“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. That’s the folk music tradition – you use what has been handed down. ‘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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for

Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder stated the following "Moreover,

this Court has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for

his repeated postings on the Internet of confidential

discovery materials from this litigation, in violation of

confidentiality orders that were entered in this case..."

Mr. Snyder also stated "Defendants expect to cross move for

futher sanctions, more sever than the money judgments that

clearly have failed to deter Damiano's contempt, for his

continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process

against Defendants".

At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a

Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.

At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem

to be at an all

time low, it has been published in the media that the

integrity of the United

States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level

that it is unable

to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit.

This motion not only supports that allegation it

conclusively documents, to the

record the validity of the statement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE

PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER

500 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10110

STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE

HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP

1700 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769

Mr. James Damiano

Route 46

Mine Hill, NJ 07803

RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment

Inc.

Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS)

Dear Litigants:

This will reply to Mr. Snyder's letter of December 18,

2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr.

Damiano's motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20,

2003.

Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder's letter, his request

is granted. In my preliminary review of these motions, I

have noted that they do not conform to the requirements of

the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions

has also been exceeded.

Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and

in light of Mr. Damiano's pro se status, I will not dismiss

the motions and require rebriefing. as I would do if an

attorney filed these papers.

I will, however limit the length of defendants' opposition

to the 40-page limit of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that

special attention be given to the motion to vacate the

protective order. That motion may not be timely to the

extent that it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive

order regarding the use of confidential discovery

materials. Although the defendants must address all of the

pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is

given by defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current

status of the confidentiality order. The issue arises

whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials

will continue to have the heightened degree of

confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier

years. If not, is the future continuation of the

injunction against use of the confidential materials

warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the

court re-examine the continued validity of the protective

order against his use of confidential discovery materials,

and the court is willing to do so after all parties have

had a chance to be heard.

In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants'

opposition will be due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damiano's

reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving

defendants' opposition papers. Mr. Damiano's reply is also

limited by L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all

submissions have been received by the court, I will

determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damiano's recusal

motion and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral

argument or decide the matter upon the basis of the papers

received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Very Truly yours,

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

U.S. District Judge

JBS/mm

cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire

900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412

Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903

Motion link:

http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24534196)

There were approximately fifteen to twenty five boxes filled with anywhere from 200 to 400 finished and unfinished songs in each box (thirty five 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

http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24535820)

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for

Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder stated the following "Moreover,

this Court has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for

his repeated postings on the Internet of confidential

discovery materials from this litigation, in violation of

confidentiality orders that were entered in this case..."

Mr. Snyder also stated "Defendants expect to cross move for

futher sanctions, more sever than the money judgments that

clearly have failed to deter Damiano's contempt, for his

continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process

against Defendants".

At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a

Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.

At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem

to be at an all

time low, it has been published in the media that the

integrity of the United

States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level

that it is unable

to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit.

This motion not only supports that allegation it

conclusively documents, to the

record the validity of the statement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE

PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER

500 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10110

STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE

HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP

1700 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769

Mr. James Damiano

Route 46

Mine Hill, NJ 07803

RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment

Inc.

Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS)

Dear Litigants:

This will reply to Mr. Snyder's letter of December 18,

2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr.

Damiano's motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20,

2003.

Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder's letter, his request

is granted. In my preliminary review of these motions, I

have noted that they do not conform to the requirements of

the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions

has also been exceeded.

Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and

in light of Mr. Damiano's pro se status, I will not dismiss

the motions and require rebriefing. as I would do if an

attorney filed these papers.

I will, however limit the length of defendants' opposition

to the 40-page limit of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that

special attention be given to the motion to vacate the

protective order. That motion may not be timely to the

extent that it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive

order regarding the use of confidential discovery

materials. Although the defendants must address all of the

pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is

given by defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current

status of the confidentiality order. The issue arises

whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials

will continue to have the heightened degree of

confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier

years. If not, is the future continuation of the

injunction against use of the confidential materials

warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the

court re-examine the continued validity of the protective

order against his use of confidential discovery materials,

and the court is willing to do so after all parties have

had a chance to be heard.

