Epstein / Comey Clan Update
Comey Tip Of The Iceberg
Comey Linked To The Deadliest Lawyer
Not many lawyers would permit themselves to be portrayed as a ganster, unless of course there is a method to their madness.
With that said there’s a good chance that the “Meet Orin Snyder The Deadliest Trial Lawyer” headline is a subliminal threat to some one. Who? Who Knows? Maybe to anyone who opposes Orin Snyder.
Me I believe it’s just another Orin Snyder bluff but hey if you can make one bluff and win one hundred and twenty five multi-million dollar law suits God Bless you. I was just wondering if that threat also pertains to Judges?
Of course headlines of such nature brings scrutiny so let’s play connect the dots from Epstein, Weinstein Clinton and Bronfman to Comey.
Lets start with Weinstein shall we? Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn represented Harvey Weinstein.
THIS Curcumin Tumeric is 14,000 Stronger for Pain and Inflammation! (VIDEO)
Weinstein told Roberti he was willing to pay the $600,000 back to amfAR in an effort to calm the waters, and hoped they could make things right again. Then the conversation moved on to hiring Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Weinstein accused Roberti of moving Ajamie in to conduct an investigation he felt was shoddy. (Roberti had not hired Ajamie.) Roberti also recounted Weinstein saying to him, “We’re going to get this other person in there. I’m gonna know how you voted.” He was apparently referring to Orin Snyder, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Orin Snyder represented Harvey Weinstein on behalf of Bob Dylan
2006-12-18 04:00:00 PDT Hollywood -- Forget "Blonde on Blonde." Try "Lawyer on Lawyer."
A character patterned after Bob Dylan in the upcoming biopic "Factory Girl," about the rise and drug-hastened fall of 1960s actress-model Edie Sedgwick, has prompted the folk-rock legend's lawyers to demand that screenings be canceled until they can view the movie before it is released later this month.
The fear: that viewers might infer that Dylan was responsible for Sedgwick's drug death in November 1971, several years after she and Dylan had become close while living in Manhattan's infamous Chelsea Hotel.
A letter sent by Dylan's lawyers claimed that the portrayal "remains both defamatory and a violation of Mr. Dylan's right of publicity" and demanded that all screenings be canceled.
Orin Snyder, a lawyer for Dylan, declined to comment, saying he was not authorized to discuss the matter. Attempts to reach the producers were unsuccessful. Spokeswoman Sarah Rothman declined to comment for the Weinstein Co., which has scheduled a limited Dec. 29 release for Oscar consideration.
The initial story was that Dylan got Sedwick hooked on heroin and Weinstein bought the movie to change the story line to read that Sedwick had her heart broken by Dylan thus she committed suicide. Big difference.
To the next dot Jeffrey Epstein.
The following letter was written by Epsteins lawyer to the prosecutors who were prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein in Florida.
From Orin Snyder Bio
Mr. Snyder has represented numerous nonprofit institutions, such as The Clinton Foundation, the American Red Cross, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts
Focusing on the "The Clinton Foundation"
The Clinton Foundation was investigated for fraud by the DOJ
Peter Paul Strzok II is a former United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent. Strzok was the Chief of the Counterespionage Section and led the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server.
Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division. He also led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
In June and July 2017, Strzok worked on Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into any links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government. Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation when Mueller became aware of criticisms of Trump contained in personal text messages exchanged between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were having an extramarital affair.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended Mueller's response to the text messages.
Strzok called Trump an "idiot" in August 2015 and texted "God Hillary should win 100,000,000 - 0" after a Republican debate in March 2016.
In their messages, Strzok and Page also advocated creating a Special Counsel to investigate the Hillary Clinton email controversy, and discussed suggesting former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald be considered for such a probe.
Devlin Barrett from The Washington Post alleged Strzok and Page had been using the backdrop of discussing the Clinton investigation as a cover for their personal communications during an affair.
Upon learning of the text messages, Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation. Messages released in January 2018 showed that Strzok was hesitant to join the Mueller investigation, with Page encouraging him not to.
Bob Dylan performed at President Clinton's inagural ceramony
Next dot Les Wexner
New York (CNN Business) Les Wexner, CEO and founder of Victoria’s Secret parent company, L Brands, has been caught up in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Speaking publicly about his connection for the first time since Epstein’s arrest, Wexner said Monday he severed ties with Epstein 12 years ago.
Epstein, a longtime associate of Wexner's, is accused of running a sex-trafficking enterprise, in which he paid girls as young as 14 to have sex with him at his Upper East Side home and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Prosecutors say he used employees and associates to lure the girls to his residences, and then paid some of his victims to recruit other girls for him to abuse.
Epstein has been charged with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors related to alleged conduct that occurred between 2002 and 2005. He has pleaded not guilty.
Bob Dylan Victoria’s Secret Commercial
Orin Snyder represented Bob Dylan in a copyright infringement law suit filed by songwriter James Damiano.
After eleven years of working with Dylan’s management Damiano filed suit against Dylan for copyright infringement. When one reviews the documents of the case they realize that Dylan had “NO” as in zero evidence to defend himself against Damiano . He ignored his subpoena’s, never filed an affidavit of denial, refused to answer any motion for admissions, never filed a counter suit and admitted to having access to Damiano’s songs.
Dylan however did file for a confidentiality order. and was granted the order by Judge Rosen.
Judge Rosen’s “Gag Order” has been in effect for the last nineteen years. The irony of the situation is that Bob Dylan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom award by President Obama while utilizing a gag order on James Damiano. Obviously it didn’t include Freedom of the Speech.
The order designated all discovery materials confidential including fifty hours of video taped depositions all of which all fifty hours were incriminating to Dylan, and Damiano’s musicologist’s musical comparison.
After completing the most comprehensive movie on Bob Dylan’s plagiarisms and songwriting process James contemplated showing his movie at an independent theater in New York. When Dylan found out he had his attorney’s send James the threatening letter below.
Dylan accepted President Obama's Presidential Medal of Freedom Award while utilizing a federal gag order on James Damiano
Bob Dylan's Son Jesse Dylan produced President Obamas "Yes We Can" video and campaign slogan
In a note to L Brands (LB) employees Tuesday, Wexner described Epstein as his former personal money manager. Epstein also served as a trustee of the Wexner Foundation, Les Wexner's charitable group based in Ohio. The Wexner Foundation works to develop Jewish professional and volunteer leaders across North America and public leaders in Israel.
Wexner became embroiled in the Epstein scandal when one of Epstein's alleged victims accused Epstein of sexually assaulting her in Wexner's home, according to an affidavit filed in a New York court in April. The affidavit is part of a defamation lawsuit against high-profile attorney Alan Dershowitz, claiming that he made "false and malicious" statements about a woman who claims to be a victim of Epstein.
Dershowitz has repeatedly denied the accusations.
Wexner the Mega Group and The Mossad
August 07th, 2019
As billionaire pedophile and alleged sex-trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein sits in prison, reports have continued to surface about his reported links to intelligence, his financial ties to several companies and “charitable” foundations, and his friendships with the rich and powerful as well as top politicians.
While Part I and Part II of this series, “The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal: Too Big to Fail,” have focused on the widespread nature of sexual blackmail operations in recent American history and their ties to the heights of American political power and the U.S. intelligence community, one key aspect of Epstein’s own sex-trafficking and blackmail operation that warrants examination is Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence and his ties to the “informal” pro-Israel philanthropist faction known as “the Mega Group.”
The Mega Group’s role in the Epstein case has garnered some attention, as Epstein’s main financial patron for decades, billionaire Leslie Wexner, was a co-founder of the group that unites several well-known businessmen with a penchant for pro-Israel and ethno-philanthropy (i.e., philanthropy benefiting a single ethnic or ethno-religious group). However, as this report will show, another uniting factor among Mega Group members is deep ties to organized crime, specifically the organized crime network discussed in Part I of this series, which was largely led by notorious American mobster Meyer Lansky.
By virtue of the role of many Mega Group members as major political donors in both the U.S. and Israel, several of its most notable members have close ties to the governments of both countries as well as their intelligence communities. As this report and a subsequent report will show, the Mega Group also had close ties to two businessmen who worked for Israel’s Mossad — Robert Maxwell and Marc Rich — as well as to top Israeli politicians, including past and present prime ministers with deep ties to Israel’s intelligence community.
The world knows only half the story of British media magnate Robert Maxwell’s well-publicized career. He was born poor but thrived on ruthless ambition, devoured his competitors and outsmarted his most formidable peers to build an international empire as a publisher, politician, and industrialist. For the first time, this well-researched book from best-selling author Gordon Thomas and terrorism expert Martin Dillon tells the other, long-secret half of Maxwell’s story. We are shown how Maxwell achieved his topmost objective as a superspy for Israel’s Mossad; sold PROMIS—America’s state-of-the-art surveillance software stolen by Mossad—to the USSR and many other countries; recruited foremost Republican Senator John Tower to acquire for Israel top-secret, cutting-edge U.S. technology being
Robert Maxwell is the father of Jeffrey Epstein's partner in Ghislaine Maxwell
Members of Mega
The following are brief biographical profiles of some of the leading known members of the "Mega" group; notable, is the pattern of alleged organized crime ties.
Charles Bronfman: On Feb. 19, 1999, Charles Bronfman was elected chairman of United Jewish Communities (UJC). This $4 billion cash cow subsumes 189 Jewish Federation contributors and 400 Jewish communities in North America. At a Nov. 9-13 UJC General Assembly in Washington, Bronfman will pass the chairmanship to James A. Tisch, son of Mega member Laurence Tisch.
Charles Bronfman had been co-chairman of Seagrams, until its merger with Vivendi. He is today chairman of Koor Industries Ltd., which is a high-tech holding company at the heart of the Israeli military-industrial complex. He is also chairman of Claridge-Israel, Inc., which took over Bank Hapolim, when the Israeli government privatized it. This deal was brokered by Ted Arison, an Israeli who, in the United States, built the Carnival Cruise Lines into a billion-dollar business. Arison got his financing to start Carnival from Meshulim Riklis, one of junk-bond manipulator Michael Milken's major clients, and a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Leslie Wexner: This co-founder of Mega is closely aligned with some of the top British-American-Commonwealth institutions. However, Wexner's main business is The Limited, Inc.—a holding company for such firms as Intimate Brands, Victoria's Secret, and Bath & Body Works—which he founded in 1963.
Wexner is a board member of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc. and of Hollinger International Publishing Inc. Lady Margaret Thatcher is chairman of Hollinger's International Advisory Board, which also includes Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, and Richard Perle. Hollinger owns the leading Israeli English-language daily, the Jerusalem Post, which has become a mouthpiece for Sharon and the radical right.
Wexner is also on the board of the Aspen Institute, an important Anglo-American world federalist think-tank.
Leonard Abramson: Abramson was the founder of the murderous health maintenance organization, U.S. Healthcare. He sold it to Aetna Insurance for $990 million. Now, apart from a stake in Israel's Bank Hapolim, Abramson owns the Maine Merchant Bank in Portland, which is a $20 million non-deposit institution, whose ostensible purpose is to make high-risk, venture-capital investments.
Edgar Bronfman: Bronfman has been president of the WJC since 1981, and has been a director of the Anti-Defamation League for many years.
The Bronfman family fortune was built by the father of Edgar and Charles, Sam Bronfman, who during Prohibition merged his Distillers Corp. in Montreal with Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Ltd. to supply "bootleggers" with top brand booze, becoming what Israel Shamir (writing on Mega) called a "Mafia boss." Under the successor co-chairmanship of Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Seagrams took a 24% controlling interest in DuPont. But soon after Edgar's son, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., became CEO of Seagrams, he sold off the holding, purchasing Universal Pictures and the world's largest record distributor, Polygram Records. On June 19, 2001, the Bronfmans sold Seagrams to former Lazard Frères partner Jean-Marie Messier, owner of media and communications conglomerate Vivendi, for $34 billion.
Through Seagrams and the WJC, Edgar Bronfman was a top business collaborator of some of the most prominent figures in the former Soviet Union and East Germany. Just months before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of East Germany, Bronfman was given the highest civilian award by the East German Communist Party, for his efforts to salvage the communist state.
Max Fisher: In 1985 Max Fisher, a top adviser on Jewish affairs and Middle East policy to every Repubican President since Eisenhower, founded what is now known as the Republican Jewish Coalition, of which Fisher, 93, remains honorary chairman. A March 11, 1998 Jerusalem Postarticle reports that Fisher is looking for a replacement, and among those being considered are Mega co-founder Leslie Wexner, suspected Mega member Ronald S. Lauder, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Fisher amassed his fortune as a bagman for the "Purple Gang" that smuggled Sam Bronfman's booze from Canada into the speakeasies of the Midwest. Fisher made his "legitimate" fortune in the oil retail business, through Keystone Oil, Aurora Oil, and Marathon Oil. Fisher later became chairman of United Brands (a.k.a. United Fruit), a firm accused of major narcotics smuggling from South America.
Harvey M. Meyerhoff: Meyerhoff made his money in real estate in Baltimore, Maryland, and was one of the chief architects of the transition of that city from an industrial and port center into a tourist attraction. Its port has been transformed into an Aquarium and site for a Disney Museum that features a Harvey Meyerhoff Gallery.
