Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network Beef with Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox
Kristen Herwitz, Blogpaws, Blogher Advertisers, Blogher Publishing Network,Online's Women's Network, BlogPaws Publishing Networks, Blogher Editor, Elisa Camahort, Lisa Stone, Jory Des Jardins, Blogher Framing. Got a Tip on Kristen Herwitz, Blogher or anything on this post?
Email your Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network., tip to Crystal@CrystalCox.com
A bit about Blogher, Kristen Herwitz, Copyright Laws, Website and Blog Framing, Blogher Making Money from the product of others work, their entire sites and network. And yet covet their own material as if it is worth more then the thousands of pages of content they use to put their ads on that is Other People's life work.
Blogher Says about Bloghher Advertising "Partner With the Most Influential, Social and Info-Savvy Women Online." I say not so much social, info-savvy but content stealing and using others writing for free on their blogs to create Blogher content for them to post google ads and other advertisers, making money over and over from YOUR Content. Even if Blogher pays you once for an article, Blogher makes money from that Blogher Content over and over.
You are better off to post your content on your blog instead of Blogher, and set up your own Google Adsense or commission junction site, or other affiliates. And it is best for you to encourage others to re-post your content and give you a link back. Blogher does not want your content shared on other blogs, this is greed based and not about getting attention to HUGE issues such as Human Trafficing.
Blogher claims to have an ad network of 3,000 bloggers, yet do they pay them all or get them to write for free, and also frame the sites of others? And by this I mean Blogher frames the sites of others who are in the news, trending such as me Crystal Cox Blogger, so they can redirect traffic that my blog may get and get that traffic to their site. Blogher also uses my name to get traffic in writing stories about me because I am trending online, and then had a hissy fit and threatens legal action if I repost one of their post, though they illegally "Frame" My entire blog within their pages.
Blogher Editors, nor Blogher Legal Counsel asked my permission to "Frame" My site yet they did it anyway.
Blogger Counsel Kristen Herwitz claims that its standard of practice somehow for Blogher to frame other people's sites thing is that is stealing and copyright infringement BIGTIME. Blogher now has framed hundreds of my blogs from CrystalCox.com - and every where that is linked from that site. Blogher gets ad dollars and traffic to their site from using my site framed. And when Blogher writes about you and links to your site they frame it. I re-post a human trafficking story to support Blogher and to get traffic to their site and link to them and they cry copyright infringement, when they have used my name to post stories as I was "trending" and they illegally use thousands of my posts as content to get them webs traffic and ad dollars.
Even my YouTube Videos, my YouTube Channels, Hundreds of my Blogs accessed via CrystalCox.com are now ad revenue for Blogher.com - that is not FAIR to me and yet they threatened me simply because I quoted a paragraph from their site and linked to them, ON a Human Trafficing STORY? WTF ?
The Video Below is How Blogher Uses "Framing" to get revenue for them without paying those
who create the "Content".
Does Kristen Herwitz of Blogher Publishing Network know the Laws? Or is Blogher the only one that "Revenue", "Rights" and web traffic pertains to.
Kristen Herwitz, Blogher Publishing Network.
A Bit About the "Framing" Issue
Kristen Herwitz, Legal Counsel for Blogher says "BlogHer employs a very common framing mechanism" well re-posting articles is also "Common" yet she threatens me, and Framing is not legal or ethical from my research on the topic.
"Framing. Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be copyright infringement."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/getting-permission-publish-ten-tips-29933.html
"If you set your website up with frames, and display an ad in one frame while someone else’s Website is being displayed in the other, the area gets very gray. You are effectively pocketing ad revenue for displaying the work of others. I would not want to be the one on the defendant side of one of these suits, because the resulting page may be considered a “Derivative Work.”
Source
http://www.theegglestongroup.com/writing/crlaw.php
"What about framing content from another Web site on my own site; that's permitted -- isn't it?
Framing is presumptively illegal. The owners of many Web sites don't want their content to be "framed" on another site for a number of reasons, including the fact that they sometimes have advertisers whose ads aren't visible when their content is framed somewhere else. When you "frame" someone else's site, you also give the impression, at least to the casual viewer, that the other site's content originated with you. Again, the best policy is to ask the proprietor of the other site for permission before framing his content on your page. While he might refuse permission, or place some conditions on your doing so, better to give credit where credit is due than to get a "cease and desist" letter and/or demand for monetary damages from his lawyer."
Source of Above Quote
http://www.csusa.org/face/softint/myths.htm#framing
What does WIPO say about "Framing"
"g) Some Internet practices may raise trademark issues, such as metatagging, linking & framing, and using trademarks in domain names (see below). You should be careful to check the law that applies to your business on this issue and to ensure that you have permission to show trademarks owned by other companies, if the law requires it."
