds that after weighing both arguments in light of the good cause balancing test, modification of the
original protective order is appropriate and the defendant's motion to designate discovery materials as
confidential shall be granted.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, 168 F.R.D. 485, 493 (D.N.J. 1996)(the
order specifically says “all discovery materials”) .
In Butterworth v. Smith, the Supreme Court found a state prohibition against a witness publishing his testimony
before a grand jury to be a violation of the First Amendment. Butterworth v. Smith 494 U.S. 624 (1990). The Court
reviewed the statute under a heightened scrutiny given that the information had not been obtained as a direct
result of the discovery process. Distinguishing Rhinehart the Court stated the following:
“In Rhinehart we held that a protective order prohibiting a newspaper from publishing information which it had
obtained through discovery procedures did not offend the First Amendment. Here, by contrast, we deal only with
respondent's right to divulge information of which he was in possession before he testified before the grand jury,
and not information which he may have obtained as a result of his participation in the proceedings of the grand
jury. In such cases, where a person ‘lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance,’ we
have held that ‘state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to
further a state interest of the highest order.’” Butterworth v. Smith 494 U.S. 624, 632-633 (1990)(citations
omitted)
The Supreme Court found that the reporter who testified in Butterworth could not be precluded from publishing
his testimony after the grand jury proceeding ended. Mr. Damiano would appear to have no lesser right under
the First Amendment to publish his testimony upon the conclusion of his case. However, the order entered by
Judge Rosen does not accommodate this right.
Given that Mr. Damiano appears to have the right to publish his own deposition and the depositions of witnesses
who likewise give consent, this Court should modify the protective order to only cover information that
Defendants’ show to reach the language of this Court’s 2000 Opinion and Order. Mr. Damiano disputes
Defendants’ claim that the entire deposition testimony of Dylan and Sony witnesses is proprietary. Mr. Damiano
feels compelled by his conscience to publicly criticize Dylan’s claim the suit was “fraudulent.” He also wants public
recognition that Dylan copied his material notwithstanding this Court’s ruling that the copying could not have
reached the threshold of originality to support a copyright infringement claim. See Damiano v. Sony Music
Entertainment, 975 F.Supp. 623, 630 (D.N.J. 1996). Insofar as Mr. Damiano uses deposition material to claim his
influence on Dylan, the Court should allow the information to be published so long as the material does not
disclose proprietary information. We hope the Court will review all the testimony published by Mr. Damiano in the
context of modifying the order to allow Mr. Damiano to publicize portions of testimony which do not touch upon the
concerns expressed in the Court’s prior contempt ruling.
B.
Damiano Can Show Good Cause to Support a Modification of the Confidentiality Order
The District Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify the confidentiality order in this case. See Public Citizen v.
Liggett Group, 858 F.2d 775, 782 (1st Cir. 1988). In the Third Circuit, the Court must evaluate a motion to modify
a confidentially order by applying a “good cause” analysis. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108
(3d Cir. 1986). The “good cause” test required to prevent disclosure is said to be as follows:
"Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party
seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity. Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
examples or articulated reasoning, do not support a good cause showing.’ Id. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). The good cause determination must also balance the public's interest in the information against
the injuries that disclosure would cause.” United States v. Wecht, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8389 (3rd Cir. 2007)
(quoting Pansy).
Damiano’s interest in providing truthful information about his lawsuit against Bob Dylan should be sufficient “good
cause” to publish the excerpts from depositions he considers important to the public. The Court may disagree
with Mr. Damiano as to the significance of the deposition testimony he publishes. However, the desire for one to
publish truthful information should factor into the consideration as to whether publication of the information
outweighs the public interest served by keeping the testimony a secret. The Supreme Court recognized this very
point in Butterworth:
Against the state interests which we have just evaluated must be placed the impact of Florida's prohibition on
respondent's ability to make a truthful public statement. The effect is dramatic: before he is called to testify in
front of the grand jury, respondent is possessed of information on matters of admitted public concern about which
he was free to speak at will. After giving his testimony, respondent believes he is no longer free to communicate
this information since it relates to the "content, gist, or import" of his testimony. The ban extends not merely to
the life of the grand jury but into the indefinite future. The potential for abuse of the Florida prohibition, through
its employment as a device to silence those who know of unlawful conduct or irregularities on the part of public
Mr. Damiano made a mistake when preparing his complaint in his copyright suit by not clarifying the manner in
which he set forth his lyrics. Mr. Damiano did not intend to defraud the court by “fabricating” lyrics for his
complaint, although he did make up titles. Mr. Damiano set forth different lines from songs he had written in a
way to illustrate a direct comparison to lyrics used by Dylan. The side-by-side approach of illustrating the
similarities between lyrics was recently used by the New York Times in an article published on September 14,
2006 to compare Dylan’s lyrics on ”Modern Times” to those of a Civil War poet named Henry Timrod. See
Motoko Rich, “Who’s This Guy Dylan Who’s Borrowing Lines From Henry Timrod?” New York Times, September
14 2006. The article (see attached) accuses Dylan of borrowing lines from Timrod. While the Times may be
more tactful in their layout (by clarifying each specific poem from which the lines were taken), the article uses the
terms “borrowing” and “plagiarism,” and notes how Dylan’s fans are bothered by Dylan’s failure to credit Timrod
on his album. Id.