In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants'

opposition will be due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damiano's

reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving

defendants' opposition papers. Mr. Damiano's reply is also

limited by L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all

submissions have been received by the court, I will

determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damiano's recusal

motion and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral

argument or decide the matter upon the basis of the papers

received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Very Truly yours,

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

U.S. District Judge

JBS/mm

cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire

900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412

Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903

Motion link:

http://www.jamsdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24535830)

BOB DYLAN SUED OVER DIGNITY

Bob Dylan's Stealing of James Damiano's Songs

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 law suit 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 also solicited Mr. Damiano's materials for a period of over ten years and eleven months.

As per Judicial filings 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://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24535936)

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for

Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder stated the following "Moreover,

this Court has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for

his repeated postings on the Internet of confidential

discovery materials from this litigation, in violation of

confidentiality orders that were entered in this case..."

Mr. Snyder also stated "Defendants expect to cross move for

futher sanctions, more sever than the money judgments that

clearly have failed to deter Damiano's contempt, for his

continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process

against Defendants".

At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a

Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.

At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem

to be at an all

time low, it has been published in the media that the

integrity of the United

States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level

that it is unable

to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit.

This motion not only supports that allegation it

conclusively documents, to the

record the validity of the statement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBER

OF

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

JEROME B.

SIMANDLE

ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA

DISTRICT

JUDGE

PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ

08010

(856) 757-5167

ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE

PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER

500 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10110

STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE

HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP

1700 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769

Mr. James Damiano

Route 46

Mine Hill, NJ 07803

RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment

Inc.

Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS)

Dear Litigants:

This will reply to Mr. Snyder's letter of December 18,

2002, which requests an extension of time to respond to Mr.

Damiano's motions from December 20, 2002 until January 20,

2003.

Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder's letter, his request

is granted. In my preliminary review of these motions, I

have noted that they do not conform to the requirements of

the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions

has also been exceeded.

Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and

in light of Mr. Damiano's pro se status, I will not dismiss

the motions and require rebriefing. as I would do if an

attorney filed these papers.

I will, however limit the length of defendants' opposition

to the 40-page limit of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that

special attention be given to the motion to vacate the

protective order. That motion may not be timely to the

extent that it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive

order regarding the use of confidential discovery

materials. Although the defendants must address all of the

pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is

given by defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current

status of the confidentiality order. The issue arises

whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials

will continue to have the heightened degree of

confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier

years. If not, is the future continuation of the

injunction against use of the confidential materials

warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the

court re-examine the continued validity of the protective

order against his use of confidential discovery materials,

and the court is willing to do so after all parties have

had a chance to be heard.

In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants'

opposition will be due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damiano's

reply papers, if any are due 14 days after receiving

defendants' opposition papers. Mr. Damiano's reply is also

limited by L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all

submissions have been received by the court, I will

determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damiano's recusal

motion and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral

argument or decide the matter upon the basis of the papers

received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Very Truly yours,

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

U.S. District Judge

JBS/mm

cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire

900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412

Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903

Motion link:

http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

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 TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF FINDING JAMES DAMIANO IN CONTEMPT FOR

VIOLATIONS OF JUDGE JOEL B. ROSIN'S [Sic] CONFIDENTIALITY

ORDER

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE [Sic] PROTECTIVE ORDER

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST SONY ENTERTAINMENT

INC. AND BOB DYLAN.

This motion not only supports that allegation it

conclusively documents, to the

record the validity of the statement.

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.

2. In all major decisions of this litigation, this court

continuously chose to

honor the opinion of Bob Dylan's counsel Orin Snyder as

opposed to plaintiff

Damiano's true material facts.

3. This motion is based on part, and in light of that all

decisions made by

this Court in favor of Bob Dylan, were based on the

opinion of Bob Dylan's

attorney Orin Snyder and that these opinions were held as

truth over

plaintiff's true material facts, which conclusively reveal

the opposite of

Judge Simandle's findings.

4. This motion documents to the record the obvious and

blatant validity of

plaintiff's allegations.

5. This motion read in its entirety lawfully exonerates

plaintiff, (James

Damiano) from all judgments, rulings and decisions arriving

from this lawsuit.

6. This motion is lawfully conclusive in deciding that

Judge Simandle's

decision to dismiss this lawsuit is unlawful, illegal,

adverse to and

inconsistent with the facts of this case.

7. That all statements contained in this motion are true.

EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF __________YEAR OF 2002

IN___________________James Damiano _________________________

New evidence, which is pertinent to the outcome of this

lawsuit, has been

released in the media whereby plaintiff has become aware of

allegations that

Bob Dylan's attorney Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman have

been accused of

falsifying evidence and lying in the Selletti Vs. Carey

lawsuit.