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/business_website.htm
And what state laws do Blogher get to use to decide if framing is LEGAL for them? If I am based out of Montana and they are Based out of California and they steal my entire blog content to direct traffic to them, without my permission, what state laws apply?
More links on the act of FRAMING to use My Work for Blogher.com to make ad dollars
I intend to Sue Blogher for Framing my Blog as in this CNN Lawsuit,
"Framing is the process of dividing a Web page into separate framed regions and displaying the contents of someone else's site within a frame at your site. Generally speaking, site owners don't like having their content framed at another site, particularly without permission. At least one court has considered framing to be a copyright infringement, and in another case, CNN sued a news website that framed CNN news content. Under the terms of a settlement agreement, the news website agreed to stop framing and instead use text-only links."
Source of above Quote
http://www.garage.com/resources/reference/internet_tentips.shtml
Blogher Frames Our Blogs without Blogher asking our Permission to make ad dollars, revenue from our content and they do it to a whole lot of you.
"Framing is dividing a webpage into sections that display the contents of someone else's website within the sections on your website. Avoid framing others' material without first getting their permission. Courts have started to rule that framing constitutes copyright infringement."
Source of Above Quote
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/website-content-permission.html
"Incorporating copyrighted web content by usage of framing has led to contentious litigation. Frames can be used for web pages belonging to the original site, or to load pages from other sites into a customized arrangement of frames that provide a generalized interface without actually requiring the viewer to browse the linked site from that site's URLs and interfaces."
Source of above quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing
"Framing occurs when one Web site incorporates another site’s web pages into a browser window with the first site’s own content. The webite with the frame may post navigation tools, text, trademarks and/or advertising that the framed website is unable to control.
As more of the second site is incorporated into the first, the possibility that users may become confused over affiliation, endorsement or sponsorship becomes stronger. On the other hand, it may be that the marketplace understands frames for what they typically are–simply a way to feature another site which conveys no implication of affiliation or endorsement.
The unauthorized use of framing has been challenged under a variety of legal theories, including copyright and trademark infringement, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false designation of origin (passing off), false light and false advertising.
The Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc. et al., No. 97 Civ. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 1997). Various news organizations sued Total News for linking to plaintiffs’ websites and framing their content within the Total News home page. Plaintiffs alleged claims for misappropriation, federal trademark dilution, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and various state claims.
The case settled in early June 1997 based on defendant’s agreement to stop framing content from plaintiffs’ sites. See also Order, Washington Post v. Gator Corp., No. 02-909-A (E.D. Va. 2002) (granting temporary injunction preventing Gator from delivering pop-up ads to plaintiffs’ websites that allegedly altered the intended appearance of the websites, interfered with the Web site operators’ ability to sell their own ads, decreased the value of these ads on the sites and misled users. The suit was settled with the outcome sealed by the court). See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-983870.html.
Futuredontics Inc. v. Applied Anagramic Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2005 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s website, which framed content from plaintiff’s website, constituted copyright infringement. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, where the court was unpersuaded by either party’s reliance on prior case law.
Plaintiff relied on Mirage Editions Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988) for the position that the framing constituted the infringing creation of a derivative work. Defendant relied on Lewis Galoob Toys Inc. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) for the position that no derivative work is created by framing, since no portion of the copyrighted work is incorporated in a concrete or permanent form. The court held that neither decision controlled."
Source of Above "Framing" information
http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues
We are about to see how expensive a Lawsuit can be in a "Framing" "Copyright" dispute as coming soon I will be filing a lawsuit against Blogher for "Framing" my Entire Blog Network and placing their ads on top, without my permission and I have over 400 Blogs.
Framing as an "Issue" Research Link
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Framing.htm
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-c.html
Fair Use Research Links
"Non-commercial use is often fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use. For example, using the Bob Dylan line "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" in a poem published in a small literary journal would probably be a fair use; using the same line in an advertisement for raincoats probably would not be."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html
http://www.investigativeblogger.com/ has no ads, and is not commercial really so fair use does not even seem to apply. I was getting a massively important issue heard on my investigative blogger network. This blog does not "COMPETE" with the source site Blogher, yet Blogher competes directly with me by framing my entire site and every blog I have linked from it
http://www.blogher.com/frame.php?url=http://www.crystalcox.com
Much more coming on this Topic, on the Human Trafficking article and how "Blogher" operates their business in such a way as to use thousands of pages of other people's content, even if you have a youTube video that they cannot embed framing it makes this video on your blog, their "Content" in which they have ads on in the upper left and a link to Blogher, and their logo as if it is their site. Yet Blogher, Kristen Herwitz threatens me for quoting a small post on a MAJOR issue, and linking to the source post on their site. Stay Tuned, as I now have a very big beef with Blogher and looks like we are all going to sue each other, will let you know how it works out. Should be filed in Belmont San Mateo County, California where Blogher is based.
