Author Archive for imeister

possession, custody or control

From: Charles Nesson
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM
To: Timothy M Reynolds
Cc: Eve Burton , Joel Tenenbaum, Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum, CyberOne RIAA

hello tim
no, this is not an important issue. this is an issue of immense triviality such as to make a mockery of you in denver and me in cambridge spending our friday morning sending email back and forth to each other about it. there are truly important issues at stake in this litigation but this is not one of them.

From: Timothy M Reynolds
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM
To: nesson
Cc: Eve Burton

Hello Charlie:
 
Eve forwarded your email to me.  I don’t wish to belabor this, but we want to be sure of the status of things so that we can make a decision on whether to move to compel.  The testimony thus far has been clear that Joel created and maintained in his music collection a number of homemade music CDs, and that he left some of his collection at 20 Upton Avenue.  I am concerned about the narrow scope of Ms. Tenenbaum’s response below (ie., “no CDs in our house”).  Please advise as to whether Mr. or Mrs. Tenenbaum have any homemade music CDs in their possession, custody or control (regardless of whether such CDs are “in the house”).  If they do not, can you please advise as to what happened to the CDs Joel left?  This is an important issue.  Thanks very much.
 
Tim 

From: Charles Nesson
To: Eve Burton
Sent: Fri Nov 21 05:37:09 2008
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Tenenbaum
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
To: nesson

There are no CDRS in our house that Joel created.

Charles Nesson wrote:

eve burton writes: the question is whether there are any CDRs that Joel created that are in their possession, custody or control?  Are there any CDRs in their house that Joel created?

From: Eve Burton
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
To: nesson
Cc: Timothy M Reynolds , Laurie Rust , Anne Allen

Charlie:
Just to be clear, your email below states that Joel did not burn any CDRs for, or give any CDRs to, Arthur or Judie, but the question is whether there are any CDRs that Joel created that are in their possession, custody or control?  Are there any CDRs in their house that Joel created?    Can you please clarify.  We would like to avoid unnecessary motions practice. 
Thanks.
Eve

From: Charles Nesson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Eve Burton
Cc: Joel Tenenbaum ; Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum; CyberOne RIAA
Subject: Re: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena

eve:
we claim that your use of process against joel is abusive and improperly in service of the prosecution through civil process of an essentially criminal claim. as such it should stop, at least until the judge had had a chance to rule on our contention.

in any event both judie and arthur stated in their depositions that joel did not burn cds for them or give cds to them. your subpoena calls for them to produce all burned cds from joel they possess. they represent to me they have nothing to produce.
-charlie

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Eve Burton wrote:

Charlie:
Please explain what possible grounds you have to move to quash this subpoena (in this regard, you may want to look at our Motion to Compel the Tova subpoena b/c our arguments on relevance and burden are largely the same and address your likely arguments here as well).  Our subpoena is very limited and the CDRs are clearly relevant based on the deposition testimony.  You have opposed virtually every bit of discovery we have sought in this case.  The arguments you are putting forward are borderline frivolous.  At some point we may seek our costs for this vexatious strategy of opposing all discovery. 
Eve

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE – This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER We are required by U. S. Treasury Regulations to inform you that, to the extent this message includes any federal tax advice, this message is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties.

—–Original Message—–

From: Charles Nesson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Eve Burton
Cc: CyberOne RIAA ; Joel Tenenbaum ; Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum
Subject: Re: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena

we will be filing a motion to quash Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum’s subpoena

——
when appropriate (in my judgment) to an open project and not sensitive (in my judgment) in terms of privacy, i may post email to my blog. all privacy requests respected.

american jury, to ivygate

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Charles Nesson
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Subject: american jury
To: IvyGate

what if the net itself became a learning machine

we can identify where the differences are among us

we could engage in process that would moderate them

we the jury of the internet, the court of public opinion

we need questions soundly framed for us

we need established form which if worked to its ideal will provide structured process for us

feel this in the federal rules of civil procedure

what are the rules within civil procedure for processing a claim that an opponent is abusing process

is it a defense for them that they have the congress on their side when we can show the disproportion in lobbying strength between their side and our side

can we as a cyberone class organize effective use of the civil process the plaintiffs claims make available to us to give substance to our counterclaim