Bob Dylan Guilty of Plagiarism

FRAUD UPON THE COURT RE:

JAMES DAMIANO Vs. BOB DYLAN PLAGIARISM / COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT RULE 56 (c) FRCP FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 56(c) of the federal rules of civil procedure states as 
folows:

56 aSummary Judgment (a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought.

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT RE: JAMES DAMIANO Vs. BOB DYLAN PLAGIARISIM / COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

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. That 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 Dylan’s attorneys downloaded the crimes they committed and produced it to Judge Simandle. Even though Dylan’s attorneys made the fatal mistake of submitting the evidence which severely implicated Dylan to Judge Simandle, Judge Simandle still 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 writing in his decision that “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 disregarded Thirty Five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Bob 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. Judge Simandle’s behavior 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 Hayes of Hanly Concoy and Steven D. Johnson of Gibbons.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT Judge Simandle disregarded Thirty Five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Dylan, Blatant admissions of guilt by defendants, eleven years of documented documents between James Damiano and CBS records and Dylan diminishing the integrity of the United States Judicial System.
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.

JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff 
C 95-4795 (JBS)
against
SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/7/2002
and BOB DYLAN Defendants

DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #1

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

1. The materials facts contained within this motion conclusively, refute this courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Bob Dylan as pursuant to Rule 56 ( c ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
The court shall grant summary judgment only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

A., Without exception in every ruling of every motion of James Damiano vs Bob Dylan Judge Simandle displayed partiality favoring Bob Dylan by  

B. Choosing to honor the opinion of Bob Dylan’s lead counsel Orin Snyder as opposed to plaintiff Damiano’s true material facts.

C. Said truth’s conclusively reveal the opposite of Judge Simandle’s findings rulings and decisions which are inconsistant with the final outcome of Damiano vs. Dylan. 
 

Bob Dylan fooled the world for decades claiming to have written many of the melodies to his hit songs when in fact most of the melodies were from preexisting songs that he did not write.

In a last nail in the coffin scenario James Damiano’s movie “Eleven Years” draws the straw that breaks the camel’s back, rivets Bob Dylan to his secret past of plagiarism and rewrites musical history”……Virtue Films

Bob Dylan ‘s Stealing of James Damiano ‘s Songs

http://christinejustice.yolasite.com

.