Steven Spielberg: One of the newest known members of Mega is Hollywood billionaire Steven Spielberg, whose Dreamworks Studio has produced such films as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.Spielberg's Shoah (Hebrew for "Holocaust") has gathered a video archive of testimony from 50,000 Jewish Holocaust victims. Being late to Jewish Philanthropy, one wonders just how much Spielberg knows of the subject, as one Mega educational project for Jewish schools across the country teaches both Kabbala and Buddhist meditation.
Michael Steinhardt: Steinhardt made his fortune running a series of hedge funds. Steinhardt has been apparently dubbed the "public relations" man for Mega, as all other published interviews have been with him, although he did not return EIR's calls.
Steinhardt was chairman, for a decade, of the Democratic Leadership Council. He resigned from the organization in protest over President Bill Clinton's appointment of Lani Guinier to a top Justice Department post, and refused to support Clinton's reelection in 1996, even though Clinton had succeeded him as DLC chairman.
The hedge fund Steinhardt Partners was formed by Michael Steinhardt in 1967. He boasts that one dollar invested in his firm then would be worth $462 today. Like George Soros, Steinhardt's fund suddenly lost 29% of its value in 1996, during the onset of the global financial crisis. After recouping in part with a 20% return in 1997, he closed the firm, took the money, and ran.
Steinhardt is another offspring of the Prohibition-era "Jewish Syndicate" of National Crime Boss Meyer Lansky. His father, Sol Frank "Red" Steinhardt, was a bigtime gambler and convicted jewel fence, who worked with Meyer Lansky. "Red" Steinhardt was sent to Sing Sing on a five- to ten-year sentence, a fact that Michael kept off of his resume, in order to get his start on Wall Street with the "Our Crowd" firm, Loeb Rhodes. Like father, like son—Steinhardt Partners came under SEC and Justice Department scrutiny in the early 1990s, along with Salomon Brothers, for cornering the market in short-term U.S. Treasury bond sales. To avoid jail, Steinhardt settled the case with a $50 million fine.
Laurence Tisch: Called "The King of Cash," Tisch built his fortune one step at a time. On his return from World War II, where he served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency, Laurence Tisch joined his family's small hotel business.
Tisch, with his brother Preston “Bob” Tisch, built a major hotel chain, forming the holding company Loews Corporation, that also included a chain of movie theaters. And, Loews acquired Lorillard Tobacco in 1960, which produced Kent cigarettes.
By the 1980s of the "Predator's Ball," Laurence Tisch worked with convicted inside-trader Michael Milken, who originated junk bonds, through which Tisch gained fame for his 1986 takeover of the Colombia Broadcasting System. In 1995, Tisch had to sell off CBS to Westinghouse.
Loews Corp. today also owns CNA Financial Corp., as well as having a controlling share in an offshore oil and gas drilling firm, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., and a controlling interest in Bulova Watch Company.
Orin Snyder represented Bronfman
Former CEO Dick Snyder said he helped Bronfman negotiate the $2.6 billion purchase of Warner Music from Time Warner Inc. TWX.N, but was never paid for his services.
Snyder said Bronfman had broken a gentlemen’s agreement to share proceeds from the deal, made during a Caribbean vacation with their families in 2001, according to a 44-page lawsuit filed at the Supreme Court of the State of New York County.
Lawyers for Bronfman said Snyder’s claims were “absolute fiction.”
“Dick Snyder did not work on the Warner Music Group transaction and there was never an agreement to compensate him for anything,” Bronfman’s attorney, Orin Snyder, said in a statement.
Bronfman’s daughter Faces Jail Sentence
Clare Bronfman, one of the defendants in the case, enters court in Brooklyn on Wednesday.
Mary Altaffer/AP/REX Shutterstock
Clare Bronfman, the 40-year-old billionaire heiress to the Seagram Company fortune, pleaded guilty to enabling a sex ring for Keith Raniere, the self-anointed leader of NXIVM, a cult-like group based in upstate New York. In a federal court in Brooklyn on Friday, Bronfman said she harbored someone who was living in U.S. illegally for unpaid “labor and services.” Bronfman also admitted to committing credit card fraud on Raniere’s behalf, according to the Associated Press.
Bronfman is the daughter of billionaire-philanthropist and former Seagram chairman Edgar Bronfman Sr. Her apology to the judge touched on her family’s wealth and privilege that enabled her grievous deeds. “I was afforded a great gift by my grandfather and father,” Bronfman said in court. “With the gift, comes immense privilege and more importantly, tremendous responsibility. It does not come with an ability to break the law … For this I am truly sorry.”
Connecting the next dot: James Comey
Here is where is gets controversial. James Comey worked for Gibson Dunn the same law firm defending Dylan in a federal copyright infringement action. The plaintiff’s name was James Damiano.
After Judge Simandle illegally dismissed Damiano’s lawsuit against Bob Dylan, as per Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Damiano repeatedly notified the FBI and The Justice Department that there was a fraud committed upon the court.
Judge Simandle
Simandle displayed total partiality toward Dylan. In every ruling Judge Simandle chose to mandate the opinion of Bob Dylan’s lead attorney Orin Snyder as truth over Damiano’s true facts in which there were many. In fact there were eleven years of substantiated facts between Damiano and Dylan including expert testimony from a Harvard educated musicologist who stated that the melody line of Bob Dylan Grammy nominated song Digntiy bears the axact melodic arc as James Damiano’s song Steal Guitars.
Also Simandle’s judgement was one hundred percent inconsistent with the facts of the case. There was never a counter claim criminal or civil filed against Damiano.
Certainly that information made it’s way to Comey who was at the time the United States Deputy Attorney General in fact for a short time during this period Comey served as acting Attorney General while Attorney General Ashcroft recovered from surgery.
Naturally Comey recognized the fraud and the conflict but instead of recusing himself in the matter and passing the material on to someone else he chose to simply ignore it. A clear cut conflict of interest and violation of his office’s responsibility. Comey never thought it would come to light and now it has.
An attorney who becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of ethical conduct must report that violation. Failure to do so subjects the attorney failing to make the report to discipline.
In Comey’s case he was the United States Deputy Attorney General and for a short time Comey was actually the United States Attorney General.
Mr. Damiano had sent 93 copies of a DVD that included two and a half hours of video taped depositions of various witness’s to all United States Attorney Office’s.
It was impossible for Comey to not receive a copy which included the fraud of his Gibson Dunn partner Orin Snyder.
Whitewater controversy
Whitewater, 1992
Allegation: The granddaddy of all Clinton scandals surfaced during Bill Clinton's bid for the presidency. It centered on financial contributions by Bill and Hillary Clinton into a real estate entity known as Whitewater Development Corporation during his time as an Arkansas state official. Eventually, the Justice Department and independent counsel launched investigations.
Outcome: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton faced prosecution for their involvement in Whitewater. But their public statements about the matter, and the handling of documents that went missing and later reappeared, came under intense scrutiny. Their partners in the real estate investment were Jim McDougal and his then-wife Susan. Jim McDougal was convicted of fraud charges for making bad loans and he died of heart disease in a Texas prison. Susan was convicted of fraud in connection with obtaining a $300,000 federally-backed small business loan. She refused to answer grand jury questions in the Whitewater affair and was held in contempt of court, spending 18 months in jail. Bill Clinton pardoned her before he left the White House in early 2001.
James Comey was in charge of the Clinton White Water investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Whitewater controversy, Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater, was an American political controversy of the 1990s. It began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation. This failed business venture was incorporated in 1979 with the purpose of developing vacation properties on land along the White River near Flippin, Arkansas.
Comey Again
Slick Jimmy slipped up – and a federal judge is making sure everyone sees!
James Comey. We thought we were done with him. But not quite.
The disgraced former FBI head has been exposed to be a partisan hack who put politics ahead of justice.
During the Obama administration, he bent the rules to clear Hillary Clinton—even after admitting she broke the law.
Even when Trump won, Comey was leading his own secret investigation, with moles in the White House, collecting dirt on the president.
What’s worse, there are those within the FBI still trying to cover for Comey. Despite the damage, he caused to their reputation and ability to protect the U.S.
But a federal judge just put an end to that nonsense.
From Washington Examiner:
A federal judge ruled against the FBI’s efforts to keep some redacted documents related to former FBI Director James Comey’s memos hidden from the public…
The bureau was claiming it had “effectively asserted” a Freedom of Information Act exemption as the basis to protect its redactions. But the judge said the FBI never actually made this assertion in the relevant filings.
Wow. The FBI was trying to undermine the Freedom of Information Act by blocking Comey’s memos from reaching the public.
But a federal judge just knocked down that attempt.
Seems like the FBI was scheming, acting as if the judge had really given them the right to hide those memos from the public.
They thought they were exempt from the law. Not so fast, guys.
It was Comey who created those memos, secretly recording information he shouldn’t. All to build a case against the president.
He is the one who gave your institution a black eye. Now you have to live with the reality that Americans get to see just what kind of wrongdoing your leader was up to.
You don’t get to hide that information from us, just because it embarrasses you.
Comey disgraced the FBI when he played a game of politics. He was supposed to be above that. But it was clear he was more interested in helping Democrats than upholding justice.
It’s going to take a lot of work for the Bureau to restore its trust with the American public. But hiding Comey’s memos won’t do that.
He is going to have to be exposed for the trickster he is.
Comey Spied on President Elect Donal Trump
It is one of the most enduring and consequential mysteries of the Trump-Russia investigation: Why did former FBI Director James Comey refuse to say publicly what he was telling President Trump in private -- that Trump was not the target of an ongoing probe?
That refusal ignited a chain of events that has consumed Washington for more than two years – including Comey’s firing by Trump, the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and ongoing claims that Trump obstructed justice.
The report of Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected in September. Top photo: Then FBI Director James Comey shakes hands with the new President on Jan. 22, 2017.
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
Top credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Now an answer is emerging. Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president. Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent.
Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.
In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.
Although Comey took many actions on his own, he was not working in isolation. One focus of Horowitz’s inquiry is the private Jan. 6, 2017, briefing Comey gave the president-elect in New York about material in the Democratic-commissioned dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Reports of that meeting were used days later by BuzzFeed, CNN and other outlets as a news hook for reporting on the dossier’s lascivious and unsubstantiated claims.
Comey’s meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump — a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN.
A Higher Loyalty So High It’s Above The Law
In his memoir, the former FBI director denied having "a counterintelligence case file open" on Trump -- at least not in the "literal" sense.
AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File
In his recently published memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey denied having "a counterintelligence case file open on [Trump],” though he qualified the denial by adding this was true only in the “literal” sense. He also twice denied investigating Trump, under oath, in congressional testimony.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the Trump-Russia probe as a columnist for National Review, said that just because the president’s name was not put on a file or a surveillance warrant does not mean the Comey FBI was not investigating him. “They were hoping to surveil him incidentally, and they were trying to make a case on him,” McCarthy said. “The real reason Comey did not want to repeat publicly the assurances he made to Trump privately is that these assurances were misleading. The FBI strung Trump along, telling him he was not a suspect while structuring the investigation in accordance with the reality that Trump was the main subject."
But, former FBI counterintelligence agent and lawyer Mark Wauck said, the FBI lacked legal grounds to treat Trump as a suspect. “They had no probable cause against Trump himself for ‘collusion’ or espionage,” he said. “They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing.”
What remains unclear is why Comey would take such extraordinary steps against a sitting president. The Mueller report concluded there was no basis for the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theories. Comey himself was an early skeptic of the Steele dossier -- the opposition research memos paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that were the road map of collusion theories – which he dismissed as “salacious and unverified.”
Devin Nunes, left, with House Intelligence Committee adversary and fellow Californian Adam Schiff, panel chairman. Robert Mueller is due to testify before them on Wednesday.
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Republicans including House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Devin Nunes believe that Comey, like his top counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, was attempting to “stop” the Trump presidency for political reasons.
“You have the culmination of the ultimate spying, where you have the FBI director spying on the president, taking notes [and] illegally leaking those notes of classified information” to anti-Trump media, Nunes said in a recent interview. His panel is one of two House committees scheduled to hear testimony from Mueller on Wednesday.
The IG’s report, which is expected to be released in early September, will shine new light on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, given that Horowitz and his team have examined more than 1 million records and conducted more than 100 interviews, including sit-downs with Comey and other current and former FBI and Justice Department personnel. The period covering Comey’s activities is believed to run from early January 2017 to early May 2017, when Comey was fired and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as the acting FBI director, formally opened full counterintelligence and obstruction investigations of the president.
Related: The Shaky Standing of Mueller's Footnotes, Eric Felten, RCI
Although Horowitz has focused primarily on whether the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its applications for surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, he has pursued other related angles, including whether Comey personally misled the president and leaked classified FBI information about him, the officials said.
An attorney for Comey declined to answer emailed questions regarding the Horowitz investigation. The following account, drawn from officials briefed on the IG’s work and other sources, provides details of Comey’s actions between Trump’s election and his dismissal by the president.
Nine Conversations
Comey had nine conversations with Trump between January and May 2017, some in the White House. Almost every time, he went back to FBI headquarters and wrote up a memo documenting not only his version of the conversation, but also a complete update of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the FBI’s code name for the Trump-Russia probe it launched in July 2016.