Kristen Herwitz Blogher Publishing Network.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The William Morris Agency, Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and “The Evil Side of The Entertainment Industry”.
t was written by Leonard Rowe."
Folks if you do not know the Story of Sony allegedly involved in the Murder of Michael Jackson for his "Collection" then look deep. The Wall of Corruption in the Court System needs to be exposed and stopped. Demand Transparency and Accountability.
I have corresponded with insiders in this case for years and discussed New York Judges that are part of the corruption and no where near part of the solution. Knowledge is Power. This article was sent to me today by Leonard Rowe, it is an important story. I write on massive corruption in New York and the Tech and Media Companies such as Sony that are above the law and seem to be NOT above anything to keep their rights to Billions. Sony was also involved in the 13 Trillion Dollar iViewit Technology Theft.
The Christine Anderson Whistleblower case in New York proves years of New York courts whitewashing for elite law firms and still nothing is done. The Iviewit case is exposing Andrew Cuomo while he was the New York Attorney General and now as the New York Governor. The Culture of Corruption in New York and well, really in the US Court System everywhere has to first be exposed, acknowledged that there is a massive problem and only then can we begin to take down this Massive Wall of Corruption.
"CORRUPTION IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS
In my previous two (2) CNN IReports we focused on the hypocrisy of Oregon’s Governor on the death penalty and how the U.S. Congress stole the right of federal review from every American Citizen.
Today I want to address problems that are inherent in the judicial system itself in terms of the failure and inability of judges to accord equal protection of the law and impartial application of the law in cases that involve African-American citizens when they come up against rich, powerful corporate entities or, as more often the case, the “State”.
I was given a copy of the book “What Really Happened to Michael Jackson-The King of Pop” that was written by Leonard Rowe.
I was intrigued by the title and of course being a big fan of Michael Jackson, I decided to embark on my own course of research to check out and confirm several of the items contained in the book. This book can be found and acquired at www.whatreallyhappenedtomj.com.
Of primary interest was that part of the book that dealt with “The Evil Side of The Entertainment Industry”.
In this section of the book it addressed the curious case of Leonard Rowe and the Black Promoters Association (BPA) who had filed a lawsuit against The William Morris Agency, Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and others involved in the concert promotion business (Rowe Entertainment, et al v. William Morris, et al).
This case was brought by Mr. Rowe and four (4) others and involved the largest effort to date to bring about a sense of fairness in the live concert promotion side of the entertainment industry.
As I researched this case and continued to read the story in the book, I could not believe what I was reading and discovering about this situation. At the time that this lawsuit was filed and being prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY it was assigned to and being heard by the Honorable Robert P. Patterson.
Mr. Rowe and his group of Black Concert Promoters across America were thought to be ably represented by Martin Gold, Ray Heslin and later by the law firm of famed Black Attorney Willie E. Gary.
The other side was represented by some of the best and most expensive law firms in America. Loeb &; Loeb, Weil, Gotcher, et al., and other blue chip, well heeled law firms.
As I understand the story, Mr. Rowe, who was the President and one of the founding members of the Black Promoters Association (BPA) had discovered, with many of his colleagues, that they were being forced to pay a 50% deposit, up front, to secure certain acts and artists to perform at concert venues across the country. This becomes more and more significant when they discovered that White concert promoters were being charged 0-10% deposit for the same artist in the same geographical venues. In addition, Black concert promoters were saddled with other extraneous contractual provisions relative to percentages of ticket sales that White concert promoters were not subjected to. Finally, Mr. Rowe and his team of colleagues discovered that despite their best efforts and no matter how much money they put up front, they were never allowed to secure a contract to tour or promote a White artist or act, ever.
But White concert promoters were not only allowed but actively encouraged to promote both white and black artists without any of the sideline contract provisions that Black concert promoters were saddled with.
Another concern that was observed was that after an artist had been cultivated and groomed by Black concert promoters, the music industry executives at The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency would literally preclude Black concert promoters from touring these acts, such as Lionel Richie, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson whom Mr. Rowe had toured since the days of the Jacksons, all of a sudden, Mr. Rowe can’t book a date with Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson or any other successful cross over act that happened to have been African-American as only the White concert promoters were deemed “qualified” to promote these shows.
This disparity had plagued the Black concert promoters and the black business community for decades until they felt that they had suffered and endured enough. They decided to take action to address their concerns.
