It is judicially uncontested that James Damiano possesses legal authority over defendant Bob Dylan as per the case law cited below, exhibiting the fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano.

This website has been published on the internet for over sixteen years and has been downloaded and produced to Judge Simandle three times by Bob Dylan's lead attorney Orin Snyder now currently employed at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Bob Dylan has never been deposed in this litigation nor has he ever filed and or signed 

an affidavit of denial.

Any certified attorney wanting to sign James Damiano's  Default Motion should direct email to Virtuefilmsltd@gmail.com

James Damiano's default motion against Bob Dylan can be seen at link below

 

 

  Today, thousands of people will learn that Bob Dylan stole eighty five percent of his Songs including many of his commercial hits.

 

 

After thirty-five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Bob Dylan, after  fifteen and a half million dollars have been spent on this litigation, and after this website has been published on the world wide web for over eighteen years defendant Bob Dylan  has never filed a counter, slander or libel suit against James Damiano. 

 

This website will document the degree of Mainstream Media Censorship in The United States and the World. Bob Dylan pays his lawyers to pay companies follow around links that lead to this website and illegally take them down or redirect them to "Website Not Found". This has been going on for over eighteen years. 

 

MOVIE TRAILER FOR ELEVEN YEARS

 

 MOVIE TRAILER FOR ELEVEN YEARS

 

 

 "Dignity" Based on the book "Eleven Years" Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's Songs


Defendants have been aware of James Damiano's public internet statements made against Bob Dylan for over eighteen years years and have downloaded this website and produced it to Judge Simandle of the United States.Federal Court on three different occasions. 

Needless to say that this information has been entered upon the record of the court by Bob Dylan's Attorney's Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson after they downloaded the website and produced it to Judge Simandle. In other words they downloaded the crimes they committed and produced it to Judge Simandle LOL

Judge Simandle 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)  even after stating 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)." [Emphasis added] "no genuine issue as to any material fact."

Judge Simandle also disregarded  Thirty Five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Dylan, blatant admissions  of guilt by defendants, eleven years of documents between James Damiano and CBS records and Dylan's organization and also expert testimony from a Harvard musicologist which executed a "fraud upon the court" and diminishing the integrity of the United States Judicial System. 

[Emphasis added] "no genuine issue as to any material fact."

Bob Dylan's lead attorney Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher has committed a massive amount of fraud upon the court along with L. Peter Parcher of Mannatt, Steven M. Hayes of Hanly Concoy and Steven D. Johnson of Gibbons.     


It is judicially uncontested that James Damiano possesses legal authority over defendant Bob Dylan as per  the case law cited below, exhibiting the fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano. 


FRAUD UPON THE COURT


It is well grounded fact of law and judicially uncontested that James Damiano remains to poses legal authority over the Court and defendant Bob Dylan as per the case law cited herein. There for exhibiting the legal fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano.

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Judicially impropriety test

"The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired."

FRAUD UPON THE COURT 

Judge Simandle disregarded Thirty Five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Dylan, and document Damiano's "Eleven Year" association with Bob Dylan and CBS / Sony, Blatant admissions of guilt by defendants and also by Bob Dylan himself, eleven years of documented documents between James Damiano CBS records and Dylan, Expert testimony from a Harvard Graduated musicologist.

Reinterated:

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." 

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. 

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). 

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. 

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). 

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). 

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." 

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. 

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). 

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. 

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. 

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). 

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. 

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. 

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. 

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. 

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

It is Judicially and publically uncontested by Bob Dylan that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited songs, lyrics and music written by James Damiano for a period of over ten years and eleven months. 

In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Motion for Request for admissions:

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.

1. OPINION OVER FACT 

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 testimony and defense in this action.

Reiterated

It is well grounded fact of law and judicially uncontested that James Damiano remains to poses legal authority over the Court and defendant Bob Dylan as per the case law cited herein. There for exhibiting the legal fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano.

 It is Judicially and publically uncontested by Bob Dylan that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited songs, lyrics and music written by James Damiano for a period of over ten years and eleven months

 

Movie Trailer 4

 

 

Translate This Page

 

 James Damiano was the last artist to ever work with the legendary John Hammond Sr.