Some of the notes, which Comey locked in a safe, cited classified sources and methods, including the identities of witnesses and informants along with the code names their FBI handlers assigned to them, according to federal court papers. They also document the assistance provided by foreign intelligence agencies. They are said to be a map not only of his agents’ investigative activity relating to Crossfire Hurricane, but also his own dealings with the president.
Candidate Trump with Michael Flynn, left, at Trump Tower in August 2016.
AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
After a private dinner with the president at the White House in late January 2017, the FBI director went home and wrote a memo about their conversation on his laptop, printed it out and attached it as a memo to the case file — much like a field agent writing up an FD-302 evidentiary report after interviewing a suspect. He locked a copy in his personal safe and filed another copy at the FBI after sharing it with the bureau’s senior leadership. He also did some online sleuthing, personally searching Trump on Google and even looking through hours of YouTube videos of him.
In his 2018 memoir, Comey admits he held Trump in suspicion: “Even behind closed doors, he didn’t recoil about Russian behavior,” and seemed unwilling “to criticize the Russian government."
In February 2017, Comey wrote a memo saying that Trump had asked if Comey could “see his way clear” to end the probe of former-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who had resigned after admitting he hadn’t told the truth about a foreign policy discussion he had with the Russian ambassador during the transition. Comey has said he suspected the president was attempting to impede the FBI’s probe of Flynn. He immediately phoned McCabe to tell him about it.
Comey later huddled with his deputies on the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building to review his memo and get their input, setting off discussions about opening an inquiry into whether Trump had tried to obstruct the Flynn case. His general counsel James Baker, Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki and Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich were also in the room, along with the heads of the FBI’s national security and counterintelligence units, according to congressional records.
In an interview last year with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Comey said he took notes on the president’s remarks about Flynn because “it could be evidence of a crime. It was really important that it be well-documented.” At the time of the ABC interview, Comey was a witness in Mueller’s obstruction investigation, which ended with no charges or criminal prosecution.
Lisa Page testified: “I need to take back my prior statement” about there being no discussions of Trump obstruction.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
McCabe’s deputy, Lisa Page, appeared to dissemble last year when asked in closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee if Comey and other FBI brass discussed opening an obstruction case against Trump prior to his firing in May 2017. Initially, she flatly denied it, swearing: “Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the time frame you have described.” But then, after conferring with her FBI-assigned lawyer, she announced: “I need to take back my prior statement.” Page later conceded that there could have been at least “discussions about potential criminal activity” involving the president.
Comey says that after Trump asked him to "lift the cloud" over his presidency, while still encouraging Comey to go after any “satellite” associates of his if they had done something wrong, the director reported the request to then-acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente. Comey filed another report with Boente in April after the president demanded to know why he had still failed to publicly disclose that he was not personally under investigation. In turn, Boente, who signed off on investigations including wiretaps of Trump advisers, took handwritten notes of his conversations with Comey and later turned them over to Mueller. (Boente is now the general counsel of the FBI.)
Trump grew angry at Comey for failing to tell the American people in public what he had been told at least three times in private — that he was not not under investigation in “this Russian business." Comey, in fact, promised Trump on several occasions that he would try to find a way to acknowledge that publicly. He never did.
White House counsel Don McGahn: That's "the last straw," Trump fumed to him about Comey.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
As the Mueller report details, Trump’s frustration mounted later that March when Comey’s first public statement acknowledging a probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election left the impression that Trump himself was a target. When Comey refused in May 3, 2017 Senate testimony to rule out anyone in the Trump campaign as a potential target of the criminal investigation, including "the president" — the opposite of what he had intimated to the president -- Trump fumed to then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that it was “the last straw.”
Just a few days later, on May 9, Trump unceremoniously fired the FBI director. In response, Comey’s deputy McCabe ordered agents to formally open investigative files on Trump for espionage and obstruction of justice. “It’s pretty clear that Comey’s firing is what prompted McCabe’s fury," former federal prosecutor and independent counsel Solomon L. Wisenberg said.
McCabe’s former aide Page admitted in her closed-door congressional interview that, at the time her boss ordered the investigations, they couldn't connect Trump to the Russia conspiracy, and that “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” there. In fact, her lead partner on the case, Peter Strzok, confessed in a text: “My gut sense and concern is there’s no big there, there.”
Comey’s White House Source
Anthony Ferrante: FBI agent in the White House, now contracted with BuzzFeed to try to verify the Steele dossier. For months, a source said, an NSC supervisor couldn't get rid of him.
rsaconference.com public notice
At the same time Comey was personally scrutinizing the president during meetings in the White House and phone conversations from the FBI, he had an agent inside the White House working on the Russia investigation, where he reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to officials familiar with the matter. The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site's efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit.
Knowledgeable sources inside the Trump White House say Comey carved out an extraordinary new position for Ferrante, which allowed him to remain on reserve status at the FBI while working in the White House as a cybersecurity adviser.
“In an unprecedented action, Comey created a new FBI reserve position for Ferrante, enabling him to have an ongoing relationship with the agency, retaining his clearances and enabling him to come back in [to bureau headquarters],” said a former National Security Council official who requested anonymity.
“Between the election and April 2017, when Ferrante finally left the White House, the Trump NSC division supervisor was not allowed to get rid of Ferrante,” he added, "and Ferrante continued working — in direct conflict with the no-contact policy between the White House and the Department of Justice.”
Through a spokeswoman at FTI Consulting, which maintains the BuzzFeed contract, Ferrante declined to comment.
Another FBI official, Jordan Rae Kelly, who worked closely with Mueller when he headed the bureau, replaced Ferrante upon his White House exit (though she signed security logs for him to continue entering the White House as a visitor while he was working for BuzzFeed). Kelly left the White House last year and joined Ferrante at FTI Consulting.
Working with Comey liaison Ferrante at the NSC in early 2017 was another Obama holdover — Tashina Gauhar, who remains a top national security adviser at the Justice Department.
In January 2017, Gauhar assisted former acting Attorney General Sally Yates in the Flynn investigation. Later, she helped Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resist, initially, Trump’s order to fire Comey. Gauhar also took copious notes during her meetings with White House lawyers, which were cited by Mueller in the section of his report dealing with obstruction of justice.
Comey at Trump Tower
The officials familiar with Horowitz’s inquiry said his team has quizzed Comey about the circumstances surrounding a meeting he convened with Trump in Manhattan where the president-elect was first told of the Steele dossier material. The stated purpose was to brief the incoming president about political warfare tactics, known as “active measures,” that Russia allegedly used against the U.S. during the 2016 campaign.
The officials said the inspector general has reviewed high-level FBI text message and other communications that indicate the agency may also have used the briefing for the covert purpose of carrying out a "counterintelligence assessment" operation against Trump and his senior staff who attended the briefing that day at Trump Tower.
President-elect at a Trump Tower news conference Jan. 11, 2017 -- the day after CNN broke news of the leaked and lurid Steele dossier. As its news hook, CNN used Comey's briefing of Trump just days earlier.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
In his memoir, Comey said he flew to New York on Jan. 6, 2017, to give the president-elect a private “defensive briefing” — to "tell him what Russia had done to try to help elect him.”
But there was more to it than that, in light of Comey’s meeting in the Oval Office the day before with Obama, Biden and the other Cabinet officials. Their plan to brief Trump, which Obama approved, included disclosing allegations from the dossier about the president-elect.
As the top law enforcement official in the room, Comey was chosen to confront Trump with "the material" that accused him of being compromised by Russia and engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow to hack the election. The morning before flying to New York, Comey met at FBI headquarters with a group of counterespionage officials and agents who were read in on the plan — code-named the “sensitive matter team” — for an update on the allegations against Trump and the overall Russia investigation.
The initial part of the intelligence briefing at Trump Tower included Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, and Flynn, who didn’t know he was under FBI scrutiny. Following a report on alleged Russian election interference, Comey cleared the conference room to privately brief Trump on the Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier itself — without disclosing its source. He referred to the political document simply as “the derogatory files.”
Comey limited his briefing to the lurid rumor about prostitutes in a Moscow hotel, while omitting the fact that he had signed a wiretap warrant to eavesdrop on one of Trump’s campaign advisers based on other parts of the dossier.
Comey also failed to tell the president-elect that Flynn was under investigation along with Carter Page. In other words, Comey left the president in the dark on the most substantive assertions of the dossier.
The FBI was investigating Trump’s campaign “in hope of making a case on him,” McCarthy said. “That is why Comey told Trump only about the salacious allegation involving prostitutes in a Moscow hotel; he did not tell the president-elect either that the main thrust of the dossier was Trump’s purported espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin, nor that the FBI had gone to the [FISA court] to get surveillance warrants based on the dossier.”
“Make no mistake,” McCarthy added, “the investigation was always about Donald Trump, from Day One."
Comey also withheld the facts that the dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign (Comey had known this since October 2016, if not earlier), that it was compiled by a private foreign contractor, and that it was not a product of the U.S. government. The omissions led Trump to believe the contents of the dossier came from U.S. intelligence and were taken seriously by serious people in the government. If he had known otherwise, he could have easily dismissed the information as biased and unreliable — and questioned why Comey was even bothering to conduct such a briefing.
Though Comey claims in his book he was “protecting" the president-elect from “any kind of coercion” or blackmail by Moscow, several former and current federal law enforcement officials said he was really testing his reaction to see if he showed signs of guilt or revealed information that could be used against him in the conspiracy case the FBI had already been building against no fewer than four of his advisers — Flynn, Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort. In fact, it was Comey who just a couple of weeks later would dispatch two agents to the White House to grill Flynn about his post-election conversations with Russian diplomats. (Flynn’s lawyers argue the FBI set a “perjury trap” for the retired general.)
“We are not investigating you, sir,” Comey told Trump, an assurance that “seemed to quiet him,” the former director remarked in his book.
That statement seems undercut by the fact that Comey typed up his notes on his laptop in his government vehicle less than five minutes after he walked out of Trump Tower, according to a heavily redacted Jan. 7, 2017, email to his top aides. Comey self-classified the notes at the “SECRET” level.
“I executed the session exactly as planned,” Comey reported back to his “sensitive matter team.”
Looks to me that Comey is going to need Orin Snyder but who's going to defend Snyder in the coup treason matter?
Oh! One more thing
Judge Simandle dismisses Obama birth Certificate law suit in Favor of Obama.
EX-NAIDER RAIDER ATTACKS REASON AND JUSTICE, TO SUPPORT TYRANNY
Legal analysis by John Charlton
(Oct. 23, 2009) — Judge Jerome B. Simandle took 2 months to write his eleven page Opinion, granting the Motion to Dismiss in the case Kerchner vs. Obama. But in the final analysis, his ruling was just that: an “opinion,” without weight or authority.
Simandle began his public career as a Naider’s raider. The Post & Email documented his apparent membership in the radical communist student organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), from which Bill Ayers and the other Weatherman were nurtured into an American-hating terrorist organization.
I say , “apparent membership”, because other than the fact that 90% of the students at Princeton University, while Simandle was there, participated in the Anti-War protests organized by SDS, or the fact he was never drafted, but left the country immediately after graduation for Sweden, where he stayed until Ford offer pardons for draft-dodgers, The Post & Email has no evidence he was a SDS member.
But the mind of an anarchist is impetuous, passionate, violent and absurd; traits which never are lost without repentance, because they are the symptoms of the final collapse of reason and conscience. And such appears to be the mind of Judge Jerome B. Simandle in his “Opinion piece.”
Let’s take a look at how Simandle attacks the American Order of things, in his ruling.
FACT IS BELIEF AND OPINION IS TRUTH
In the mind of an anarchist everything is inverted, perverted, and skewed. For the anarchist facts are subjective beliefs, and his own subjective opinions are truth. Whatever the historical or legal record shows is no matter. The Anarchist will always thus resort to an ad hominem because he long ago overthrew his own power of reason with passion.
That this is the mind of Simandle, is evident from the first paragraph of his Opinion:
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States. Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office. Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition.
That is not what Apuzzo’s pleadings said: he did not speak about “beliefs” which are subjective judgments, which may or may not be truth, or religious tenets which are based upon revelations.
Apuzzo cited 4 Supreme Court Cases and several others in Federal and State Courts regarding the notion of “natural born citizen.” It’s an objective, historical category of citizenship in U.S. jurisprudence and Constitutional law.
It is not an opinion.
The plaintiffs were not afflicted with an “opinion,” they were adherents to a certitude. An opinion, as Aristotle defines iy, is the “holding of one side of a contrariety, while admitting that the other side may be true.” There is no such doubt or concession in the Plaintiffs complaint.
Therefore Simandle is signifying not the objective text of the complaint, but his own subjective reading of it. And is terming the adherence of the Plaintiffs to objective historical facts and cited texts as if it were a belief.
ASSERTION IS EVIDENCE AND PROOF IS ASSERTION
Following the topsy-turvy logic of Simandle, the criteria of truth, as known by the mind, is itself inverted.
For normal, sane folks, who are not anarchists the ancient rule of debate holds true: gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: that is, what is gratuitously asserted, can be gratuitously denied. Or in other words, you have to back up claims with proof, otherwise they are baseless claims and can be dismissed.
Let’s compare two things, then:
1. Obama’s claim to be a natural born citizen (which he made in the AZ filing) and no where else — he effectively denied it in the Keyes vs. Obama debate — is a baseless claim. He does not fit the definition; so it is more than baseless, IT IS A FALSE CLAIM.