Mr. Rowe wrote letter after letter to music industry executives at talent and booking agencies, The William Morris Agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and others in an effort to address and hopefully ameliorate the atrocious disparities that they had observed, endured and documented and in all of his extensive efforts, the results were futile.
Not only did the music industry executives thumb their noses, turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the very legitimate concerns that were raised, but Mr. Rowe and several of his colleagues were noticing a “tightening of the noose” with even more stringent and problematic contractual provisions being forced upon them.
New York based Attorney Martin Gold in a clear violation of state bar rules and regulations, sought out and solicited Mr. Rowe and his organization and pitched the services of his law firm, Gold, Farrell &; Marks (which then became known as Rubin, Baum and they later merged with Sonneschien, Nath &; Rosenthal) to represent the interests of the Black Promoters Association, Mr. Rowe and the four (4) other individually named plaintiffs.
Now initially this seemed like a good idea for the plaintiffs but as time went on, it became painfully clear that Martin Gold had his own agenda and the plaintiffs were merely “a means to an end” for which their interests would be wholly subverted to accomplish a windfall payday for himself at the expense of his clients whom he consciously, deliberately and intentionally threw under the bus.
Leonard Rowe who was the driving force and emotional foundation for moving the lawsuit forward, maintained daily contact with Martin Gold and his associate, Ray Heslin during all phases of the lawsuit, from drafting of the complaint, preparation of witnesses, compilation of documentation of contractual disparities and related matters.
After a lawsuit is filed against a party and they are served with the summons and complaint, they have a certain amount of time to answer or otherwise respond. In federal court that is usually 21 to 30 days depending on the particular location and the local rules of the court where the matter had been filed.
After the time to answer or respond if a party has not responded in a timely manner, the case will be resolved by way of a default judgment. In this case, however, the case went forward into the discovery phase. And this is where things got really interesting or convoluted depending on your point of view.
Martin Gold and his law firm asked Mr. Rowe and his organization to spend over two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars (which they paid) in order to search and acquire e-mail documentation and evidence in support of their claims of discrimination and contractual disparities that they contended permeated the music industry.
This money was later determined to have been well utilized when the evidence returned documentation that the word “nigger” had been used over 232 separate times by executives at both The William Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
Imagine that. “Nigger” used over 232 times as these white executives discussed entertainment luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Halle Berry, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Spike Lee and other noted black entertainers and concert promoters in their inter-office e-mails.
Now if the shoe was on the other foot and there was evidence discovered that denigrated and insulted the Jewish people, mountains would be moved amid the howls and cries of anti-Semitism which would be trumpeted around the country until something was done to correct that deplorable situation and the Jewish community would not rest until these businesses were closed.
Take Rick Sanchez, formally of CNN who was relieved of his on air position for merely voicing his First Amendment opinion that the news media was controlled by “Jewish People”. After his removal from CNN Mr. Sanchez has not been seen or heard of since.
But in the case of black people and the black concert promoters in particular, Judge Robert P. Patterson turned a deaf ear, blind eye, held his nose and swept the evidence under the rug as he entered an order dismissing the case, at the summary judgment level, while at the same time, intentionally ignoring the evidence that black people had been referred to as “nigger” over 232 times, by the White executives of these entertainment industry giants, in their daily business practices.
The summary judgment level in federal court is where the rubber meets the road so to speak in terms of determining whether or not enough evidence that raises disputed fact issues merit a jury trial. The law is clear. If there is a scintilla of evidence then the case must proceed to a jury trial for the determination of any and all factual issues. The standard, legally speaking is that there must not be a genuine issue of material fact remaining and that the moving party defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
And it got worse. The evidence revealed that not only was ‘nigger” used more than 232 times, there was also credible evidence that showed internal memorandums about concerts and venue dates with notations to “keep away from the blacks” and “don’t let the black concert promoters know” about this date or venue or artist. These people also kept away from black concert promoters all information relative to when certain acts and artists would be available in certain geographic venues.
There was also evidence that showed notations found in the files of these defendants that stated that certain information was not to be divulged to “the blacks” and others which clearly stated “no blacks”. No reasonable judge would ignore this mountain of documented evidence, but Judge Robert P. Patterson had no problem closing the doors of justice in the face of the black concert promoters, Mr. Rowe and the other named plaintiffs.
But all was available for the White concert promoters including meetings in Los Angeles, California and New York City where industry representatives would meet exclusively with the White concert promoters and break the country up into zones and regions where White promoters got exclusive access to all the top acts and artists which the Black concert promoters that operated in those same geographical regions were never made aware of these opportunities at all. This type of conduct constitute overt violations of the Anti Trust provisions of the Sherman Act, in fact Live Nation and AEG both emerged from these illicit, race based transactions.