 

It is true that Bob Dylan Sued a homeless witha disabled son for $25.000.00.

 

It is not hard to imagine what Bob Dylan's professional reputation as a songwriter is worth when

A sheet of handwritten lyrics to one Bob Dylan classic 'The Times They Are A-Changin’ has sold at auction for $422,500.00

BBC News Reports

The handwritten notes for the singer-songwriter's 1964 classic went under the hammer at Sotherby's in New York , where Hedge Fund manager Adam Sender placed the winning bid at $422,500 reports BBC News.

On June 16th 2009 the following letter was sent to Bob Dylan's Attorney Orin Snyder written by James Damiano's Attorney in the Bob Dylan Damiano Plagiarism suit "Robert  Church" regarding boxes of James Damiano's songs produced to Orin Snyder during discovery

There were approximately fifteen to twenty five boxes filled with anywhere from 200 to 400 finished and unfinished songs in each box (thirty five years of writing) that were never returned

Dear Mr. Snyder:

I have one other matter.  Mr. Damiano informs me that Steven Kramer (James Damiano's lead attorney) had several boxes of songs delivered to Parcher & Hayes during the discovery phase of his case against Dylan.  Mr. Kramer never made copies of the documents, since I am presuming he felt pressed to comply with an overdue discovery request.  Mr. Damiano informs me that he has never had all the original songs returned to his possession, even though the case is over.  If you don’t mind, please explain what you can recall about Mr. Damiano’s song production.  Do you still have songs unaccounted for?  Can they be returned?   

Sincerely Robert Church

 

"In light of statements made by Bob Dylan in his latest interviews regarding plagiarism, there is no need for him to admit that he plagiarized James Damiano's Songs, it's a given, it's also public knowledge, documented at that. The depositions and Mr. Dylan's interviews speak for themselves  There is no debate. What can one say but that facts are facts"......Managing Editor The New York Times

Seeking Attorney file Law Suit Against Bob Dylan.

Inquiries to

Uslawjournal@gmail.com

 

 All discovery completed with the exception of Bob Dylan's Deposition.

 

    Dignity Credits:

Nominated Grammy Award Best Rock Song Category
          Vocals:      Joe Cocker
        Keyboards:    Billy Preston
Melody: James Damiano
Lyrics: Bob Dylan & James Damiano

 




Contact Robert Church
Attorney at Law
RobertChurch@aol.com

 

 Bob Dylan Admits Plagiarism

“Well you have to understand that I’m not a melodist. My songs are either based on old Protestant hymns or Carter Family songs. What happens is, I’ll take a song and simply start playing it in my head. That’s the way I meditate.”....“I wrote ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ in 10 minutes, just put words to an old spiritual, probably something I learned from Carter Family records. That’s the folk music tradition – you use what has been handed down. ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ is probably from an old Scottish folk Song.” 'I'll be playing Bob Nolan's 'Tumbling Tumbleweeds,' for instance, in my head constantly -- while I'm driving a car or talking to a person or sitting around or whatever. People will think they are talking to me and I'm talking back, but I'm not. I'm listening to the song in my head. At a certain point, some of the words will change and I'll start writing a song.'".......Bob Dylan

This Months Showcase Video

The question of plagiarism, made public by Joni Mitchell in 2010, is also discussed in Lewis Hyde’s Common As Air. That Dylan’s first 70 recorded songs allegedly had clear predecessors and two thirds of the melodies were directly lifted may be (as Dylan said) common to the “folk process.” But Yaffe also notes Dylan in his autobiography expressing feelings by using unacknowledged lines from Proust, and he derides Dylan’s recent Modern Times album as largely plagiarized, though from public domain sources.

 The Following Music Analysis was prepared by Dr. Greene who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University and produced to Judge Simandle of the United States Federal Court. Bob Dylan  has never supplied a musicologist with any scholarly credentials.


Plagiarism Defined :


An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.

 

 

Most Dylan fans would be stunned to realize that his vocal style (for lack of a better term) was high-jacked, in its entirety, from long-dead bluegrass-country singer Carter Stanley. We’re not talking about an influence, like Lefty Frizzell for Merle Haggard, but a total appropriation of  Stanley’s highly idiosyncratic approach. A counterfeit from the get-go, once Dylan realized what an advantage his audience’s innate ignorance was, he’s exploited it ever since.