2. Whereas the claim that he is not a natural born citizen, is not a baseless claim: it is supported by Obama’s own public, continuous claim of a British subject as his biological and legal father.
A normal sane observer, would say that #2 trumps #1, simply because evidence is proof, and baseless or false assertion is worthless, especially in a court of law.
But Simandle does the exact opposite, in on the second page of his Opinion:
Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their Second Amended Complaint, arise from allegations that President Obama has failed to sufficiently prove that he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency and that the legislative branch has failed to sufficiently investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth.
Wait 1 moment, Judge Simandle! Obama has not proven that he is a natural born citizen AT ALL: he has merely claimed it, asserted it; without evidence of any kind. It is not an allegation that he has failed to sufficiently prove that he is a natural born citizen, UNLESS there is contrary evidence that he has proven it already in some manner.
But he hasn’t; he never has; he never could; his lawyers never claimed he did!
YOUR RIGHT IS NOT TO HAVE, NOR TO KNOW
The third absurdity of Simandle’s anarchical mind, is that he does not consider the objective state of things; the violation of the Constitutional order, but concerns himself with pyschoanalyzing the Plaintiffs state of mind.
He does this on p. 5 were he writes:
The harm alleged for all of these constitutional violations is that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to know whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen” and to have a president who is truly a “natural born citizen.”
It’s not a right to know per se, whether the President is legitimate, it’s a right to have a legitimate President. To reduce the complaint of the Plaintiffs to an argument based on their subjective state of mind, is to use ridicule to obstruct their access to the courts and their defense of their intangible rights.
Simandle’s game here is the old and tired argument of the liberal hack, who never admits the objective basis of any complaint, but turns every complaint back on the aggrieved citizen, by implying he has a mental problem.
THE RIGHT TO PETITION IS NOT A RIGHT TO BE HEARD
On the next point, only a tyrant lover could agree: that the mere right to plead is not a right to be heard. The logic here is like saying that a starving man has the right to ask for food, but no right to the food itself; or a dying man has the right to seek medical assistance, but no right to receive it. A liberal would violently disagree if it were a case of welfare legislation, but never being consistent folk, the liberal here takes the opposite view and says in the footnote to his Opinion on p. 5:
To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that they were 2 injured merely by the government’s failure to respond to their petitions requesting investigations and hearings, this is not a cognizable constitutional injury. Plaintiffs “have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views.” Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 284-85 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.”
In the case of the Constitutional Crisis the appeal to Minnesota State Bd. vs. Knight is laughable. We are not talking about policies here, but unequivocal, absolute, objective Constitutional obligations and requirements; if the Bill of Rights meant anything, it first of all presupposed that the Constitutional Order would be maintained and observed. If the Bill of Rights has force when that order is upheld; it sure has greater force when that order is not upheld, for the Bill of Rights pertain to the rights of those who inaugurated and promulgated the Constitutional Order, so that the subject of these rights, We the People, is anterior and superior to that order and the powers in it.
For Simandle, having “set his mouth in the heavens,” he is quite comfortable “to dictate to the earth” of mere plebs! Saying, “Away with you peons, you trouble makers!”
AGAINST A MASS-CRIMINAL NO ONE HAS STANDING!
What follows in Simandle’s “Opinion piece” are, then, the standard arguments on Standing which are constitutionally inappropriate criteria to apply in cases of unconstitutional actions of government and non-government officials; because in the case of such actions, the perpetrator has no rights; and therefore even a general minor injury of one who has even 1 right, gives an absolute right to standing against the one who has no rights; otherwise the doctrine of standing would result in the overthrow of justice, which as a fundamental notion of law requires that “a thing be rendered to him to whom it is owed” (cf. Plato’s Dialogues). And that is the purpose of the Article III Judiciary, to hear cases and controversies; the injuring of a right is a case, therefore it must be heard.
In summation: if you took a college anarchist from the 60’s and put him on a federal bench, after a decade or two of fermentation and practice in the law, you could not expect a philosophy of jurisprudence any different from that which Simandle distilled into his Opinion. That’s his origin, that’s his mind.
But does this surprise you? Seeing that President Jimmy Carter nominated him as an Attorney General; and President Bill Clinton promoted him to the bench.
Letter to James Damiano From President Trump
Orin Snyder represented Bob Dylan in Bob Dylan’s Stealing of James Damianos Songs
Politically Subliminal
[email protected]
James Damiano
Christine Boutsikaris
Christine Boutsikaris
Bob Dylan’s Downfall
Bob Dylan Life’s Work Scrutinized
Within English speaking countries the word culture has long been synonymous, with the name Bob Dylan.
There are many interpretations of the definition of the word culture. Practically speaking, the most authentic definition describes culture as “the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement.”
When referencing this definition with regard to the public’s perception of Bob Dylan, we learn that Bob Dylan is the most revered “celebrity” on the planet by most of the general populace and the intellectual community.
What’s interesting here is that when focusing on the word “celebrity” in regard to Bob Dylan, it appears as if he Dylan was touted as the most revered celebrity first before being transformed into being recognized as the most highly acclaimed and revered songwriter in the world.
It is without doubt a strange perspective to be cultivated as specifically “a celebrity”. Instead of promoting his talent as a songwriter the music industry and Dylan’s camp promoted Dylan as a celebrity first above all else.
Dylan’s mysterious, subliminal persona had been meticulously cultivated by the Dylan camp to project Dylan as (specifically) the most revered “celebrity” of all in which no other celebrity would come close to matching Dylan’s level of reverence.
The “most revered songwriter” persona played second only to the “most revered celebrity” persona in developing Dylan’s total persona. No other celebrity had ever been cultivated by the industry in this fashion. There was however some degree of legitimacy to this proclamation. Being the most quoted and chronicled person of our time established Dylan as the most revered celebrity as well . Of course we don’t know for sure whether Dylan’s is actually the most chronicled person but this is what we are being told by the the media.
This article serves many purposes. It serves to expose the crucial members of a vast, gruesome fraudulent deception executed upon the public at large and perpetrated through a vast number of conflicts of interest, intentional circumvention, deliberate deceit, chicanery, and more which attempts to cripple the moral fiber of mankind.
To expose the reasons, persons, organizations, and corporations for Hollywood’s fabrication of a subliminal icon who is revered second to no one Bob Dylan.
Politically Subliminal:
Here is where is gets controversial. Ex FBI director James Comey who is being accused of an attempted coup on the present administration and to unseat President Trump worked for Gibson Dunn the same law firm defending Dylan in a federal copyright infringement action. The plaintiff’s name was James Damiano.
After Judge Simandle illegally dismissed Damiano’s lawsuit against Bob Dylan, as per Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Damiano repeatedly notified the FBI and The Justice Department that there was a fraud committed upon the court.
Of course when a United States Attorney’s office gets a package marked “Bob Dylan’s Stealing of James Damiano’s Songs” They send it to the top.
Dylan’s management went as far as to give Damiano Dylan’s personal P.O. Box.
Simandle displayed total partiality toward Dylan. In every ruling Judge Simandle chose to mandate the opinion of Bob Dylan’s lead attorney Orin Snyder as truth over Damiano’s true facts in which there were many. In fact there were eleven years of substantiated facts between Damiano and Dylan.
Also Simandle’s judgement was one hundred percent inconsistent with the facts of the case. There was never a counter claim criminal or civil filed against Damiano.
Certainly that information documenting the most high profile case in the federal courts made it’s way to Comey who was at the time the United States Deputy Attorney General in fact for a short time during this period Comey served as acting Attorney General while Attorney General Ashcroft recovered from surgery.
Naturally Comey recognized the fraud and the conflict but instead of recusing himself in the matter and passing the material on to someone else he chose to simply ignore it. A clear cut conflict of interest and violation of his office’s responsibility. Comey never thought it would come to light.
An attorney who becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of ethical conduct must report that violation. Failure to do so subjects the attorney failing to make the report to discipline.
In Comey’s case he was the United States Deputy Attorney General and for a short time Comey was actually the United States Attorney General.
Mr. Damiano had sent 93 copies of a DVD that included two and a half hours of video taped depositions of various witness’s to all United States Attorney Office’s.
The Department of Justice visits James Damiano’s website regularly.
The president and rock legend embraced in Wisconsin after an acoustic performance, then hit the runway for Ohio.
Win or lose, the last day of campaigning will prove memorable for both President Obama and Bruce Springsteen.
The president and the “Born in the USA” singer are touring together on Monday, making an appearance in Madison, Wisconsin before heading to Columbus, Ohio and then finishing their day in Des Moines, Iowa. Springsteen, who has come on strong for Obama after abstaining from much politicking earlier in the campaign, opened for the president’s stump speech in Madison with an acoustic set that included the classic tune, “Thunder Road.”
STORY: Obama Taps Springsteen, Hamm, Gyllenhaal And Others For Last-Minute Support
Springsteen Joined Obama On Air Force One For The First Time For Their Flight To Wisconsin; Afterwards He Told Reporters That It Was “Pretty Cool.” He Reserves This Grandeur, It Seems, For His Lyrics.
As for Obama, he remarked in his speech to voters in Madison that “I get to fly around with [Springsteen] on the last day that I will ever campaign. So that’s not a bad way to end things.”
It was impossible for Comey to not receive a copy which included the fraud of his Gibson Dunn partner Orin Snyder. Mr. Damiano’s mailing was witnessed by the United States Marshall Service.
Meet Orin Snyder: The true dominance behind the cabal.
Comey Linked To The Deadliest Lawyer
Not many lawyers would permit themselves to be portrayed as a ganster, unless of course there is a method to their madness.
With that said there’s a good chance that the “Meet Orin Snyder The Deadliest Trial Lawyer” headline is a subliminal threat to some one. Who? Who Knows? Maybe to anyone who opposes Orin Snyder.
Me I believe it’s just another Orin Snyder bluff but hey if you can make one bluff and win one hundred and twenty five multi-million dollar law suits God Bless you. I was just wondering if that threat also pertains to Judges?
Orin Snyder also represented the Clinton Foundation in which Jeffrey Epstein was associcated.
Billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was indicted Monday on child sex-trafficking charges, helped president Bill Clinton devise the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a letter his attorneys sent to federal prosecutors in 2007.
“Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project ‘bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges,” attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News in 2016 and resurfaced Monday by the Daily Caller.
Additionally
Judge Simandle presided over the Kerchner v Obama, the lawsuit filed over the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.
Judge Simandle dismissed the case:
October 21, 2009 in Lawsuits, Mario Apuzzo
The New Jersey federal lawsuit prosecuted by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner (aka Mountain Goat, E Publius Goat) has been dismissed by Judge Simandle.
The order follows and this is the full 11-page opinion. “… the Court finds that Plaintiffs…lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
Something about Bob Dylan most people don't know is that Bob Dylan's son Jesse Dylan produced President Obama's "Yes we can video" and compaign slogan.
Jesse Dylan
Bob Dylan called the election a day early when he predicted last night that President Obama would handily win, The Associated Press reports. “Don’t believe the media. I think it’s going to be a landslide,” Dylan said midway through performing “Blowin’ in the Wind” during the encore of a concert in Madison, Wisconsin.
Dylan’s performance came just hours after Obama had appeared at a Madison rally with Bruce Springsteen. Dylan noted the convergence, saying, “We tried to play good tonight since the president was here today.”
Was it happenstance that Dylan played the same arena on the same day where President Obama held a rally the night before the election?
You decide.
Bob Dylan also played "Chimes of Freedom" for President Clinton at President Clinton's inaugural ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial.
STORIES
B
- It's been reported that songs that Dylan had written changed the course of history. History is recorded by documented events. History does not record speculative events of what might have occurred had Dylan not written certain songs. There has been constant wars, riots, hate speech, and many evil opinions since the 60's. Whoever came up with the concept that Dylan changed the course of history left that part out. Even so they still headlined the message and concepts of Dylan's songs. Ask yourself did Dylan really change the course of history?
- Giving this opinion the benefit of the doubt and assuming it is true then the next big shocker is that Dylan changed the course of history by the age of 24.
- You decide.
Ms Ray cites four songs in her article. Four songs that in her opinion changed the course of history.
Her opinion is corroborated by many other opinions of these four songs all in the affirmative so it’s safe to say that they did.
The four songs Ms. Ray cites are:
Blowin’ in the wind , The Times They Are A-Changin’, Hard Rain's gonna Fall and Hurricane.
It was a great accomplishment indeed however thanks to the internet it is now known to the masses that Dylan had plagiarized three out of the four songs. The mainstream media had covered it up.
When Bob Dylan‘s five concerts in the San Francisco Bay Area were scheduled in December 1965, the idea was proposed that he hold a press conference in the studios of KQED, the educational television station. Dylan accepted and flew out a day early to make it.
At the press conference there were all sorts of people. The TV news crews of all the local stations were there; so were reporters for three metropolitan dailies (their stories were subsequently compared to the broadcast of the interview by a University of California journalism department class) plus representatives of several high school papers, and personal friends of Dylan including poet Allen Ginsberg, producer Bill Graham and comedian Larry Hankin.
Thus the questions ranged from standard straight press and TV reporters’ questions to teen age fan club questions to in-group personal queries and put ons, to questions by those who really had listened to Dylan’s songs.
He sat on a raised platform facing the cameras and the reporters and answered questions over a microphone all the while smoking cigarettes and swinging his leg back and forth.