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

MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS FRCP rule 36 Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 36

The facts expressed within this motion will be conclusively

deemed as truth

within 30 days of August 3, 2000, should they be left

disproved by Defendants

Bob Dylan and or Sony Music Entertainment Inc. or by any

other party involved

or not involved in this matter as, pursuant to FRCP rule

36. At such time said

admissions and facts expressed within this motion will be

deemed as truth,

entered upon the record of this court and docketed with the

clerk.

The fact issues expressed within this motion concerning

Defendants eleven year

association with Plaintiff and all fact issues expressed

within this motion

concerning defendant Bob Dylan's solicitation of Plaintiff

James Damiano's

songs, will be deemed admitted and acknowledged as truth

after thirty days

unless defendants deny and contest the forgoing with

specificity, pursuant to

FRCP rule 36.

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

under penalty of

perjury that

Plaintiff stipulates that he has produced to the court this

same motion for

admissions during his contempt hearing, at which time it

was entered upon the

record of this court as per order of Judge Simandle as

exhibit A. and that

defendant's Bob Dylan and or Sony Music have never answered

or denied the

motion.

EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF

2002 IN

James Damiano ____________________________________

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

DECLARATION OF JAMES DAMIANO #2 .

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

under penalty of

perjury that:

1. No unbiased facts, no unbiased evidence or no unbiased

testimony exists to

support Judge Jerome B. Simandle's decision to dismiss

Plaintiff James

Damiano's lawsuit against Bob Dylan for copyright

infringement case Number

CV 95- 4795 (JBS).

2. The United States District Court District of New Jersey

has disregarded

eleven years of material facts regarding Bob Dylan's

solicitation of James

Damiano's songs and has granted summary judgment dismissing

all counts of this

lawsuit to Defendant Bob Dylan in violation of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c).

3. That all statements contained in this motion are true

and correct.

4. This document motion 321 standard size pages. Text size

is 12, 14 to16 size

on headings in IBM compatible Microsoft word pad document

EXECUTED ON THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________YEAR OF

2002 IN

James Damiano ____________________________________

A CD Rom of this motion and a four-hour videotape of

segments of various

depositions taken during discovery have been produced to

the United States

Marshall's Service. After reviewing plaintiff's materials

The United States

Marshall's Service commented in Plaintiff James Damiano's

favor, stating that

plaintiff Damiano should have won this case "hands down".

From United States District Judge. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION: [*625] JAMES DAMIANO Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS)

Judge Simadle cited rule 56( c )

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 also found that James Damiano has created a

genuine issue of

material fact

"Plaintiff asserts that 'the bulk of his life's work' was

submitted to Sony

beginning in 1982.(Complaint. 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 Declaration. At

2, 5, ; Deposition of

Pam Damiano at 77-84, 97-104: Deposition 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."

[Emph.added] "…plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue

of material

fact…"

A comparison of Judge Simandle's ruling:

"…plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material

fact as to whether

defendants had access to his work".

"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).'

"

NEW EVIDENCE

It is judicially conclusive that Judge Simandle's decision

to dismiss this

lawsuit violated standard law procedure as pursuant to the

Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Throughout the litigation and discovery of this lawsuit and

after the dismissal

of Plaintiff's reconsideration motion Bob Dylan's lead

attorneys Orin Snyder

and Steven D. Johnson engaged in unlawful, unscrupulous

illegal and unethical

practices.

Mr. Snyder's, as well as Steven D. Johnson's, unlawful and

nefarious behavior

is documented in this motion.

Plaintiff has learned of allegations that Mr. Snyder and or

other associates of

Mr. Snyder's law firm have committed this same unlawful and

unscrupulous

behavior in another lawsuit.

In James Damiano Vs. Sony Music Inc and Bob Dylan Judge

Simandle wrote in his

decision …

Thus, there is nothing for the court to "reconsider"

because plaintiff's

amendment argument was raised for the first time in this

motion for

reconsideration. See NL Industries, Inc., 935 F. Supp. at

516 ("Reconsideration

motions . . . may not be used . . . to raise arguments or

present evidence that

could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.").

Plaintiff stipulates that the following evidence did not

exist until after the

dismissal of this lawsuit. This evidence also did not exist

until after

Plaintiff filed his last reconsideration motion thus could

not have raised

these issues prior to summary judgment.

It has been recently reported in the media, that the lead

attorney representing

Bob Dylan in this action Orin Snyder has been accused of

falsifying evidence

and lying in a lawsuit.