Dylan himself downplayed the significance of a song Titles in article recently appearing in Rolling Stone
magazine. He’s asked in an interview how he came up with the Title “Highway 61 Revisited.” Dylan responds:
“Titles are something that come after you’ve done whatever it is you’ve done. I don’t set out with a title. It was
something that probably just passed through my mind. Why, does it have some impact?” Jann S. Wenner,
“Fortieth Anniversary Bob Dylan”, Rolling Stone, p. 48, (May 3-17, 2007).
The gravamen of Damiano’s lawsuit against Bob Dylan was the musical infringement he claimed with respect to
Dignity. To support this claim, Mr. Damiano retained an expert from Harvard University. The claim was dismissed,
but counsel is bewildered by Defendants’ use of the term “fraud” to characterize Mr.Damiano’s entire lawsuit.
This court repeated Defendants’ strong language in its published opinion finding Mr. Damiano in contempt. See
Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, 2000 WL 1689081 (D.N.J. 2000).
Mr. Damiano is simply a lay songwriter who has wanted recognition for his music. The deposition testimony in this
case supports the conclusion that Dylan took an interest in Mr. Damiano’s songs, and the Court found that Mr.
Damiano’s claims of access created a disputed issue of fact to survive summary judgment. Damiano v. Sony
Music Entertainment, 975 F.Supp. 623, 630 (D.N.J. 1996). In Mr. Damiano’s deposition., Defendants’ attacked
the credibility of his access claims by questioning how Bob Dylan provided Damiano backstage passes to his
concerts and the claim Dylan “looked at” Damiano from the stage during a concert. Defendants’ also mocked
Damiano’s stage recognition claim on page 11 of their Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss filed in the U.S. District Court on or about June 27, 1996.
In a manner that seems to mock this Court and/or Mr. Damiano, Bob Dylan bolstered the credibility of Damiano’s
claims of backstage access and stage recognition, during Dylan’s televised appearance at the Grammy Awards
ceremony in 1998. Mr. Dylan received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year (“Time Out of Mind”) while
Damiano’s case was pending on appeal in the Third Circuit. While receiving the award, Dylan comments as
follows:
“And I just wanted to say, one time when I was about 16 or 17 years old I went to see Buddy Holly play ... and I
was three feet away from him ... and he looked at me.”
“Bob Dylan’s Comments on Time Out of Mind,” On The Tracks, p. 8, (June 15, 1998)(see attached excerpt).
Given that the New York Times finds adequate cause to publish internet claims of Mr. Dylan borrowing lines from
Henry Timrod, and Dylan’s seeming public recognition of obscurities found in Damiano’s book “Eleven Years”,
this Court should view Damiano’s publications about his case as serving a public interest. Mr. Damiano cannot
undo this Court’s ruling as the originality questions settled in his case. However, he has “good cause” to inform
the public about his experiences in communicating lyrics and music to Bob Dylan. Mr. Damiano should be allowed
to claim an influence on Dylan’s songs, even if that influence does not entitle him to compensation under U.S.
Copyright law.
C.
Dylan’s Reasons for the Confidentiality Order Have Dissipated with the Passage of Time
Mr. Damiano asks this Court to lift the confidentiality order as to all information he has posted on the internet.
After facing the full weight of this Court’s contempt sanction on three occasions, Mr. Damiano re-published the
deposition material he considered salient to his arguments and audience respecting the lawsuit after Dylan and
Sony refused to engage in settlement talks about the confidentiality order. Given the extended period of time the
deposition material has been published, the First Amendment considerations which attach to Damiano’s unlawful
publications are inescapable. See generally New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)(pentagon
papers); Nebraska Press v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558 (1976)(prior restraint on speech held invalid against a
public trial); Short v. Western Electric Co., 566 F.Supp. 932, 934 (D.N.J. 1982)(clerk’s error in disseminating
settlement proceeding found to remove confidentiality issue from the “judicial process”).
Defendants’ cannot readily make a case that the deposition material on Mr. Damiano’s website puts them in a
competitive disadvantage or at risk of losing proprietary trade secrets. Mr. Damiano has not published any such
information from the depositions. The information has been published for such an extended period at this point,
nothing can realistically be gained by further proscribing publication of the information under the protective order.