This was the only full length press conference by Dylan ever televised in its entirety. The transcript was made from an audio tape of the conference, and the only editing has been to take out statements concerning ticket availability and times of the local concerts – R.J.G.
One reporter asked Dylan "Do you think there will ever be a time when you’ll be hung as a thief?
Dylan replied. You weren’t supposed to say that.
Dylan's work was being recognized by all the most prestigious universities and Dylan was being characterized subliminally as "Godlike".
What wasn't publicized was Dylan's appetite for plagiarism.
An article from Abnormal Use Law Blog explains:
Writer’s Block is a Litigation Epidemic, but Overcoming it is Nonbillable
We at Abnormal Use are not even immune to the dreaded writer’s block, which is “a condition, primarily associated with writing, in which an author loses the ability to produce new work or experiences a creative slowdown.” Being the aggressive litigators that we are, our first instinct when faced with an issue is to face it head on. So, with this particular case of writer’s block, we decided to see whether writer’s block has appeared in reported case law. And as you might expect, it has.
For example, the great Bob Dylan has been accused of appropriating another author’s work due to a bout with writer’s block. James Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entm’t, 168 F.R.D. 485, 488 (D.N.J. 1996) (“The plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Dylan used the material because Dylan was suffering from writer’s block, regarding which the plaintiff has submitted a transcript of an interview where Dylan allegedly admitted to having writer’s block.”).
Dylan's work was being recognized by all the most prestigious universities and Dylan was being characterized subliminally as "Godlike".
Richard Thompson a professor at Harvard wrote the following article comparing Dylan to Greek mythology .
Odysseus is often referred to as “God like” in Greek mythology. Therefore the seed is planted subliminally that Dylan is “Godlike”
Then one day the newspaper headlines read “Bob Dylan a prophet?”. A prophet? As the question mark lent forgiveness the suggestion begged for an answer and rightly so.
So let us pay homage to the "prophet" and give this accolade some thought. Pondering the portrayal of Bob Dylan “the prophet”, besides religious leaders of our day (and not even the pope is characterized as a prophet) can I think of any one celebrity who has ever been portrayed as a prophet.
Of course Dylan modestly played this off which was what he was suppose to do knowing that the idea was fabricated by someone in his camp. The whole scheme was semi subliminal as to have the vast amount of the fragile minded be subliminally persuaded by this concept. I mean who wouldn't want to listen to an album of songs written by a "prophet". A great selling point if you will.
The New York post reported an interview by Dylan.
Bob Dylan has a message for his awestruck fans: I’m no prophet.
“they call [me] that all the time – ‘you’re the prophet, you’re the savior,’ ” says Dylan of his worshipful public, in an interview with CBS newsman Ed Bradley.
“I never wanted to be a prophet or a savior,” Dylan says. “ELVIS maybe. I could see myself becoming him. But prophet? No.”
Face it there probably is nothing more esteemed or flattering than being portrayed as a prophet even if it is just presented as a question or a comparison and yet to boot probably seventy percent of the world’s population do not know the true definition of the word (prophet) which is far less dynamic than it’s acoustic phonics.
Dylan's 1979 release of evangelical songs under the title "Slow Train Coming", baffled many of his devoted fans and adoring critics.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Robert Goldbloom November 6, 2017
"with the (Judeo-Christian) god on his side Bob Dylan's gospel phase back in the spotlight."
“Gotta Serve Somebody”: Bob Dylan on his 1980 gospel tour
He was Judas in a black leather jacket and a jewfro.
It was 1979 and Bob Dylan, who grew up going to the Zionist Herzl camp in Webster, Wisconsin., and who had sung prancingly of the Binding of Isaac “out on highway 61,” had come to Jesus. Over the course of three gospel-tinged and preachy albums from 1979-81 — “Slow Train Coming,” “Saved” and “Shot of Love” — he seemed to turn his back on Judaism in what came to be called his Christian period.
It was 1979 and Bob Dylan, who grew up going to the Zionist Herzl Camp in Webster, Wis., and who had sung bracingly of the Binding of Isaac “out on Highway 61,” had come to Jesus. Over the course of three gospel-tinged and preachy albums from 1979-81 — “Slow Train Coming,” “Saved” and “Shot of Love” — he seemed to turn his back on Judaism in what came to be called his Christian period.
The critics weren’t kind, and neither were Dylan’s Jewish watchers. “When the news came down that Dylan had been ‘born again’ and that his next album would be fully devoted to songs about Jesus, it was shocking and painful and felt like a betrayal,” Seth Rogovoy, author of 2009’s “Bob Dylan: Prophet, Mystic, Poet” (Scribner), recalled in an email interview with The Jewish Week.
Writing last year in the journal Foreign Policy, Eric Alterman, a Brooklyn College professor, put it this way: “It would be hard to overstate the horror that many Jewish Dylan fans and followers felt during this period. Not only did Dylan appear to be lost musically, but perhaps he had been lost entirely. And more to the point, was our Jewish prophet even Jewish anymore?”
Was it really that hard to understand? I'm guessing no it wasn't and it isn't. I’m guessing it’s simple, Dylan was out of ideas. For Dylan it seemed there was nothing else concrete or substantial for him to write about. He needed direction and he needed it fast so he most likely discussed it with his advisers back at Columbia who would have been Mikie Harris and John Hammond Sr. After all everything he released to the public up to this time had been stolen from other songwriters.
Mikie Harris
The answer was simple Jesus and the bible. It was all the content he needed to make a fortune.
There was a problem though. The public bought it. Dylan was thought of as an uncorroborated messiah or at least a “prophet” by his people and some of the the public.
To this day the Dylan prophet concept is still subliminally planted in the minds of many. Authoritative, convincing, credible, legitimate, original. pure, true, actual, certain, creditable, dependable, factual, faithful, official, sure and valid are some of the words associated with prophet.
All of these words portray a positive position and describe characteristics that most people would want their associates to possess. What a comforting thought to have a real live "Prophet" among us.
What would persuade Dylan to defer his religious beliefs and to use that deferment to steer his secular career in the direction of searching for Jesus? Well get to that later if you don't mind.
Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards saw Dylan’s release of evangelical songs as an attempt to sell records, calling the proselytizing songwriter "the prophet of profit" which is precisely my point.
Keith Richards
Dylan has forever operated under the guise of the starving artist who refused to relinquish his ideals for the opportunity of self enrichment. It’s a great act if you can pull it off however it’s not so easy when you’re a millionaire a few times over and have the eyes of the world staring at you.
Incredibly Dylan was able to sustain this image for decades until one day he blew it when during a Superbowl commercial he appeared as the main spokesman in an advertisement for Chrysler.
This comercial drew the attention to other commercial endeavors that Dylan partook in namely Cadillac.
A CNN headline read Bob Dylan Super Bowl commercial draws cries of 'sellout' you can imagine the rest.
Here is the cover up ready?
Dylan: The times have changed
By Neal Gabler
February 4, 2014
In the third quarter of the most-watched TV event in U.S. history, Sunday’s dull Super Bowl, there was one memorable moment: Bob Dylan’s solemn commercial for American craftsmanship generally and the Chrysler Corporation specifically. The Internet buzzed over Dylan’s alleged treachery in extolling a car. One site called it “surreal.”
Dylan’s ad seemed to signify not just that the 1960s are officially over, with Dylan’s “selling out,” but that the United States is a country of clichés so overpowering that they overpowered the artist who built his career challenging them. No matter how much you may try to resist America, it wears you down. Or so it would seem.
Dylan’s moment came when we heard that reedy twang of his, but his words weren’t about things roiling society or the wearying pangs of lost love or human wreckage — his standard subjects. He was talking about America’s greatness — “Is there anything more American than America?” he asks — about the power of her workers, and about the things that this country does well. Basically, about making automobiles.
It wasn’t an out-and-out shill, since he never mentioned the product’s name. But the voice of protest had become the voice of the pitch. It wasn’t the first time Dylan lent himself to Madison Avenue — he appeared in an ad for Victoria’s Secret in 2004, and a Cadillac Escalade ad in 2012, and his “I Want You” was used in a Chobani ad earlier during this Super Bowl.
There was, however, something startling about hearing Dylan, perhaps the man most responsible for framing the critique against American materialism, salute American commerce.
After all, he didn’t talk in that Victoria’s Secret ad. He didn’t tell us that the lingerie was great because it was made in the land where “you can’t fake true cool.”
The ad reminded some of Clint Eastwood’s Chrysler commercial during Super Bowl halftime two years ago — which featured similar platitudes about American resilience. But Eastwood was never the face of a generation the way Dylan was. He certainly didn’t stand for the things Dylan had stood for.
Dylan has protested that he was never a sage or prophet, that he was just a troubadour. He no doubt meant it. In fact, while he began as a contemporary Woody Guthrie, he quickly changed course, from acoustic folk singer specializing in protest to electric rock and roller addressing the human condition — demonstrating not so much the moral strain in America as the pliant one.
And Dylan kept on reinventing himself. He seemed to love to throw curves. He became an electrified rock artist, a country singer, a romantic balladeer, a bluesman. He even underwent a religious conversion.
In fact, if there is anything consistent about Dylan, it is that he is determined not to conform to expectations. That may have been his real rebelliousness, not his protest songs. He was rebelling against us.
He probably still is. But the Chrysler ad, in which he intones, “And when it’s made here, it’s made with the one thing you can’t import from anywhere else: American pride,” or “Detroit made cars and cars made America,” and in which the usually secretive Dylan appears walking through a music store or playing pool, you almost feel he is pulling your leg with his grandiose claims for this country — the sort of claims he would once have poked fun at.
Still, those who take it seriously and lament Dylan’s ad as a sellout, may be missing the larger point. This isn’t only a Dylan moment — it is an American moment. The idea of American exceptionalism has run so rampant in both our political and popular cultures that it seems everyone must subscribe to it, even Dylan.
Dylan may or may not have sold out to corporate interests, as his accusers say. If he did, though, it happened years ago with that Victoria’s Secret ad — and not on Sunday. But on Sunday he sold out to something much worse than American business: banality. Nearly every line he utters in the commercial is banal.
Here is our poet of the national conscience, the man who invented some of the most powerful locutions in song, mouthing the same tired canards about our greatness that everyone else has felt obligated to mouth for fear of being labeled anti-American. On Sunday, he was no longer talking truth to power. He was talking pap to all.
It only demonstrates that pap is the new default in our national dialogue. So there is Dylan, leaning into the camera at the end of the spot and telling us, “We will build your car,” while his song, “Things Have Changed,” plays in the background.
Indeed they have.
As time went on a phenomena called the internet hit the world which enabled people to learn just about anything they were interested in learning about or anyone. Information which one may want to keep confidential or secret was readily available.
Dylan was no different than anyone else and had secrets he wanted to keep confidential.
Dylan's fans wanted to know everything about him, and started frantically searching the internet for any morsel of information they could find about him. He and his camp knew that something had to be done to hide these secrets.
One would assume that in Dylan's case he would want to controll secrets about his personal life, his marriages, his children which was actually impossible for him to control or maybe it was something much more nefarious and surreptitious like his fans learning that he infringed a great deal of material from one unknown songwriter over a matter of years.
Dylan's objective was to divert all google searches relating to any personal or professional information that Dylan would want to keep secret from his fans. Dylan's think tank engineered the perfect solution to remedy the problem. A Victoria’s Secret commercial.
The concept was so bizarre that success was assured simply by the concept. It diverted all secret oriented internet discussions about Bob Dylan to Victoria’s Secret commercial or their website.
It also drew a massive amount of attention to Bob Dylan so as to ponder the irony of the person considered to be the pinnacle of intellectualism to be so shallow minded as to be associated with such a crass corporation.
The commercial received so much attention that it instantly buried any internet discussions of fans discussing anything embarrassing to Dylan or Bob Dylan secrets if you will.
One must wonder did Dylan do it for the cash? Was there no other corporation Dylan could have contracted with to do a commercial? Well of course there was Dylan also became a spokesman for Cadillac.
Then came the Beatles who spoke of their obsession with Bob Dylan. In interviews they mentioned that they were so impressed with Dylan’s work that they insisted on meeting him. In an interview Paul McCartney stated that Dylan was their idol thus the top mantle for aggrandized respect was reserved for Bob Dylan alone as it was cemented in the genre of reverence.
Dylan was crowned the King of Kings.
No other celebrity has been afforded the amount of adoration that Dylan has been afforded. College Deans, college professors, actors, publishers. playwrights, editors, critics, reporters, newscasters, producers including judges, politicians, senators and last but not least presidents, all hail Bob Dylan as the pinnacle of intellectualism and show an immeasurable reverence to him.
Every anybody who's somebody celebrity, Al Pacino, Robert Dinero, Robert Redford, Billy Joel, Adam Sandler, Alanis Morissette, Kanye West, Madonna, Alicia Keys, Brad Pitt, Bradley Cooper, Martin Scorsese, Bruce Springsteen, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Clint Eastwood President Obama, President Clinton, etc. all speak in awe of Bob Dylan.
When examining the reasons Dylan is so revered one must consider his position. Being a songwriter positions Dylan as a creator of original thought. It is this position that affords Dylan this great mantel of reverence and respect.
