PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST BOB DYLAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff

C 95-4795 (JBS)

Against

BOB DYLAN Defendants

C 95-4795 (JBS)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST BOB DYLAN.

Bias or an Appearance of Bias

The right to be tried by an impartial judge is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence; in fact, this right has often been considered to be the “cornerstone” of the American legal system.

Litigants and their counsel often come to believe that a judge has become biased or prejudiced against them, or in favor of an opposing party; however, bias is an attitude or “state of mind,” not an easily provable “fact.”

Consequently, even in those jurisdictions which have laws on the books which authorize parties to seek to disqualify judges on the basis of bias, as opposed to interest in the cause, it is typically only in those rare instances when a judge verbalizes bias against a party or its counsel that a motion to recuse can successfully be made on this ground.

Super Easy $200 Bonus After First $500 Spent on This Card

Wise Bread

Sponsored by Revcontent

In part because of their recognition of the fact that judicial bias can seldom be proved, legislatures in many jurisdictions have authorized parties to seek disqualification on the basis of an “appearance” of judicial bias or impropriety. The primary federal judicial statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 455, contains a provision (§ 455 a) that calls for a federal judge to be disqualified not only when he is biased against a party, but whenever a reasonable, disinterested observer would think he might be.

Consequently when a judge rules on every motion in favor of one party an uninterested observer can decisively and conclusively substantiate the appearance of partiality which is the standard for recusal.

In Damiano vs Bob Dylan, every motion that was before Judge Simandle was ruled in Favor of Bob Dylan.

DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #1

James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares

under penalty of

perjury that:

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

 a.Ruling in favor of Bob Dylan on every motion before him

  b. Choosing to substantiate as truth the opinion of Bob Dylan’s lead counsel Orin Snyder, and all other counsel to Bob Dylan including Steven Hayes, and Steven D. Johnson as opposed to plaintiff James Damiano’s true material facts.

  c. Disregarding thirty five hours of videotaped depositions which implicate Bob Dylan, blatant admissions of guilt by defendants, eleven years of documents between James Damiano, CBS Records and Dylan’s organization and also expert testimony from a Harvard educated musicologist.

   d. Disregarding the fact that there had never been an affidavit of denial filed or produced by Bob Dylan.

   e. Disregarding the fact that there was never and has never been any countersuit for libel or slander filed by Dylan or anyone associated with Bob Dylan.

Said truth’s conclusively reveal the opposite of Judge Simandle’s rulings which are inconsistent with the final outcome of Damiano vs. Dylan.

Two Time Loser

1. The materials facts contained within this motion conclusively, refute this courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Bob Dylan as pursuant to Rule 56 ( c ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 56(c) States “The court shall grant summary judgment only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.”

“Material” defined “the subject matter of the statement or concealment related to a fact or circumstance which would be significant to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail”.

One can ask is it relevant that CBS Record Company executive Tony Tiller testified that he gave Bob Dylan concert tickets to James Damiano and “Concurred with Mr. Damiano about bringing his songs with him to the concert”  

The said statement above is one of many material facts presented  acknowledged and accepted by both sides in fact Bob Dylan did not contest Judge Simandel’s ruling when Judge Simandle wrote:

Plaintiff asserts that “the bulk of his life’s work” was submitted to Sony beginning in 1982. (Compl. at 2). He also alleges that he was told to bring his songs to several concerts which he attended courtesy of Sony. Plaintiff has produced evidence that after these concerts, he was allowed backstage and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 5; Dep. of Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104; Dep. of Brad Wright at 105-112). Taking these allegations as true, plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work.

Judge Simandle also wrote “this court will accept as true plaintiff’s allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated if Dylan used his work. Plaintiff, however, has failed to show that his work was ever used, incorporated or copied by Dylan.”  

The were hundreds of material facts cited and testified to in videotaped depositions that prohibited Judge Simandle from legally and lawfully dismissing Damiano’s lawsuit against Bob Dylan.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff

C 95-4795 (JBS)

against

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/17/2002

and BOB DYLAN Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT

INC. AND BOB DYLAN.

JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff

C 95-4795 (JBS)

against

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/7/2002

and BOB DYLAN Defendants

DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #1

James Damiano pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1746, declares

under penalty of

perjury that:

1. The materials facts contained within this motion conclusively, refute this courts decision to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Bob Dylan as pursuant to Rule 56 ( c ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court shall grant summary judgment only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT RE:

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

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

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

That information has been entered upon the record of the court by Judge Simandle See Docket Number 153 Attachment 2 through 15.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3xbz71kk/new-jersey-district-court/damiano-v-sony-music-enter-et-al/

Dylan’s attorneys downloaded the crimes they committed and produced it to Judge Simandle. Even though Dylan’s attorneys made the fatal mistake of submitting the evidence which severely implicated themselves Dylan and Judge Simandle, Judge Simandle still disregarded eleven years of material facts regarding Bob Dylan’s solicitation of James Damiano’s songs and granted summary judgment dismissing all counts of this lawsuit in explicit violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) even after writing in his decision that “A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record ‘show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ “Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).”

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

Judge Simandle disregarded Thirty Five hours of videotaped depositions which implicate Bob Dylan, blatant admissions of guilt by defendants, eleven years of documents between James Damiano and CBS Records and Dylan’s organization and also expert testimony from a Harvard educated musicologist.

Judge Simandle’s decision executed a “fraud upon the court” and diminishing the integrity of the United States Judicial System. [Emphasis added] “no genuine issue as to any material fact.”

In addition to Judge Simandle’s Fraud on the Court, Bob Dylan’s lead attorney Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher has committed a massive amount of fraud upon the court along with L. Peter Parcher of Mannatt Phellps and Phillipps, Steven Hayes of Hanly Concoy and Steven D. Johnson of Gibbons.

AUTHORITY

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements.

A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality.

If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves.

By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

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

However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.

If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Background

Bob Dylan ‘s Stealing of James Damiano ‘s Songs

Thirty-five hours of videotaped depositions incriminating Dylan, blatant admissions of guilt by Dylan’s own witness’s, ten thousand pages, multi-millions of dollars spent, access established of Plaintiff’s materials accepted by defendants, and documented through Judge Simandle’s ruling, published newspaper articles, acknowledged by Dylan’s law firms, published law school articles and reviews, no affidavit of denial by Bob Dylan, no Bob Dylan deposition, one gag order and no counter, slander or libel claims James Damiano, who’s story “Bob Dylan’s Stealing of James Damiano’s Songs” has been published on the internet for over twenty two years, downloaded and produced to the court by Bob Dylan’s Lawyers and read by millions of people.

Bob Dylan was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom award by President Obama while utilizing a “federal gag order” on James Damiano, designating all discovery materials confidential including expert analysis of the music and fifty hours of videotaped depositions. The music analysis was constructed by Dr. Greene who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard.

Bob Dylan the world’s most highly revered celebrity and songwriter 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.”

What Bob Dylan did and even admitted to in a April 04, 2004 interview with Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times was to simply change the words to existing melodies then credited his name to the entire song. Dylan even admitted that he wrote ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ in 10 minutes by simply changing the words to the old spiritual song ‘No More Auction Block”

Where by Dylan admitted he just changed the words to an old spiritual, (No More Auction Block).

The movie “Eleven Years” cites by comparison Dylan’s complicity in these blatant thefts.

This Music analysis was constructed by Dr. Paul Greene who graduated Magna Cum Laude  from Harvard. Dr. Greene testified that “James Damiano’s Song Steel Guitars and Bob Dylan’s song Dignity contained the ‘exact melodic arc’” Damiano’s song was copyrighted with the Library of Congress in 1982. Bob Dylan’s song was copyrighted with the Library of Congress in December of 1991, nine years after Damiano’s registration.  

UNCONTESTED

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

No artist can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Thirty two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that, to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.

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

As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS / Sony international recording artist, Bob Dylan not only used songs and lyrics written by James Damiano but It is also publically and judicially uncontested that Bob Dylan also solicited Mr. Damiano’s materials for a period of over ten years and eleven months. Bob Dylan’s name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy as the best rock song of the year. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity.

Bob Dylan ‘s Stealing of James Damiano ‘s Songs

http://christinejustice.yolasite.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbruKuDLXEo&t=108s

http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Levine-32-3.pdf