And don’t forget, the White concert promoters who were not ever required to post an upfront deposit of 50% as the Black concert promoters were, without exception, compelled and required to do for each and every act or artist that they wished to promote.
These contractual practices and procedures were nothing short of deplorable. More than 2000 contracts were presented to Judge Patterson which demonstrated by way of documentation the contractual inequities between White and Black concert promoters.
But in this case, Judge Robert P. Patterson unilaterally determined that neither the law nor the evidence mattered.
Why would a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, make such a ruling in the face of a plethora of evidence that discrimination and anti-trust violations were actually being practiced on a daily basis by The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and other defendants, unless his impartiality had been compromised?
Cases of this magnitude, especially when life altering financial decisions rest in the balance, should not be left up to those whose human sentiment are susceptible to corrupt elements.
This crucial evidence, although paid for by the plaintiffs was intentionally concealed from them by their own corrupt attorneys, Martin Gold and Ray Heslin.
It was not until Mr. Rowe discovered the evidence on the desk of Attorney Ray Heslin that this information and evidence was brought out in open court. And when that happened, Mr. Gold sought to downplay its significance by stating to the court that there was no “credible evidence” a lie that he urged upon the court in order to fleece his clients and enrich himself at his client’s expense.
When Martin Gold received the evidence that the defendants had used the word “nigger” 232 times it was as if he and his law firm had hit the lottery. Only in this instance, Mr. Gold was able to dictate the amount of his winning. Because these rich and powerful defendants would pay any amount necessary to maintain the status quo in the entertainment industry and to insure that this evidence would never see the light of day before a jury in a court of law.
To say that Martin Gold’s actions were deplorable is the ultimate understatement because he violated the time honored principal that he as a lawyer should never betray his client’s interest to enrich himself.
However, even though all of the evidence about black people referred to as “nigger” over 232 times and the clear cut evidence of exclusionary practices that effected all Black concert promoters and the black community adversely, Judge Robert P. Patterson allowed these Jim Crow era practices to continue.
In 2012, there has still not been a black concert promoter that has ever been allowed to book and promote Barbara Streisand, U2 and Bono, Justin Beiber, Elton John, Celine Dion, the Rolling Stones, KISS, “the Boss”, Bruce Springsteen, the Dave Matthews Band, Justin Timberlake, Brittany Spears or any of the other big name White artists, groups and bands. EVER!!!
As a matter of fact, practically all Black concert promoters, because of Judge Robert P. Patterson’s race based ruling, are now either bankrupt or completely out of business.
History is replete with judges undermining the administration of justice in this country by selling out the legitimate claims of black people, who have suffered the indignity of White racist acts of misconduct, only to be thwarted at the doors of justice by another judge who thinks, feels and acts just like the people that committed the atrocious acts being complained of.
And to make matters worse, these judges line their pockets at the expense of the suffering accorded the black litigants whose cases are before them. This is the pitiful epitome of our American justice system that has gone off track and is way wrong. Judge Robert P. Patterson’s actions were both a shame and a profound disgrace.
His name should forever live in infamy much like Chief Justice Roger B. Taney whose deplorable decision in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case (which held that black people have no rights which white people are bound to respect) continues to live in the actions of judges like Robert P. Patterson. He should be brought before the Congress and impeached for his misconduct.
Until America plays by “one set of rules” there will forever be disparities in the justice system. And until there is real fairness, impartiality and an equal application of the law, America will remain a two tier society.
It is obviously evident that corruption reared its ugly head in this case and it should outrage all black people in particular as well as all fair minded and well intentioned people of whatever race, creed or color in general when justice is thwarted and the rights of litigants are subverted by a judge that didn’t care about the proper exercise of his duties, obligations and the oath of office that he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
And let’s not forget about the lawyers Martin Gold and Ray Heslin that lied, manipulated and maligned the plaintiffs in this case.
They too should be disbarred from the practice of law, “tarred and feathered” and then place on display for ridicule and humiliation in the town square to show others that this kind of misconduct premised on racially tinged, Jim Crow tactics of apartheid have no place in the American system of justice.
As the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently states…”injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
By the same token, corruption found anywhere in a case before any court undermines the administration of justice in that case and everywhere else unless timely exposed and properly destroyed."
Source of Leonard Rowe, story
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-724105
Sent to me By Leonard Rowe close friend of Michael Jackson and Legendary Concert Promoter.
The Michael Jackson case has the same elements as small town to big city corruption. The attorneys say what they want, the courts do as they please and the pay to play system gets justice only to those who play the game right, scratch the right backs and have the most money and favors to offer.
Demand Transparency and Accountability. Demand the Judges, Lawyers, Cops, Prosecutors not be Immune and be held accountable for violating our, YOUR constitutional rights.