Throughout Dylan's fifty year cultivation of his mysterious subliminal persona there have been many secrets. Some of these secrets were and still are covered up by the mainstream media. In fact Dylan went through great lengths to cover up his biggest and damning secret which is that Bob Dylan does not write melodies or in other words music. While being interviewed by Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times Dylan stated:
“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. ‘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
After critics started scrutinizing Dylan’s work it had been noted that a majority of his melodies were from songs previously written by other people. His fans were extremely disappointed and started expressing their views that Dylan should have at least made reference to the the authors of original songs that Dylan changed the words to. The comparisons were unforgivably blatant. His songwriting process was blatantly nefarious and getting a great deal of attention on the internet. Dylan he had no choice but to admit to his plagiarisms to save face.
At first glance it appears that Dylan is being forthright by appearing to be honest about his song writing process which is actually a major form of plagiarism.
A second glance tells us that the date of the interview was Aug. 4, 2004 forty years after the beginning of his career and after the release of many songs that were released under Dylan's name with no credit given to the original author.
Even when the song was in the public domain there was no reference on any of the albums liner notes or labels to that fact, which was misleading to the public who just naturally thought that Dylan wrote the melody line to the song or music if you will.
And why would his fans think any different when the album stated written by Bob Dylan. Little did his fans know he just replaced the words to the song with his own words.
After further study of Bob Dylan's melodies it was learned that a very high percentage of the melodies to Dylan's hit songs were actually melodies from preexisting songs in which no credit had been given to the original author of the melody. Knockin on Heaven’s door was the same melody as Neil Young’s Helpless.
Even when the songs were in the public domain Dylan took credit for the melody and left absent the fact that they were from the liner notes and album label or album cover. This projected the image that Dylan had written the entire song including the music which he had not done.
We know this by reviewing the actual label and sleeves of the album that states written by Bob Dylan with no mention of the original authors. We are talking about the most highly acclaimed songwriter in the world here.
It’s common knowledge that no other artist has had the amount of songs covered by other artists than Dylan.
It’s also common knowledge now that the melody line to "Blowin in the wind” was actually the melody line to an old anti slavery song titled "No More Auction Block". Dylan simply discarded the words to the old song and replaced them with his own words. The label to the record states that the song was written by Bob Dylan. There is no mention of the original author anywhere on the label or the album covers liner notes. There is also no reference to public Domain.
Dylan would have gotten away with this nefariousness had it not been for the internet. When the internet hit people started scrutinizing the origins of his songs. Feeling betrayed his fans started posting the similarities one by one until an avalanche of damning evidence was common knowledge. To this date Bob Dylan has been accused of plagiarism in more than two hundred incidences all separate.
After forty five years of profiting from royalties on stolen melodies it was this phenomena that persuaded Dylan to come out and admit the truth. After carefully crafting a statement he called for an interview and released his statement which included the information that he is not a melodist.
Rolling Stone magazine actually published an article "Dylan's Greatest Thefts" This was no difference than Dylan doing a press conference to announce that he is not a melodist.
Dylan’s way of announcing to the world that he was going to be honest now but of course it was after he had made millions if not billions of dollars on royalties. Someone else labored on writing the songs yet Dylan profited on them.
For decades Dylan's songwriting process was a nice big fat cash cow bringing in an enormous amount of money. All in all he had been accused of plagiarism in more than two hundred incidences.
When Dylan's music plagiarism issue started getting a substantial amount of publicity he released a series of paintings in which he blatantly plagiarized another author’s work as a diversion to the plagiarism issue. The painting plagiarism issue would fill the Google searches. He apparently thought it would look better to his fans to be accused of plagiarizing another artists paintings instead of songs.
Rolling Stone magazine stated:
The paintings in Bob Dylan‘s “The Asia Series,” which are currently on display at the Gagosian Gallery in Manhattan, have come under fire for their resemblance to widely available pre-existing photographs. The series of paintings, which are said to part of a “visual journal” made by the singer during his travels through Japan, China, Vietnam and Korea, have been compared to famous photos by well-known photographers such as Henri Cartier-Bresson and Léon Busy.
“The most striking thing is that Dylan has not merely used a photograph to inspire a painting: he has taken the photographer’s shot composition and copied it exactly,” wrote Dylan critic Michael Gray in a post on his blog, Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. “He’s replicated everything as closely as possible. That may be a (very self-enriching) game he’s playing with his followers, but it’s not a very imaginative approach to painting.
More damning evidence of plagiarism surfaced when a handwritten Bob Dylan poem was being auctioned off at Christies and someone realized that the poem had been written by someone else. The article reads below;
Dylan "poem" on sale was actually Hank Snow song
Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A “poem” purportedly written by a teenage Bob Dylan and up for auction at Christie’s is actually a song written by the late Canadian country singer Hank Snow, the auction house said on Wednesday.
A hand-written poem believed at the time to be by a teenaged Bob Dylan and signed Bobby Zimmerman is seen in this undated handout photo from Christie's Auction House May 19, 2009. REUTERS
Christie’s announced on Tuesday the sale of the hand-written poem believed to have been written in 1957 when Dylan was 16 and away at Jewish camp.
Christie’s failed to detect that the words, with a few minor variations, matched those of a song previously recorded by Snow, who died in 1999 at age 85.
Reuters discovered the lyrics matched the Snow song when alerted by a reader. Reuters then informed the auction house.
“Additional information has come to our attention about the handwritten poem submitted by Bob Dylan to his camp newspaper, written when he was 16, entitled ‘Little Buddy.’ The words are in fact a revised version of lyrics of a Hank Snow song,” Christie’s said in a statement.
“This still remains among the earliest known handwritten lyrics of Bob Dylan and Christie’s is pleased to offer them in our Pop Culture auction on June 23.”
The manuscript had been expected to fetch $10,000 to $15,000.
Christie’s said Dylan, still using his given name Robert Zimmerman, signed the piece Bobby Zimmerman and submitted it to the Herzl Camp newspaper. The editor of the paper kept it for more than 50 years and recently donated it to Herzl Camp, a Jewish camp in Wisconsin, Christie’s said.
Another Dylan hand manuscript of yet another Hank Snow that Dylan had claimed to have written titled "A Drunkard's Son"After the manuscript was published, someone eventually pointed out that the young Zimmerman's "Drunkard's Son," was actually Hank Snow's "Drunkard's Son," almost exactly paralleling the "Little Buddy" story.
Well okay so what would persuade Dylan to defer his religious beliefs to use that deferment to steer his secular career to finding Jesus?
At the time the CBS Record executive who originally signed Bob Dylan to Columbia Records, John Hammond Sr. was working with a song writer named James Damiano who was working on a song titled "Where Are You Jesus" Damiano's lyrics included
And I Was Was Only Tryin
To Keep Myself From Cryin
Well The Devil Must
Be The Blame
Where Are You Jesus
It's About Time
You Claim Your Honor To Fame
Well Where Are You Jesus
It's About Time
You Claim Your Honor To Fame
It Could All End Tomorrow
So Why Not Live For Today
I'll Leave You With All The Sorrow
Just As Long As You Promise
To Pray
Cause What Good Is A Man
Who Needs Love That Bad
Can't You Understand
It Doesn't Have To Be This Sad
And I Was Was Only Tryin
To Keep Myself From Cryin
Well The Devil Must Be The Blame
Where Are You Jesus
It's About Time
You Claim Your Honor To Fame
And I Was Was Only Tryin
To Keep Myself From Cryin
Well The Devil Must Be The Blame
Where Are You Jesus
It's About Time
You Claim Your Honor To Fame
Dylan was accused of plagiarizing his Nobel Prize speech.
Plagiarism accusations have long marred Bob Dylan’s legacy. Defendants of the great American bard have pointed to common practice in folk music; critics like Joni Mitchell have accused him of being a flat-out fraud.
Now, there’s another debate: should Dylan get to keep his Nobel Prize for Literature? On Tuesday, an astute observer accused Bob Dylan of lifting his Nobel Prize acceptance speech from SparkNotes. And the evidence looks pretty damning.
Dylan’s speech included inspiration nods to three literary classics: The Odyssey, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Moby-Dick.
In the case of Moby-Dick, Slate author Andrea Pitzer discovered more than 20 lines ripped off from the study guide. “I soon discovered that the Moby-Dick line Dylan dreamed up last week seems to be cobbled together out of phrases on the website SparkNotes, the online equivalent of CliffsNotes,” Pitzer wrote.
Pitzer started investigating after author Ben Greenman questioned one of the quotes from the Herman Melville classic. Here’s a quick example of what Pitzer discovered in Dylan’s review:
Dylan: “Finally, Ahab spots Moby… Boats are lowered… Moby attacks Ahab’s boat and destroys it. Next day, he sights Moby again. Boats are lowered again. Moby attacks Ahab’s boat again.”
SparkNotes: “Ahab finally sights Moby Dick. The harpoon boats are launched, and Moby Dick attacks Ahab’s harpoon boat, destroying it. The next day, Moby Dick is sighted again, and the boats are lowered once more … Moby Dick again attacks Ahab’s boat.”
Accordingly, other passages bear similar resemblance. And, signs of flat-out copying. Bob Dylan has yet to respond to the accusations, though this looks like bad cut-n-paste.
All of which is raising difficult questions within the Swedish Academy, which determines the Nobel Prize winners.
For starters, the Nobel Prize comes with a $900,000 prize. But Dylan repeatedly snubbed the award, even refusing to respond to notifications from the Academy initially. He subsequently refused to attend this awards ceremony, with Patti Smith flubbing the acceptance performance instead.
After eleven years of working with Dylan's management Damiano filed suit against Dylan for copyright infringement.
When one reviews the documents of the case it's apparent that Dylan had "NO" as in zero evidence to defend himself against Damiano . He ignored his subpoena's, never filed an affidavit of denial, refused to answer any motion for admissions, never filed a counter suit and admitted to having access to Damiano's songs.
Dylan however did file for a confidentiality order. and was granted the order by Judge Rosen.
Judge Rosen's "Gag Order" has been in effect for the last nineteen years. The irony of the situation is that Bob Dylan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom award by President Obama while utilizing a gag order on James Damiano. Obviously it didn't include Freedom of the Speech.
The order designated all discovery materials confidential including fifty hours of video taped depositions all of which all fifty hours were incriminating to Dylan, and Damiano's musicologist's musical comparison.
After completing the most comprehensive movie on Bob Dylan's plagiarisms and songwriting process James contemplated showing his movie at an independent theater in New York. When Dylan found out he had his attorney's send James the threatening letter below.
Damiano's musicologist graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. The song "Dignity" was nominated for a Grammy as the best Rock song of the year. Dylan never contested Dr. Greene's analysis with a musicologist that had any scholarly credentials.
Doctor Greene's Analysis
A Motive
An article from Abnormal Use Law Blog Explains
Writer’s Block is a Litigation Epidemic, but Overcoming it is Nonbillable
We At Abnormal Use Are Not Even Immune To The Dreaded Writer’s Block, Which Is “A Condition, Primarily Associated With Writing, In Which An Author Loses The Ability To Produce New Work Or Experiences A Creative Slowdown.” Being The Aggressive Litigators That We Are, Our First Instinct When Faced With An Issue Is To Face It Head On. So, With This Particular Case Of Writer’s Block, We Decided To See Whether Writer’s Block Has Appeared In Reported Case Law. And As You Might Expect, It Has.
For Example, The Great Bob Dylan Has Been Accused Of Appropriating Another Author’s Work Due To A Bout With Writer’s Block. James Damiano V. Bob Dylan , 168 F.R.D. 485, 488 (D.N.J. 1996) (“The Plaintiff Further Alleges That Mr. Dylan Used The Material Because Dylan Was Suffering From Writer’s Block, Regarding Which The Plaintiff Has Submitted A Transcript Of An Interview Where Dylan Allegedly Admitted To Having Writer’s Block.”). Similarly, Writer’s Block Was Evidence Of Motive To Steal Another’s Author’s Work. See Price V. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6083, At *32 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007) (“There Is Evidence That Thurber Wrote Approximately 90% Of His 150-Page First Full-Length Draft After The Alleged Date Of Access, Following Months Of Writer’s Block And Frustration.”).
It was revealed in a Bob Dylan interview with Associated Press Reporter Kathryn Baker In the late 80's that Dylan was experiencing writer's block when Ms. Baker published in her article the following statement "he (Bob Dylan) didn't have enough material of his own for an album"
When deposed Ms.Baker testified:
Mr.Kramer: You then continue without quotes: "The other reason for the others is inevitable: He didn't" that's d-i-d-n-'t, as in did not "He didn't have enough material of his own for an album." Did Mr. Dylan say those words?
Ms. Baker "I went back in the transcript and I was paraphrasing him and that's not entirely accurate. He said he didn't have enough songs that he wanted to put on an album."
This interview was given to Ms.Baker on August 5th 1988.
During this exact same time period a songwriter named James Damiano had been working on material with Dylan's producer's and publishers at CBS in New York. One of the first songs Damiano submitted to John Hammond Sr. at CBS was Where Are You Jesus
At the time of the Baker Dylan interview Damiano Had a prior eight year affiliation with Hammonds Office. The association started in the later part of the 70's.
An article written by Jonny Whiteside explains:
FOLK LIES: Joni Mitchell Outs Bob Dylan
by Jonny Whiteside
Big Hollywood
April 28, 2010"Bob [Dylan] is not authentic at all. He's a plagiarist, and his name and voice are fake. Everything about Bob is a deception. We are like night and day, he and I."