Just type “Bob Dylan plagiarism” into your friendly search engine, and a plethora of questionable circumstances pop up, enrobing the singer almost as completely as his years of reflexive media fawning have.

Documented from his teenage start, when he submitted a hand written, thinly revised version of country star Hank Snow’s “Little Buddy” for publication as an original poem, to his 1963 pilferage of Irish poet Dominic Behan’s “Patriot Game”’s melody for the similarly slanted Dylan tune “With God on Our Side” to songwriter James Damiano’s ongoing multimillion dollar copyright infringement suit (alleging Dylan’s Grammy-nominated “Dignity” is nothing but an altered version of Damiano’s “Steel Guitars”) to the naked “Red Sails in the Sunset” melody heist for the song “Beyond The Horizon” on his Modern Times album, up through the recent Confessions of a Yakuza-Love & Theft plagiarism charges (Love & Theft? Calling Dr. Freud!), the Timrod controversy, even the numerous passages of Proust and Jack London that (re) appear in the text of Dylan’s autobiography, it’s a deep, dark thicket of thoroughly damning and apparently chronic bootlegging.

Naturally, Dylan has said nothing publicly about any of these, but he already spent over three million dollars defending himself against one-time affiliate Damiano–the classic delay-to-destroy court room technique.......Andrew Brietbart

 Lewis Hyde’s Common As Air

 Attorneys See link Below

No artist can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Thirty 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.

Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Charlie Christian, Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan , James has engaged in a half a billion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.

As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS / Sony international recording artist, Bob Dylan not only used songs and lyrics written by James Damiano but also solicited Mr. Damiano's materials for a period of over ten years and eleven months.

As per Judicial filings Bob Dylan's name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy as the best rock song of the year. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity.

 

 

This site is the missing link to all other Bob Dylan Plagiarism's including Knockin on Heavens Door, Shelter From The Storm, Dignity, Masters of War, Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin In The Wind, Don't Think Twice It's Alright, Floater, Lonesome Day Blues, Every Grain of Sand, Baby Let Me Follow You Down, Ninety Miles An Hour Down A Dead End Street and many more

 Inquiries

VirtueFilmsltd@gmail.com

 It is  judicially uncontested that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited songs written by James Damiano for a period of over ten years and eleven months.

 No artist can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Thirty 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.

It has also come to our attention that approximately 75 % of Bob Dylan's songs were plagiarized

 Movie Trailer 1

 

This story has been censored by mainstream media

   Weekly Stats





 

Hard to see

The shadows

In

The darkness of the night

Hard to see the truth

In

The blindness of the light

Never thought I'd see

The day

When two wrongs

Made a right

Hard to see

The shadows

In

The darkness

Of the night


All lyrics on this website 
written by James Damiano

except for "I fought The Law" music & lyrics written by Sonny Curtis"

 E-mail

This website is hardcore proof that Mainstream Media has censored your news this website has been viewed by Reuters, Bloomberg Media, Spin Magazine, Georgia Board of Regents, The Center for Public Integrity, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Washington Post, Disney Network, Fox Media, Turner Broadcasting Network, Yale, Harvard, Columbia  and Columbia Law School, UCLA and UCLA Law School, Oxford University, Rutgers University, The New Jersey Law Journal,  and The EOP.gov  Executive Office of the President "The White House". It has also been viewed by  over 750 thousand attorneys.

uslawjournal@gmail.com

 The information provided in the following video seems to be the most logical explanation for Bob Dylan's motive in soliciting James Damiano's Songs for over ten years and eleven months.

Please be assured that  this information would not have been published on this website however given the amount of threats by the court to incarcerate James Damiano for  disobeying Judge Rosen's "Federal Gag Order" of the court pertaining to discovery materials James Damiano was left no other choice but to publish it.

This is just another example of Bob Dylan's Attorney's Peter Parcher and Orin Snyder ruining Dylan's reputation.

It is very doubtful that they will download this website and enter it upon the record of the court.