Find out about Sony, and these same corrupt New York Bar, New York Supreme Court, New York Judges, and protected Elite Law Firms involved in iViewit Technology and the theft of a 13 Trillion Dollar patent, lives ruined, cars bombed.. ALL to steal an invention by the Elite Tech and Media companies protected by the New York Courts. http://www.deniedpatent.com/
Folks if you do not know the Story of Sony allegedly involved in the Murder of Michael Jackson for his "Collection" then look deep. The Wall of Corruption in the Court System needs to be exposed and stopped. Demand Transparency and Accountability.
I have corresponded with insiders in this case for years and discussed New York Judges that are part of the corruption and no where near part of the solution. Knowledge is Power. This article was sent to me today by Leonard Rowe, it is an important story. I write on massive corruption in New York and the Tech and Media Companies such as Sony that are above the law and seem to be NOT above anything to keep their rights to Billions. Sony was also involved in the 13 Trillion Dollar iViewit Technology Theft.
The Christine Anderson Whistleblower case in New York proves years of New York courts whitewashing for elite law firms and still nothing is done. The Iviewit case is exposing Andrew Cuomo while he was the New York Attorney General and now as the New York Governor. The Culture of Corruption in New York and well, really in the US Court System everywhere has to first be exposed, acknowledged that there is a massive problem and only then can we begin to take down this Massive Wall of Corruption.
"CORRUPTION IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS
In my previous two (2) CNN IReports we focused on the hypocrisy of Oregon’s Governor on the death penalty and how the U.S. Congress stole the right of federal review from every American Citizen.
Today I want to address problems that are inherent in the judicial system itself in terms of the failure and inability of judges to accord equal protection of the law and impartial application of the law in cases that involve African-American citizens when they come up against rich, powerful corporate entities or, as more often the case, the “State”.
I was given a copy of the book “What Really Happened to Michael Jackson-The King of Pop” that was written by Leonard Rowe.
I was intrigued by the title and of course being a big fan of Michael Jackson, I decided to embark on my own course of research to check out and confirm several of the items contained in the book. This book can be found and acquired at www.whatreallyhappenedtomj.com.
Of primary interest was that part of the book that dealt with “The Evil Side of The Entertainment Industry”.
In this section of the book it addressed the curious case of Leonard Rowe and the Black Promoters Association (BPA) who had filed a lawsuit against The William Morris Agency, Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and others involved in the concert promotion business (Rowe Entertainment, et al v. William Morris, et al).
This case was brought by Mr. Rowe and four (4) others and involved the largest effort to date to bring about a sense of fairness in the live concert promotion side of the entertainment industry.
As I researched this case and continued to read the story in the book, I could not believe what I was reading and discovering about this situation. At the time that this lawsuit was filed and being prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY it was assigned to and being heard by the Honorable Robert P. Patterson.
Mr. Rowe and his group of Black Concert Promoters across America were thought to be ably represented by Martin Gold, Ray Heslin and later by the law firm of famed Black Attorney Willie E. Gary.
The other side was represented by some of the best and most expensive law firms in America. Loeb &; Loeb, Weil, Gotcher, et al., and other blue chip, well heeled law firms.
As I understand the story, Mr. Rowe, who was the President and one of the founding members of the Black Promoters Association (BPA) had discovered, with many of his colleagues, that they were being forced to pay a 50% deposit, up front, to secure certain acts and artists to perform at concert venues across the country. This becomes more and more significant when they discovered that White concert promoters were being charged 0-10% deposit for the same artist in the same geographical venues. In addition, Black concert promoters were saddled with other extraneous contractual provisions relative to percentages of ticket sales that White concert promoters were not subjected to. Finally, Mr. Rowe and his team of colleagues discovered that despite their best efforts and no matter how much money they put up front, they were never allowed to secure a contract to tour or promote a White artist or act, ever.
But White concert promoters were not only allowed but actively encouraged to promote both white and black artists without any of the sideline contract provisions that Black concert promoters were saddled with.
Another concern that was observed was that after an artist had been cultivated and groomed by Black concert promoters, the music industry executives at The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency would literally preclude Black concert promoters from touring these acts, such as Lionel Richie, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson whom Mr. Rowe had toured since the days of the Jacksons, all of a sudden, Mr. Rowe can’t book a date with Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson or any other successful cross over act that happened to have been African-American as only the White concert promoters were deemed “qualified” to promote these shows.
This disparity had plagued the Black concert promoters and the black business community for decades until they felt that they had suffered and endured enough. They decided to take action to address their concerns.
Mr. Rowe wrote letter after letter to music industry executives at talent and booking agencies, The William Morris Agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and others in an effort to address and hopefully ameliorate the atrocious disparities that they had observed, endured and documented and in all of his extensive efforts, the results were futile.