- Joni Mitchell, Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2010
Caterwauling Canuck "folk singer" Joni Mitchell got just about everybody riled up with that sweet morsel of self-serving insight, but the real shock is not that Mitchell is absolutely correct but that someone finally came out and said it. After decades of carefully manicured deification by Columbia Records, brain-dead rock critics and the slimy elite institution that elevated such barely able snake-oil salesmen as Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger to celestial heights, it's high time to flout indoctrination and examine Dylan's track record as a Grade-A phony.
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 courtroom technique.
Defenders and apologist have an extraordinary array of excuses on Zim's behalf, from use of "literary allusion" to his building a "cultural collage," or that his "borrowing" is "homage," to the more deliciously desperate "he obviously doesn't NEED to do it" (strangely, though, he always has). This instamatic, Clinton-ian excuse making serves only to further polish up the shine on Dylan's teflon hubris and to underscore the blind, Pavlovian worship which he has long enjoyed. Let's face it: as a lyricist, Dylan is crap, inarguably unworthy beside, say, Hank Cochran, Chuck Berry, Mickey Newbury or Jimi Hendrix ("All Along the Watchtower" plays as a lead balloon even for Hendrix, nearly deflating his Electric Ladyland masterpiece).
While we're endlessly told that "The pump don't work / cause the vandals took the handle" is vintage Dylan worthy of class room study, in truth it's little more than the wordy spew of a peripatetic rhyming dictionary who'll hang any phrase together as long as it fits. Metaphor is convenience, not expression for Dylan. His songs have also treated women quite badly: the entire attitude of "It Ain't Me, Babe" is ugly; "Just Like a Woman" is nothing short of misogynistic, but, worst of all, Dylan's sheer verbosity has ineradicably stained American pop music, and we've all had to suffer through the post-Dylan legacy of long-winded nonsense ("American Pie," anyone?).
The real tragedy is that none of these very well-documented and nigh irrefutable plagiarism charges will ever emerge from the shadows, as the Cult of Zimmerman's hulking form casts a very, long one. Even when the Hank Snow rip-off stared the world in its face, the strongest reaction was a nervous giggle and murmurs of youthful indiscretion. To capitulate the carefully constructed myth of folk music and Dylan's subsequent installation as rock & roll's poet laureate is unthinkable, a hot, hit-the-panic-button nightmare for generations of quiescent "hipsters" never weaned from the million-selling Dylan teat. His socio-cultural mystique is also an industry-manufactured sham, one that very handily diverted attention away from genuine political stink-stirrers like the MC5 or the lysergic guerilla warfare of the 13th Floor Elevators.
As a junta-backed counter-culture figurehead, Dylan is ideal: a harmless, unoriginal patsy, a cute insouciant whose relentlessly self-involved stance never threatened anyone, save for the hazard of the droning lip service endlessly paid him. We should all praise Joni Mitchell for this overdue call-out (just don't ask us to listen to her records), but it's unlikely that any in the Zim Cult will even consider the ramifications of her statement. But when you pile it up with all the rest, there's a single conclusion to be made: Bob Dylan is an artistic (and ethical) fraud, one whose own fear of creativity has long since given way to an apparently lifelong practice of emulating his superiors by vampirism, siphoning off their intellectual blood and using it to top off his own under-baked efforts. Weirdly, even then, the results have been scarcely palatable.
Damiano turned down a forty five million dollar movie deal to be able to keep the publishing rights to his life's work.
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 Bob Dylan during discovery
There were approximately twenty to twenty five boxes filled with anywhere from 200 to 400 finished and unfinished songs in each box (twenty seven 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
Still to this day 12/08/2018 nine years later Mr. Snyder has not replied.
JULIE LEVINE an attorney and writer for the Cardozo Entertainment Law Review did a scholarly article titled" Lo and Behold"
DOES TOLERATED USE GIVE AN INCENTIVE TO PLAGIARIZE? AN EXAMPLE THROUGH THE MUSIC OF BOB DYLAN.
Additionally, ruling that a qualified reporter’s privilege existed regarding an interview Dylan gave where he claimed he had writer’s block demonstrates the willingness of courts to protect the big name musician instead of the original composer, thereby endorsing a minor form of plagiarism.
However, protecting Bob Dylan in this one instance may differ in a case where the musician is not well known or does not have a reputation of borrowing from other musicians since the beginning of his career. Indeed, Bob Dylan disclaiming he has writer’s block can give rise to an inference for a reasonable jury to believe that it is more likely that he copied Damiano’s song if the jury heard that he had writer’s block, as compared to the jury not hearing that he had writer’s block.
Therefore, by deeming the requested evidence in the motion to compel irrelevant, it is not clear whether or not Bob Dylan did in fact plagiarize James Damiano’s song or was merely influenced by his music.
Hence, if Damiano’s musicologist’s theory had been presented to the court and was believed as true, it is very possible that Bob Dylan plagiarized James Damiano’s song.
On the other hand, if a contrary theory was presented, one that does not involve the Schenker analysis, it is possible that Bob Dylan was only influenced by Damiano’s song and used that influence to write Dignity, not to copy Steel Guitars as his own.
Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether the court endorsed Bob Dylan’s potential plagiarism because of whom he was or if the court was willing to turn a blind eye to the alleged plagiarism.
This court’s behavior further demonstrates how a court tolerating the use of another’s song may give an incentive to plagiarize. If a court is willing to dismiss a motion to compel discovery that could prove plagiarism, a court may very well do the same for another musician, even if he or she is not as well known as Bob Dylan.
Bob Dylan and Plagiarism
To Catch a Master Thief
by Alexander T. Deley
December 12th, 2013
A tired adage states that: “talent borrows but genius steals.” This has certainly been true of the folk tradition in which homage and the borrowing of ideas has always been an integral part. Folk musicians – most notably Bob Dylan, have always sprinkled their work takings from the tradition, giving their work added depth and imbuing it with a sense of timelessness. Dylan’s work has varied in quality and in subject matter over-time, but has remained firmly rooted within this folk tradition, borrowing the odd-melody here or phrase there, but often creating new work, within new contexts that has often amounted to more than the sum of its parts. Somewhere along the line, and most evident in his album Modern Times and his memoir Chronicles Vol. 1, Bob Dylan appears to have crossed a line and has resorted to plagiarism.
It can be said that the work of a great artist should be beyond seemingly petty nit-picking, however, when the work of a great artist is no longer truly his own, does that person ceases to be a great artist? It can be argued that what Dylan is now doing – namely the naked theft of the work of others – has reduced him in stature. Intellectual and artistic honesty remain some of the most important features within a free society. It is taken as natural that someone should be recognized for the excellence of their work and reap whatever benefits producing said work rewards. Similarly, the naked theft of the work of others, in whole or in part, is to be scorned. It is dishonest in that it represents not only intellectual dishonesty, but also intellectual laziness. Genuine insight and especially the sort of word-craft that alight the senses are difficult to produce with regularity and require not only-talent, but continual work and refinement of craft. It, in the end, plagiarism is so immoral because it is a form of cheating – hence the vitriol and anger normally directed towards plagiarists upon the discovery of their malfeasance. We all like to think that when someone produces a piece of work, it is their ideas – or at least their perceptions or spin on ideas – that are being represented. Plagiarisms vulgarity stems from the idea that, in accepting work falsely passed off as one’s own, it challenges our collective integrity.
The brilliance of much of Dylan’s early work is beyond dispute – here was someone who was able to make-up for his utter lack of musicianship through brilliance as a word-smith and managed to root his lyrics deeply in a tradition that added delicious context to his work. Albums such as Bringing It All Back Home and later, Blood on the Tracks featured brilliant manipulation of folk traditions to produce songs of strong social and personal resonance. He was also a sharp social critic, pointing towards the ills of society in the finest folk tradition with songs such as “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol” and “Hurricane”. His mastery of word-play was absolute and hinted towards numerous literary and poetic traditions more so than towards musical ones. His songs spoke to both the spirit of the times and Dylan (and the artistic persona he created for himself). Dylan’s tendency towards self-mythology further strengthened his work by casting him as all the more part of a grand tradition. He became a voice of the ages, not simply of a generation. This bred obsessive, often humorless followers who hung upon Dylan’s every word. Despite this, his muse burned bright, and even his self-consciously ‘bad’ albums, notably – to throw the obsessive off the scent – including the much reviled Self-Portrait brimmed with ideas and intelligence.
Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s – while Dylan was at the height of a drunken depression that eventually saw him ‘save’ himself by becoming a ‘born-again’ Christian, and eventual seeming acquiescent return to Judaism, his muse seems to have dried up. Throughout the 80s and early 90s, Dylan produced a series of poorly received records bearing little resemblance to his old work. The music he produced on albums such as Infidels and Saved included everything from inane Zionist propaganda (“Neighborhood Bully”) to simplistic retellings of Biblical creation stories (“God Gave Names To All The Animals”). While this period saw the odd splash of the old genius (notably the moving “Dark Eyes” on the not so moving Empire Burlesque and the funny though admittedly 80s sounding “Brownsville Girl” on Knocked Out Loaded –considered by many to be Dylan’s worst record) something appeared to be missing.
Dylan appears to have briefly experimented with writing ‘list songs’, where a theme is repeated down a list (i.e. “Everything’s Broken” and “Most of the Time”) to some affect on 1989’s Oh Mercy, which received positive reviews and was heralded as something of a come-back, but this gimmick had already begun to wear thin on 1990’s Under the Red Sky, which was critically savaged.
Dylan then defied many of his critics by recording two solo albums in rapid succession of old folk and blues standards. Good As I Been To You and World Gone Wrong were remarkable in that they seemed to show Dylan both re-immersing himself in the material that had inspired him in the early 60s, but also in that his musicianship on the albums appeared to be far more impressive than anything he had previously, or would thereafter, produce. This was followed-up by 1997’s intelligent, though slightly morbid – especially in light of Dylan’s subsequent near-fatal heart infection that he was treated for around the time the album came out – Time Out of Mind.
Dylan remained inactive until 2001 when he released “Love and Theft”- considered by many to be the best album Dylan had produced in decades and receiving a Five-Star review in Rolling Stone, the first of which the magazine had awarded in over a decade. The album’s September 11th release date further cemented the importance of the album as many of Dylan’s lyrics on the record– largely about loss and renewal – seemed to speak to the immediacy of the tragedy.
“Love and Theft” was also notable as being the first of Dylan’s albums in some time where clear literary-lifting was identified. The New York Times1 and San Francisco Chronicle identified several lines that Dylan had taken verbatim from the English language translation of Dr. Junichi Saga’s 1991 Japanese gangster memoir, Confessions of a Yakuza. These lines included: “my old man was like some kind of feudal lord”, “why don’t you shove off if it bothers you so much”, “my uncle did a lot of nice things for me and I won’t forget him”, and “What’s the use if you can’t stand up to some old businessman?”. While the New York Times article argued that what Dylan did was closer to “cultural collage” than to plagiarism the publication asked more questions with the release of 2006’s Modern Times.2
Modern Times was notable in that it saw Dylan make considerable use of the poems of Confederate Poet Henry Timrod as lyrical fodder. Many of Dylan’s lyrical constructions and exact phrasings were shown to be direct borrows from Timrod, as well as from other sources including the Ovid. Further, the songs seemed to lack focus and felt as though they were simply assembled from snippets of various sources rather than carrying the crisper narratives that characterized Dylan’s earlier work.
The liner notes carried no notation or footnotes on sources. Indeed, the songs were credited as “Words and music by Bob Dylan” a point that was particularly glaring as almost every single song on the album was a reworking of an old blues, jazz or R & B number. For example, “Rollin’ and Tumblin’” was little more than the addendum of some new lyrics to the Muddy Waters’ arrangement of the blues standard of the same name, “Beyond the Horizon” was identical musically and similar lyrically to “Red Sails In The Sunset”, “When the Deal Goes Down” was musically identical to the Bing Crosby hit “Where The Blue of the Night (Meets The Gold Of The Day)”, “Thunder on the Mountain” and “When the Levee Breaks” were borrowed Memphis Minnie numbers, “Ain’t Talkin’” a remake of the Stanley Brothers song “River of Regret” and so on. While some of this can be thought of Dylan’s use of the folk tradition, the decision to credit the songs both lyrically and musically to himself is telling. In light of Dylan’s satellite radio program, it is strange that Dylan would not opt to credit this music to its writers, some of whom are still alive if not living in obscurity and likely could stand to earn royalties from their work following it’s reuse.
More telling however, is Dylan’s outright theft of material in writing his memoir Chronicles. The book appears to be a cleverly written account of various points in Dylan’s life, including his initial arrival on the Greenwich Village folk circuit circa 1961, where he would go on to become a fixture and shortly thereafter make his name to his time in New Orleans in the late 80s when he recorded Oh Mercy. Critics were unanimous in praising Dylan for his recapturing much of the feel of the era as well as his clever turns of phrase. The problem was, many of these turns of phrase were pilfered from sources as diverse as the March 31, 1961 issue of Time magazine to novels by Jack London, Sax Roehmer and R.L. Stevenson among others.