Link to "My Cousin Joanne"

   "I Fought The Law" written by Sonny Curtis"

Everyone someday finds out

Just how much faith

A man must have

So may the truth

Of your reality

Be in your own behalf

 


James Damiano
vs.
Bob Dylan

Cause of Action: Plagiarism

This site is the missing link to all other Bob Dylan Plagiarism's including Knockin on Heavens Door, Shelter From The Storm, Dignity, Masters of War, Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin In The Wind, Don't Think Twice It's Alright, Floater, Lonesome Day Blues, Every Grain of Sand, Baby Let Me Follow You Down, Ninety Miles An Hour Down A Dead End Street and many many more



About something else

I might have lied

Something personal

I might deny

Another time

I might have tried

About something else

I might have lied

I have faith

I can do without

Be the fool

Find cause to doubt

If I didn't believe

I wouldn't try

To live the truth

I'd live a lie

 Deposition of Bob Dylan's pubicist

 

If you as a citizen  believe that your government is engaged in corruption and or is violating your constitutional rights in any way we suggest you share this website with as many people as  possible .

Bob Dylan Admits Heroin Addiction in his Own words

 Also....If you believe that Mainstream Media is censoring your news and covering up stories of importance we suggest again that you share this website immediately with as many people as possible

 

Federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle played an enormous part in aiding Bob Dylan in "Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's Songs" which could amount to close to a half a billion dollars

 

Preview

It has now been reported that Bob Dylan's newly signed publishing deal with Simon & Schuster will include two books of unpublished Bob Dylan lyrics. Critics compared the books to discovering the lost diaries of Shakespeare

Someday maybe
You'll be able
To tell
The greatest Story
Say the greatest line
Give the greatest
Performance
Find the greatest
Find

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Ruining Bob Dylan's Reputation

Our suggestion to Bob Dylan :

File Suit against Gibson Dunn and your attorneys Orin Snyder, L Peter Parcher, Steven D. Johnson, and Steven Hayes for giving you legal advice which destroyed your reputation.


James Damiano 

Vs.

Bob Dylan


United States District Court

Complaint "Plagiarism"

Judge Jerome B. Simandle Presiding

Judge Jerome B. Simandle

Orin Snyder Attorney for Bob Dylan

Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, and Goldman Sachs have one thing in common the Lawyer "Orin Snyder"


Orin Snyder Of

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher


L. Peter Parcher of

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

&



Steven D. Johnson of
Gibbons
Attorneys for James Damiano

Steven M Kramer and Associates

&

Robert Church Esq.



Robert Church Esq.




James Damiano

This website is updated daily


 The evidence in the Bob Dylan James Damiano Plagiarism Law suit was so incriminating to Bob Dylan that he entered a motion for a confidentiality order which was granted by Judge Joel B. Rosen and enforced by Judge Jerome B. Simandle designating all discovery materials confidential.

Same behavior one would expect from Communist China

It has been over fourteen years since the dismissal of the law suit and the confidentiality order is still in effect

On march 14th 2011 the following letter was sent to

Judge Simandle by Bob Dylan through his attorney

Orin Snyder who will lie to the court at will


Bob Dylan
Subscribe

  Preview of

"Eleven Years"

 

 James Damiano Interview and musical analysis and comparison


Judge Simandle disregarded fifty hours of video taped deposition materials all of which incriminated Bob Dylan 

 Preview 2

Bob Dylan's Lawyer "Orin Snyder" explodes at end of deposition

Judge Simandle's rulings are a hundred percent inconsistent with the facts of this case.

During James Damiano's last contempt hearing he did promise the court to remove all video taped deposition materials.

This promise was made under duress from the court threatening incarceration should he not comply

 

James Damiano's now expects to be incarcerated for violations of Judge Rosen's confidentiality order.

This testimony conclusively implicates Bob Dylan's publicist Elliot Mintz along with Bob Dylan and other people in Bob Dylan's entourage of Bob Dylan's eleven year solicitation of James Damiano's music.

Judge Simandle will not allow James Damiano to protect himself with depositions that incriminate Bob Dylan, and the court of censoring the truth

 Everyone

One day finds out

Just how much faith

A man must have

So may the truth

Of your reality

Be in your

Own behalf

The following letter to Judge Simandle was entered upon the record of the court by Judge Simandle as document 154 and Dated Mar 9th 2007

The letter enclosed a four hour DVD of videotaped depositions from the Bob Dylan James Damiano Plagiarism Law Suit which conclusively reveal Bob Dylan's eleven year solicitation of James Damiano's songs

The DVD also conclusively revealed that Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder lied to the court.