Mr. Snyder retained Mary Jo While as legal counsel.

Plaintiff notified Mr. Snyder's attorney Mary Jo White via

Ms. White's E-mail

address. See document below.

RE: James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 (JBS) Infringement

Debevoise & Plimpton

Mary Jo White

919 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Dear Ms. White:

I am the plaintiff in James Damano Vs Bob Dylan CV 95-4795

(JBS)

I am acting pro se in this matter. You have not responded

to my last

E-mail to you so I am resubmitting it to you once again.

I have learned of allegations that Bob Dylan's attorneys

Jonathan Liebman and

or Orin Snyder lied to the court and falsified documents in

the Selletti Vs

Carey lawsuit see article below.

Mariah 'Hero' Sued For $20 Mil

Mariah Carey has a legal case that won't go away. On

Friday, I was faxed

papers showing that Christopher Selletti is suing her again

over the song

Hero.

He wants $20 million in damages. Selletti is also suing

Carey's

attorneys, Orin Snyder and Jonathan Liebman (now with

Brillstein Grey

Entertainment) and her songwriting partner Walter

Afanasieff. He accuses them

of falsifying evidence and lying in the Hero case.

Selletti has tried suing Carey before over Hero, only to

have his case

dismissed. But, as I first reported six years ago, there is

a lot of

questionable stuff in this case. Enough to warrant a real

trial with real

testimony presided over by an objective jurist but Judge

Denny Chin has

consistently done strange things regarding this case and

these participants.

In the 60-plus page document, Selletti's attorney Jeffrey

Levitt cites many of

Chin's odd decisions.

I am sorry to say that this is precisely what Orin Snyder

of Parcher Hayes &

Snyder did in my lawsuit after learning that my copyright

registration predated

Bob Dylan's copyright registration.

Exactly what they did was produce what they claimed to

be "Bob Dylan creation

materials" which were analyzed by my expert Dr. Green, a

musicologist from

Harvard who concluded that the Dylan creation materials did

not at all provide,

any evidence, as to the independent creation of the

Song, "Dignity".

I am requesting that you send me all documents relevant to

the above

allegations.

I will be filing an ethics complaint with the office of

attorney ethics against

Orin Snyder. I will also be submitting this motion, as an

exhibit .

I am also requesting that you forward the following E-mail

which contains a

link to my Motion to reverse the courts decision to dismiss

to Orin Snyder and

Parcher and Hayes.

I was surprised to learn Parcher Hayes and Snyder do not

have a website for their firm.

In the near future or when time permits Mr. Damiano will be

visiting the

Manhattan Court where this matter is being adjudicated to

read a copy of the

complaint and review the pleadings . After doing so

Plaintiff Damiano will

submit a copy of that complaint to this court.

The following information is a summary of what occurred in

James Damiano Vs.

Bob Dylan through the eyes of an American filmmaker, a

director and the

plaintiff

James Damiano. Please be assured all statements are true

and correct

Sincerely James Damiano

James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 95-4795 JBS

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 has

become a paramount

signature of what has become of the United States Judicial

System.

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. 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

Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has

engaged in a

multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit with

Bob Dylan.

To our knowledge there has been only one article written

about this suit and

released by the press. The article was written by Larry

Hicks and published in

New Jersey's Morris County "Daily Record" on October 3,

1995, when the headline

"Mount Olive composer sues Bob Dylan" appeared on the front

page.

Patricia Keil a spokeswoman for Sony commented on the

allegations "We don't

normally comment on pending litigation but we know Bob

Dylan wrote all of these

songs."

It is now six and a half years later and we have this to

say:

After thirty-five hours of video taped depositions, and

after three and a half

million dollars have been spent on this litigation,

defendants Sony Music and

or Bob Dylan still to this date September 18th 2002, have

never filed a

counter, slander or libel suit against Damiano.

Defendants have been aware of James Damiano's public

statements made against

Bob Dylan for over ten years..

Defendants also refuse to answer, deny or refute material

questions regarding

Bob Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's songs and music. The

lawful time allowed

for the filing of such motions is well passed.

In 1979, James Damiano met Mikie Harris. Mikie introduced

James to the

legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond Sr. James

eventually auditioned for

Mr. Hammond with an acoustic guitar.

This is a story of music industry corruption and intrigue,

of the "little

guy's" daunting struggle against big business and a legal

system that not only

failed to work for justice and fair play, but also allowed

itself to be

manipulated for unprecedented vengeance.