Many will argue that as a product of the folk tradition, these distinctions should not trouble Dylan. Of the folk tradition, half the reason it works the way it does, with musicians actively borrowing from one another is because everyone, within the context of a folk scene, is familiar with the same body of work, and thus would be able to recognize ‘borrowed’ material is done so with a nod and a wink. Secondly, social change, rather than commercial remuneration was clearly the reason for many folk songs and thus copyright becomes immaterial.
With the Dylan of present, neither of these are the case. Dylan’s audience is overwhelmingly composed of baby-boomers, reared on rock music and who are unlikely to know many of the songs that Dylan is pilfering. This can be taken even farther with the memoir, in which very few people are capable of remembering the passages borrowed, and no one is expected to remember the contents of antiquated issues of Time magazines. Bob Dylan also does not simply represent ‘Bob Dylan’ rather he represents a multimillion-dollar empire. The economics of each new release are likely closely considered and Dylan has not been politically active for decades. Thus, his plagiarism involves him profiting enormously from the work of others.
Further, the argument that Dylan does not comprehend copyright, intellectual property or is somehow beyond that is also specious. Dylan has himself been ruthless in pursuing his own copyright claims. He famously sued the group Hootie and the Blowfish for their use of the phrase “Tangled up in Blue” and some lines from the song “Idiot Wind” in their song “Only Want To Be With You” – despite the Blowfish song being clearly written as a tribute to Dylan, stating: “Put on a little Dylan” immediately before delivering the offending lines. The eventual settlement was said to run to several million dollars in Dylan’s favor.
Dylan is also no stranger to controversy regarding his work. An 11-year, still-unresolved lawsuit filed against him by songwriter James Damiano is particularly telling. Damiano alleges that Dylan, quite ironically given the title, plagiarized the song “Dignity” from Damiano. Damiano had repeatedly met Dylan and submitted songs to Dylan’s parent label CBS. This is especially telling as “Dignity” was Dylan’s only ‘hit’ record of the 1990s and seems quite different from much of Dylan’s earlier work or other work that he was producing during that period. The direct song lyric comparisons given in the case appear to hold to Damiano’s version of events, despite reports of Damiano’s apparent erratic behavior and his being held in contempt of court.
It is now common knowledge that Bob Dylan has been accused of plagiarism in over two hundred seperate incidences. In Dylan's early career he would plagiarize one or two songs from different artists. By the late seventies his professional schedule became very demanding of his time and he was afforded less time to write. It was at this time he was introduced to James Damiano's material.
Damiano a prolific writer provided a treasure trove of material to Dylan over the course of eleven years of which Dylan took the liberty of taking advantage of without crediting Damiano and also making a ton of money from royalties. Eventually Dylan acquired twenty seven years of James Damiano's writing.
It is this story the "Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's Songs" in which Dylan is actively and aggressively seeking to hide and cover up given the potential of the internet to expose his nefariousness and deception.
Another diversion: Journalism 101
Journalist know better than to plagiarize and especially not to plagiarize Bob Dylan. In a desperate attempt to control the google search “Bob Dylan +Plagiarism” Dylan’s camp must have approached Mr Lehrer and convinced him to plagiarize Dylan then resign.
Being that Bob Dylan is a multi-billionaire He could have afforded to pay Mr Lehrer just about any amount of money to buy this diversion.
Jonah Lehrer was a rising star among writers He would never have done what he did, It was to intentional but for the right amount of money why not?
Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Dylan Quotes for His Book
BY JULIE BOSMAN
JULY 30, 2012
Interpreting Dylan, Always Treacherous, Was Lehrer’s Undoing
The idea that someone would invent quotations by one of the most famous musicians alive would seem incredible. Of course, Bob Dylan’s actual words can be difficult to explain.
Jonah LehrerNina SubinJonah Lehrer
A publishing industry that is notoriously ill-equipped to root out fraud. A magazine whose famed fact-checking department is geared toward print, not the Web. And a lucrative lecture circuit that rewards snappy, semi-scientific pronouncements, smoothly delivered to a corporate audience.
All contributed to the rise of Jonah Lehrer, the 31-year-old author, speaker and staff writer for The New Yorker, who then executed one of the most bewildering recent journalistic frauds, one that on Monday cost him his prestigious post at the magazine and his status as one of the most promising, visible and well-paid writers in the business.
An article in Tablet magazine revealed that in his best-selling book, “Imagine: How Creativity Works,” Mr. Lehrer had fabricated quotes from Bob Dylan, one of the most closely studied musicians alive. Only last month, Mr. Lehrer had publicly apologized for taking some of his previous work from The Wall Street Journal, Wired and other publications and recycling it in blog posts for The New Yorker, acts of recycling that his editor called “a mistake.”
By Monday, when the Tablet article was published online, both The New Yorker and Mr. Lehrer’s publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, made it clear that they had lost patience with him.
David Remnick, the editor of the magazine who had reluctantly kept Mr. Lehrer on staff after his reuse of his own material was detailed last month, spoke with Mr. Lehrer on Sunday night and accepted his resignation. “This is a terrifically sad situation,” Mr. Remnick said in a statement, “but, in the end, what is most important is the integrity of what we publish and what we stand for.”
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt said it would recall print copies of “Imagine,” an expensive and arduous undertaking that suggested the publisher was taking Mr. Lehrer’s sins seriously.
In a statement released through his publisher, Mr. Lehrer apologized.
“The lies are over now,” he said. “I understand the gravity of my position. I want to apologize to everyone I have let down, especially my editors and readers.”
He added, “I will do my best to correct the record and ensure that my misquotations and mistakes are fixed. I have resigned my position as staff writer at The New Yorker.”
Through his literary agent, Andrew Wylie, Mr. Lehrer declined a request for an interview.
Mr. Lehrer, who majored in neuroscience at Columbia, rose to prominence writing about science in the mold of Malcolm Gladwell or David Brooks through his blog on Wired.com, which then moved to The New Yorker, and quickly became a popular paid speaker at conferences.
A spokeswoman for The New Yorker said that in addition to his work online, Mr. Lehrer wrote six articles for the magazine, beginning in July 2008. His last article for the magazine was published in March 2012. He became a staff writer in June 2012.
Mr. Lehrer might have kept his job at The New Yorker if not for the Tablet article, by Michael C. Moynihan, a journalist who is something of an authority on Mr. Dylan.
Reading “Imagine,” Mr. Moynihan was stopped by a quote cited by Mr. Lehrer in the first chapter. “It’s a hard thing to describe,” Mr. Dylan said. “It’s just this sense that you got something to say.”
After searching for a source, Mr. Moynihan could not verify the authenticity of the quote. Pressed for an explanation, Mr. Lehrer “stonewalled, misled and, eventually, outright lied to me” over several weeks, Mr. Moynihan wrote, first claiming to have been given access by Mr. Dylan’s manager to an unreleased interview with the musician. Eventually, Mr. Lehrer confessed that he had made it up.
Mr. Moynihan also wrote that Mr. Lehrer had spliced together Dylan quotes from separate published interviews and, when the quotes were accurate, he took them well out of context. Mr. Dylan’s manager, Jeff Rosen, declined to comment.
Mr. Lehrer’s publisher quickly moved on Monday to make “Imagine” disappear from the bookstore shelves. All of its retail and wholesale accounts, the publisher said, would be asked to stop selling “Imagine” and return unsold copies for a full refund. On Monday morning, “Imagine” was ranked No. 105 on Amazon’s Web site; by afternoon, it had been removed.
Since its release in March, “Imagine” has sold more than 200,000 copies in hardcover and e-book. On The New York Times hardcover nonfiction best-seller list of Aug. 5, “Imagine” held the No. 14 spot.
Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia, said in an interview that not only had Mr. Lehrer carved out a career in the popular niche of brain science, but he had created a persona that is perfectly suited to a 21st-century media environment.
“Conjure me up a guy who talks science winningly, who shows you that everything is transparent, and does it in a self-help-y spirit,” he said. “In our age, a guy who looks cute and wonky is better positioned to get away with this than others.”
Let’s go directly to what all these diversions are about. It is now common knowledge that Bob Dylan has been accused of plagiarism in over two hundred seperate incidences.
In Dylan’s early career he would plagiarize one or two songs from different artists. By the late seventies Dylan had become extremely wealthy and spent much of his time enjoying his life and spending money his professional schedule became very demanding of his time and he was afforded less time to write. It was at this time he was introduced to James Damiano’s material.
Damiano a prolific writer provided a treasure trove of material to Dylan over the course of eleven years of which Dylan took the liberty of taking advantage of without crediting Damiano and also making a ton of money from royalties. Eventually Dylan acquired twenty seven years of James Damiano’s writing.
It is this story the “Bob Dylan’s Stealing of James Damiano’s Songs” in which Dylan is actively and aggressively seeking to hide and cover up given the potential of the internet to expose his nefariousness and deception.
He continuously initiates illegal actions and lies to web forums about Damiano citing illegal authority knowing Damiano does not have the money to file suit against him. He has gotten Damiano banned from every internet forum that could potentially expose his (Dylan's) corruption.
When James posted "Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's Songs on the Broadwayworld chatboard he received 348 hits within 15 minutes then was banned. What people don't know is that probably the top five hundred conspiracy website forums on the internet are Shill sites designed to control the flow of truthful information. That should inflame the general populace.
James has posted nothing but the truth so it was totally illegal for Broadway World to ban James. Should James had posted something that was not true about Bob Dylan for sure Dylan would have filed criminal charges against James.
Dylan has also hired companies to make false representations about the legality of James Damiano's sites to other hosts which effected the google search positioning of James Damiano's sites he has also used server blocks to bury Damiano links.
It was the amount of Damiano materials that Dylan stole that determined the aggresiveness of Dylan's scandalous conduct in covering up his plagiarisms of Damiano's songs
Never has Dylan tried so hard to defend himself against one accuser. The blatancy of his affiliation with Damiano and the amount of material taken determined the difference between Damiano and Dylan's other accusers.
Perhaps a strong precedent is the case of disgraced historian Stephen Ambrose. Ambrose was found to have placed quotation marks in his book about World War II airmen, The Wild Blue, identically to passages in Thomas Childers Wings of Morning. The misuse of quotations was repeated throughout the work. While in this case, Ambrose’s citation was correct, it was his failure to acknowledge the second hand source from which he had gleaned the material that led to allegations, (arguably rightfully) of plagiarism. With Bob Dylan, this is not even the case. Dylan does not acknowledge any of the multitudes of materials.
This is also similar to the recent case of (then) Harvard undergraduate Kaavya Viswanathan who in 2006 had been found to plagiarize several passages in her debut novel with only minor variations. In both cases, the accused writer was publicly disgraced and in the case of Ambrose, questions were posed about much of his previous work (which unearthed that he had falsified most of the first hand sources that composed his Eisenhower biography).
Whether one feels that Dylan is guilty of plagiarism or of some sort of clever game of literary cryptography, it remains difficult to let his work stand sans correct citation or notation. Moreover, Dylan’s willingness to enforce his copyright in cases where he feels his work has been infringed upon, and his attempts to conceal his use of external passages indicates that he is well aware of what he is doing. While crafting a literary memoir rarely requires accuracy of memory; Robert Graves, Vladimir Nabokov, Salvador Dali and others have all crafted memoirs that are clearly as literary as factual, the distinction has been that they all did so using words and imaginings that are firmly their own. One is left to wonder, with Dylan, not only whether what he has done is fair, but whether it is worthy of his own legacy.
“Plagiarism in Dylan, Or a Cultural Collage?”. Jon Pareles, New York Times, July 12, 2003. [↩]
“Who’s This Guy Dylan Who’s Borrowing Lines From Henry Timrod?”. Motoko Rich, New York Times, September 12, 2006. [↩]
“Many Lines in Chronicles are from Time Magazine”. Scott Warmuth, Expecting Rain, March 11, 2005. [↩]
“More Dylan Thefts”. Edward Cook, Ralph, The Sacred River, September 27th, 2006. [↩]
“Bob Charlatan: Deconstructing Dylan’s Chronicles: Volume One”. Scott Warmuth, New Haven Review, January, 2008, pp. 70-83. [↩]
Alex Deley is an urban planner, writer, record collector and musician. He received his MS in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has worked in the US, France, and in West Africa. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Read other articles by Alexander, or visit Alexander's website.
This article was posted on Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 6:30am and is filed under General, Music.
All content © 2007-2018 Dissident Voice and respective authors | Subscribe to the DV RSS feed | Top
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, including Blowin In The Wind.
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
It is uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan's law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Parcher Hayes & Snyder, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Hecker Brown & Sherry including Mary Jo White, Steven Hayes, Jonathan Liebman, 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.
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 Seeger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a half a billion dollar copyright infringement lawsuit with Bob Dylan.
Bob Dylan 's Stealing of James Damiano 's Songs
http://christinejustice.yolasite.com
Eleven Years
BOB DYLAN'S STEALING OF JAMES DAMIANO'S SONGS
© Copyright 2018 damiano
Eleven Years
BOB DYLAN'S STEALING OF JAMES DAMIANO'S SONGS
James Damiano
© Copyright Bob Dylan And Plagiarism
Make a free website with
Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's songs
http://christinejustice.yolasite.com/
james damiano
© copyright bob dylan and plagiarism
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,605,232,312 |
| Stories: | 8,136,371 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Bob Dylan Lawsuit picks up steam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ODE52LDL54&list=PLCeCr9z5LyNcw-VdTucWd-JdBRpjTTrAA&index=1