James Damiano's letter to Judge Simandle judicially documents the fact that Judge Simandle had in his possession the video taped depositions in DVD form that conclusively incriminate Bob Dylan in the Stealing of James Damiano's Songs..


Although there are over thirty five hours of videotaped depositions which implicate Bob Dylan, people in Bob Dylan's entourage and Bob Dylan's lawyers of Stealing James Damiano's songs, Judge Jerome B. Simandle ruled in favor of Bob Dylan to hold James Damiano in contempt of court for disobeying the order.

No counter-suit was ever filed nor was there ever a defamation or libel suit ever filed by Bob Dylan against James Damiano

 Robert Church's Response to Bob Dylan's Motion to hold James Damiano in Contempt for violations of Bob Dylan's confidentiality order

 Send to a friend,  Bookmark or add this

Bookmark and Share

 

Bob Dylan

This website is the missing link to all other Bob Dylan plagiarisms including Blowin In The Wind, Knockin On Heavens Door, Shelter From The Storm and Like A Rolling Stone. It is a judicially uncontested fact that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan's entourage have solicited songs written by James Damiano for a period of over ten years and eleven months.

The movie "Dignity" is based on the book

"Eleven Years"

"The Stealing of James Damiano's Songs by Bob Dylan"

All Rights Reserved

This site is set up for the sole purpose of finding an uninfluenced attorney to refile James Damiano's case against Bob Dylan for Plagiarism

Bob Dylan's suppression of the truth is no different than that of China's suppression of the truth

UslawJournal@gmail.com


Follow APNewswire1 on Twitter


The Bob Dylan James Damiano Story

A paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System



This website has been downloaded by Bob Dylan's attorney's and produced to Judge Jerome B. Simandle three times.

The movie Dignity which included four hours of videotaped depositions which incriminated Bob Dylan and his attorneys has been given to the United States Marshall's Service who have commented in James Damiano's favor stating that the lawsuit was a "shut tight case that James Damiano should have won".

All information contained on this website and on the DVD "Dignity is Judicially uncontested by Bob Dylan and his law firms.

Bob Dylan never filed an affidavit of denial in this litigation nor did he respond to Plaintiff's motion for admissions.

Judge Simandle's decisions opinions and rulings in this litigation
were one hundred percent inconsistent with the facts of this case

In the middle of midnight
She's coming around
I'm dressed in my best threads
Gonna take on this town
In the middle of midnight
I've got what it takes
To find out what the truth is
Make fools of all the fakes
In the middle of midnight
Her clothes caught my eye
I'd be willing to bet
I'd be willing to lie
In the middle of midnight
Could have sworn
I heard her cry
In the middle of midnight
This ain't no one last try


All lyrics on this website written by James Damiano

Attorney wanted to file existing default motion against Bob Dylan
All discovery completed except for Bob Dylan's deposition

James Damiano
subpoenaed Bob Dylan to court and Bob Dylan never showed
Disclaimer: This website has been constructed for the purpose of finding an attorney to file an existing Default Motion against Bob Dylan for Plagiarism in which Dylan and his attorneys would not be able to legally address, answer, or deny even the first paragraph due to the fact that three times they have downloaded the information contained in this website and produced it to the court including the one hour trailer of the movie "Dignity",The Bob Dylan James Damiano Story  

As per motions filed in the Damiano Dylan litigation "It is judicially uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan’s law firms Manatt, Phelps & Phillips , Parcher Hayes & Snyder, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Hecker 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 a period of over ten years and eleven months.

Bob Dylan & his law firms 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.


Judicially impropriety test

"The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired."

 Over the past several years more and more Bob Dylan plagiarisms have been reported in  mainstream media.

Bob Dylan has blatantly released other peoples work without crediting the true authors name to songs he has received royalties for.  "Blowin In The Wind", "Knockin on Heavens Door", "Like A Rolling Stone" "Dignity" and "Shelter From The Storm" were among these songs

The confidentiality order obtained by Bob Dylan in the Bob Dylan James Damiano litigation censors the fraud committed by Bob Dylan's attorneys especially that of Orin Snyder.