Not only did the music industry executives thumb their noses, turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the very legitimate concerns that were raised, but Mr. Rowe and several of his colleagues were noticing a “tightening of the noose” with even more stringent and problematic contractual provisions being forced upon them.
New York based Attorney Martin Gold in a clear violation of state bar rules and regulations, sought out and solicited Mr. Rowe and his organization and pitched the services of his law firm, Gold, Farrell &; Marks (which then became known as Rubin, Baum and they later merged with Sonneschien, Nath &; Rosenthal) to represent the interests of the Black Promoters Association, Mr. Rowe and the four (4) other individually named plaintiffs.
Now initially this seemed like a good idea for the plaintiffs but as time went on, it became painfully clear that Martin Gold had his own agenda and the plaintiffs were merely “a means to an end” for which their interests would be wholly subverted to accomplish a windfall payday for himself at the expense of his clients whom he consciously, deliberately and intentionally threw under the bus.
Leonard Rowe who was the driving force and emotional foundation for moving the lawsuit forward, maintained daily contact with Martin Gold and his associate, Ray Heslin during all phases of the lawsuit, from drafting of the complaint, preparation of witnesses, compilation of documentation of contractual disparities and related matters.
After a lawsuit is filed against a party and they are served with the summons and complaint, they have a certain amount of time to answer or otherwise respond. In federal court that is usually 21 to 30 days depending on the particular location and the local rules of the court where the matter had been filed.
After the time to answer or respond if a party has not responded in a timely manner, the case will be resolved by way of a default judgment. In this case, however, the case went forward into the discovery phase. And this is where things got really interesting or convoluted depending on your point of view.
Martin Gold and his law firm asked Mr. Rowe and his organization to spend over two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars (which they paid) in order to search and acquire e-mail documentation and evidence in support of their claims of discrimination and contractual disparities that they contended permeated the music industry.
This money was later determined to have been well utilized when the evidence returned documentation that the word “nigger” had been used over 232 separate times by executives at both The William Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
Imagine that. “Nigger” used over 232 times as these white executives discussed entertainment luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Halle Berry, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Spike Lee and other noted black entertainers and concert promoters in their inter-office e-mails.
Now if the shoe was on the other foot and there was evidence discovered that denigrated and insulted the Jewish people, mountains would be moved amid the howls and cries of anti-Semitism which would be trumpeted around the country until something was done to correct that deplorable situation and the Jewish community would not rest until these businesses were closed.
Take Rick Sanchez, formally of CNN who was relieved of his on air position for merely voicing his First Amendment opinion that the news media was controlled by “Jewish People”. After his removal from CNN Mr. Sanchez has not been seen or heard of since.
But in the case of black people and the black concert promoters in particular, Judge Robert P. Patterson turned a deaf ear, blind eye, held his nose and swept the evidence under the rug as he entered an order dismissing the case, at the summary judgment level, while at the same time, intentionally ignoring the evidence that black people had been referred to as “nigger” over 232 times, by the White executives of these entertainment industry giants, in their daily business practices.
The summary judgment level in federal court is where the rubber meets the road so to speak in terms of determining whether or not enough evidence that raises disputed fact issues merit a jury trial. The law is clear. If there is a scintilla of evidence then the case must proceed to a jury trial for the determination of any and all factual issues. The standard, legally speaking is that there must not be a genuine issue of material fact remaining and that the moving party defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
And it got worse. The evidence revealed that not only was ‘nigger” used more than 232 times, there was also credible evidence that showed internal memorandums about concerts and venue dates with notations to “keep away from the blacks” and “don’t let the black concert promoters know” about this date or venue or artist. These people also kept away from black concert promoters all information relative to when certain acts and artists would be available in certain geographic venues.
There was also evidence that showed notations found in the files of these defendants that stated that certain information was not to be divulged to “the blacks” and others which clearly stated “no blacks”. No reasonable judge would ignore this mountain of documented evidence, but Judge Robert P. Patterson had no problem closing the doors of justice in the face of the black concert promoters, Mr. Rowe and the other named plaintiffs.
But all was available for the White concert promoters including meetings in Los Angeles, California and New York City where industry representatives would meet exclusively with the White concert promoters and break the country up into zones and regions where White promoters got exclusive access to all the top acts and artists which the Black concert promoters that operated in those same geographical regions were never made aware of these opportunities at all. This type of conduct constitute overt violations of the Anti Trust provisions of the Sherman Act, in fact Live Nation and AEG both emerged from these illicit, race based transactions.
And don’t forget, the White concert promoters who were not ever required to post an upfront deposit of 50% as the Black concert promoters were, without exception, compelled and required to do for each and every act or artist that they wished to promote.