Defendants’ seek further protection with the confidentiality order for public relations purposes. Weighing this
interest against Mr. Damiano’s interest in speaking his conscience to the extent of facing repeated contempt
motions, the Court should find no further purpose served in sanctioning Mr. Damiano. To do so may only
contribute to a greater degree of mistrust and contempt:
“an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving dignity of the bench, would probably
engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.” Bridges v. California,
314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941).
Mr. Damiano’s beliefs or “diatribes” about his case are sincere. He’s not attempting to embarrass Bob Dylan or
exploit the lawsuit. He declined an offer to sell his story to a movie producer, and he has not been selling his
book. He’s been fined $50,820.69 for his publications. Mr. Damiano feels he has not been given fair recognition
for contributions he’s made to Dylan’s music published by Sony. Mr. Damiano believes the lack of credit he’s
been given, entitles him to publicly comment about his case and include supporting deposition testimony with his
commentary. He just doesn’t understand why he should not have this right.
In the alternative, Mr. Damiano would like to produce evidence to the Court as to which parties of his, give
consent to his internet publication of their testimony. With such consent, Mr. Damiano hopes the court will lift the
confidentiality order respecting each witness deposition. See Butterworth v. Smith 494 U.S. 624, 635-636 (1990).
II.
The Confidentiality Order Should Be Modified to Allow Mr. Damiano to Lobby and Explore the Merits of Bringing
Suit for the Song His Expert Analyzed.
This Court dismissed Mr. Damiano’s copyright infringement claim against Dignity due, in part, to language in the
Copyright Act stating that an unregistered song cannot be the basis of a suit. The Court’s opinion states as
follows:
“First, the court notes that the Exhibit 71 version cannot be the basis of an infringement claim because plaintiff is
unable to show that the work was registered with the Copyright Office. Thus, he has failed to establish a prima
facie case of musical infringement for that version of "Steel Guitars." The Copyright tape version, on the other
hand, although not originally identified as infringed work, apparently was registered. The court will therefore
analyze the remaining elements of an infringement claim for the registered version only.” Damiano v. Sony Music
Entertainment, 975 F. Supp. 623, 630(D.N.J. 1996).
The Court’s opinion does not speak to the issue as to whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The
Copyright Act does not address the question whether claims dismissed on the basis of not being registered may
be filed upon registration. See 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).
The silence of the Copyright Act on this point may be interpreted to mean the claim is adjudicated upon dismissal
to final judgment, or it may be interpreted to mean the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the claim until it has
been registered. Mr. Damiano’s counsel argued on summary judgment that Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure may be interpreted to allow a claim to go forward without dismissal notwithstanding the statutory
predicate. This Court appears to have dismissed the Exhibit 71 version of Steel Guitars on the sole basis of the
registration defect.
Mr. Damiano should be able to lobby Congress to clarify whether the dismissed Exhibit 71 recording of Steel
Guitars can be re-filed upon registration. He should be able to use the testimony from his case to lend credibility
to the issue as to whether Dylan ever had access to his material. The Court found that Mr. Damiano established
a material dispute of fact on the access issue related to his claim. Nevertheless, Damiano’s claim has been
characterized as being “fraudulent” and “concocted” by Dylan and Sony. (Memorandum of Law in Support of
Defendants’ Motion to Hold Plaintiff James Damiano in Contempt, p. 4). Given this serious allegation, Mr.
Damiano should be permitted the latitude to present his claim to members of Congress and the media with all
supporting evidence for the purpose of clarifying the ambiguity of the Copyright Act on the issue of registration.
The Court should modify the Protective Order to allow Mr. Damiano to lobby his interest in filing a new suit before
the U.S. Congress. Mr. Damiano has no need to disclose proprietary business interests of Bob Dylan or Sony to
simply make the case that Dylan had access to his music. He can use the testimony of his own witnesses to make
this claim. However, he should also be permitted to disclose the facts regarding the destination of materials he
turned over to Anthony Tiller and Bob Dylan’s publicist. The testimony of these witnesses give credibility to
Damiano’s claim that Dylan had access to his material.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Hold Plaintiff James Damiano in Contempt should be denied,
and the Court is respectfully requested to modify the confidentiality order in this case to allow the deposition
material Mr. Damiano has published to his detriment, having been sanctioned for contempt, to be released for
public consumption.
I HEREBY CERTTIFY, on this ______ day of June, 2007, that a copy of the foregoing paper has been served by
emailing and mailing copies, via postage pre-paid first class mail, to Defendants’ counsel at the following address:
Steven D. Johnson, Esq.
Gibbons P.C.
And
Village coffeehouse
In a daze of thoughts
he took a break
down to talk
the haze
He claimed to be a Christian
Christianity
Wanted me to see
To pray over me
On October 7, 2008 Bob Dylan released "Tell Tale Signs" Which included an acoustic piano version of
"Dignity"
http://www.jamesdamiano.com
http://www.jamesdamiano.com