The order also protects Judge Joel B. Rosen and Judge Jerome B. Simandle of enforcing an illegal order, Ruling in favor of Bob Dylan in light of the fact that said ruling was inconsistent with the facts of the case, and disregarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 Confidentiality Vs. First Amendment

CONFIDENTIALITY
7th Circuit’s Challenge

7th Circuit requires parties to
justify confidentiality
 All hell broke lose when
The imposter
Took the stand
A cloud of confusion
Filled the room
To thick to
Withstand
When a witness
Yelled to the Jury
You better understand
All hell broke lose
When the imposter
Took the stand
What right have they
To intrude
In your affairs
Haven't they more
Class than that
Than to have to put on airs
Their concept conversation
And theoretical view
Not much left
To understand
Cept for what they
Thought they knew

 To hear a musical comparison of "Dignity" see link below

http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/dignity-comparison.php


Dignity was nominated for a Grammy as the best rock song of the year

and was the hit of the Bob Dylan's MTV Unplugged Cd,  DVD soundtrack, Video Soundtrack



Dignity was also the hit off of Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits' Volume 3 CD



 

Preview 3

James Damiano faces incarceration by Judge Simandle for posting the video-taped deposition materials below which conclusively incriminate Bob Dylan The one hour movie trailer below documents how many times Bob Dylan's witness's perjured themselves. Please keep in mind there are at least another thirty five hours of video taped depositions

1411

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS)
against
SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC
and BOB DYLAN Defendants

DATED 10/17/2002


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S DISMISSAL OF THIS LAWSUIT.


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S MEMORANDUM OPINION OF FINDING JAMES DAMIANO IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF JUDGE JOEL B. ROSIN'S [Sic]CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE [Sic] PROTECTIVE ORDER


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE SIMANDLE


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY

ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND BOB DYLAN.

James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares under penalty of perjury 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 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. 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.

The following Statements and facts were never contested or answered by Bob Dylan or by any attorney or representative of Bob Dylan and or Sony Music Entertainmnt Inc.

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
EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF 2002 IN
_________________________________________________________
James Damiano ____________________________________

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 hour DVD movie about this litigation has been completed. The movie contains video taped depositions, music videos and assorted segments pertaining to this litigation. Said materials can be seen at the link following link http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/

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 charges of any kind nor has Bob Dylan filed a slander suit

From United States District Judge.
JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION:
[*625] JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS)


Judge Simadle cited rule 56( c ) 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)." [Emphasis added] "no genuine issue as to any material fact."

Judge Simandle also found that James Damiano had created a genuine issue of material fact.

From the same JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION: [*625]
JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS)

"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" A comparison of Judge Simandle's ruling: "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).' " Judge Simandle also went as far as to say in JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION: [*625] JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS)

"this court will accept as true plaintiff's allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated if Dylan used his work"

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 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.

 

 

It seems like the recording industry and record labels are up for a fight, with new information being revealed that may cause artists to take back ownership of their music. Thanks to a little-talked-about provision in United States copyright law, artists whose songs are 35 years old or more are able to utilize “termination rights,” which allow them to regain control of their work.

In the mid-1970s, copyright law was revised to include the loophole that artists could ask for their work back after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under this provision of the law, but in a matter of months, songs from 1979 will also be eligible to be “taken back.”

The provision also permits songwriters to reclaim ownership of qualifying songs – Bob Dylan has already filed to regain some of his compositions, as have other performers like Tom Petty, Bryan Adams, Loretta Lynn, and Tom Waits.

With the recording industry already facing plummeting sales, termination rights claims could issue a serious blow – sales plunged to about $6.3 billion, down from $14.6 billion, over the decade ending in 2009 – largely due to unauthorized downloads on the Internet.

“This is a life-threatening change for them, the legal equivalent of Internet technology,” said Kenneth J. Abdo, a lawyer who leads a termination rights working group or the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and has filed claims for some of his clients.

Interestingly, the four major record companies – Universal, Sony BMG, EMI, and Warner – are prepared to fight for recordings they believe to be their property.  “We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,” said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America.

Go To Second Page

Make a Free Website with Yola.