These contractual practices and procedures were nothing short of deplorable. More than 2000 contracts were presented to Judge Patterson which demonstrated by way of documentation the contractual inequities between White and Black concert promoters.
But in this case, Judge Robert P. Patterson unilaterally determined that neither the law nor the evidence mattered.
Why would a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, make such a ruling in the face of a plethora of evidence that discrimination and anti-trust violations were actually being practiced on a daily basis by The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and other defendants, unless his impartiality had been compromised?
Cases of this magnitude, especially when life altering financial decisions rest in the balance, should not be left up to those whose human sentiment are susceptible to corrupt elements.
This crucial evidence, although paid for by the plaintiffs was intentionally concealed from them by their own corrupt attorneys, Martin Gold and Ray Heslin.
It was not until Mr. Rowe discovered the evidence on the desk of Attorney Ray Heslin that this information and evidence was brought out in open court. And when that happened, Mr. Gold sought to downplay its significance by stating to the court that there was no “credible evidence” a lie that he urged upon the court in order to fleece his clients and enrich himself at his client’s expense.
When Martin Gold received the evidence that the defendants had used the word “nigger” 232 times it was as if he and his law firm had hit the lottery. Only in this instance, Mr. Gold was able to dictate the amount of his winning. Because these rich and powerful defendants would pay any amount necessary to maintain the status quo in the entertainment industry and to insure that this evidence would never see the light of day before a jury in a court of law.
To say that Martin Gold’s actions were deplorable is the ultimate understatement because he violated the time honored principal that he as a lawyer should never betray his client’s interest to enrich himself.
However, even though all of the evidence about black people referred to as “nigger” over 232 times and the clear cut evidence of exclusionary practices that effected all Black concert promoters and the black community adversely, Judge Robert P. Patterson allowed these Jim Crow era practices to continue.
In 2012, there has still not been a black concert promoter that has ever been allowed to book and promote Barbara Streisand, U2 and Bono, Justin Beiber, Elton John, Celine Dion, the Rolling Stones, KISS, “the Boss”, Bruce Springsteen, the Dave Matthews Band, Justin Timberlake, Brittany Spears or any of the other big name White artists, groups and bands. EVER!!!
As a matter of fact, practically all Black concert promoters, because of Judge Robert P. Patterson’s race based ruling, are now either bankrupt or completely out of business.
History is replete with judges undermining the administration of justice in this country by selling out the legitimate claims of black people, who have suffered the indignity of White racist acts of misconduct, only to be thwarted at the doors of justice by another judge who thinks, feels and acts just like the people that committed the atrocious acts being complained of.
And to make matters worse, these judges line their pockets at the expense of the suffering accorded the black litigants whose cases are before them. This is the pitiful epitome of our American justice system that has gone off track and is way wrong. Judge Robert P. Patterson’s actions were both a shame and a profound disgrace.
His name should forever live in infamy much like Chief Justice Roger B. Taney whose deplorable decision in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case (which held that black people have no rights which white people are bound to respect) continues to live in the actions of judges like Robert P. Patterson. He should be brought before the Congress and impeached for his misconduct.
Until America plays by “one set of rules” there will forever be disparities in the justice system. And until there is real fairness, impartiality and an equal application of the law, America will remain a two tier society.
It is obviously evident that corruption reared its ugly head in this case and it should outrage all black people in particular as well as all fair minded and well intentioned people of whatever race, creed or color in general when justice is thwarted and the rights of litigants are subverted by a judge that didn’t care about the proper exercise of his duties, obligations and the oath of office that he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
And let’s not forget about the lawyers Martin Gold and Ray Heslin that lied, manipulated and maligned the plaintiffs in this case.
They too should be disbarred from the practice of law, “tarred and feathered” and then place on display for ridicule and humiliation in the town square to show others that this kind of misconduct premised on racially tinged, Jim Crow tactics of apartheid have no place in the American system of justice.
As the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently states…”injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
By the same token, corruption found anywhere in a case before any court undermines the administration of justice in that case and everywhere else unless timely exposed and properly destroyed."
Source of Leonard Rowe, story
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-724105
Sent to me By Leonard Rowe close friend of Michael Jackson and Legendary Concert Promoter.
The Michael Jackson case has the same elements as small town to big city corruption. The attorneys say what they want, the courts do as they please and the pay to play system gets justice only to those who play the game right, scratch the right backs and have the most money and favors to offer.
Demand Transparency and Accountability. Demand the Judges, Lawyers, Cops, Prosecutors not be Immune and be held accountable for violating our, YOUR constitutional rights.
Read the Leonard Rowe Book for yourself
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)