In an unbelievable, but true story, we relive Damiano's

seductive times with

top, music industry artists and agents. In a chilling

chapter of this saga

James meets the highly acclaimed and legendary bass player

Jaco Pastorius. Jaco

takes a liking and personal interest in James and his music.

Eventually James moved into Jaco's apartment on Jones

Street in Greenwich

Village and Paul Butterfield came to stay for a while.

We watch as James intrigues the industry with some of the

hottest Rock and Roll

tracks ever to be recorded as Jaco coaches .

After his twenty-five year rise to the top we then suffer

with James at the

malicious indifference and arrogant abuse of top industry

officials.

Finally we rise with him to fight back in a court system

covertly manipulated

by powerfully sinister forces yet James, in the course of

the lawsuit

establishes "access" through the courts ruling.

Judge Simandle ruled in his December 1995

opinion "Plaintiff has demonstrated a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had

access to his

work."

Judge Simandle also ruled "This court will accept as true,

Plaintiff's

allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be

credited and

compensated for his work if Dylan used it."

Even motive for the basis of the lawsuit is established

through a 1988

Associated Press article by Kathryn Baker who interviewed

Bob Dylan. Ms. Baker

writes " …he didn't have enough material of his own for an

album."

Ms. Baker was deposed however her testimony remains

confidential information

That is only available to the court and not to the general

public. Bob Dylan

filed a motion for all discovery materials to be designated

as confidential and was

granted the request by Federal Magistrate Judge, The

Honorable Judge Joel B.

Rosen.

Bob Dylan's publicist Elliot Mintz who had been soliciting

James Damiano's

music for years is present at the Dylan Baker interview.

Mr. Mintz reviewed the

article for accuracy before it was submitted to the

Associated Press for final

release.

In other words Elliot Mintz who solicited James Damiano's

songs was well aware

that Bob Dylan (in Ms. Bakers words) did not have enough

songs.

During the course of the investigation Damiano stumbles

upon some interesting

facts, all of which support his claims. He learns that the

melody line for

"Knocking, On Heaven Door" is almost an exact clone of Neil

Young's song

"Helpless."

"Knocking of Heavens Door" is released years

after "Helpless" was played on the

radio.

Again learning that yet another Dylan song "Shelter From

The Storm" seems to

be another exact melodic clone Foggerty's "Down Around The

Corner" which was

released before "Shelter From The Storm"

As James learns of allegations about "Masters Of War" the

melody line written

by Jackie Washington

Please note there is a website on the Internet website

which has been left

uncontested stating that Jackie Washington wrote the melody

line for "Masters

of War"

Another songwriter Eric Von Schmidt who personally knew Bob

Dylan published

his allegations in a book released by The Cambridge Press"

that he wrote "Baby

Let Me Follow Down". Von Schmidt also published his

allegations in the

Cambridge press.

As the table starts to turn and "Eleven Years" enters the

genre of mystery and

comedy as the big fifth avenue corporate machine becomes

helpless in defending

against the true documented facts.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Damiano learns of allegations that, Steven M. Kramer (the

attorney who

represented him in this lawsuit ) was previously employed

by Parcher & Hayes.

Parcher & Hayes is the same firm who represented Bob Dylan

in this lawsuit.

Judge Jerome B. Simandle ruled:

"Indeed as Defendants themselves profess, plaintiff may

exercise his first

amendment right to speak about his claims with whomever he

so desires,

he is only prohibited from exploiting the discovery

materials obtained during

the course of this litigation for publicity, profit or

collateral gain.".

"Finally, the limited nature of the 1996 protective orders

does not preclude

Damiano from publishing his own version of reality to

whomever he chooses, so

long as the materials and testimony that came to Damiano

under the discovery

process in this case are not themselves disclosed."

James has been associated with the most influential

entertainment industry

producers, all of his songwriting career. Besides working

with John Hammond Sr.

James is the brother-in-law of Richard Frankel a two-time

Pulitzer prize winner

and the producer of many award winning Broadway plays

including "The

Producers."

"The Producers" made history after winning twelve Toni

awards, one more Toni

than "Hello Dolly."

James has contacted Ben Elliot, Grammy Award winning music

producer/engineer for Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, etc. to

produce the his

next album.

Based upon his factual experiences documented in the

account "11 Years" and

leading up to his eventual copyright infringement suit with

Bob Dylan, Sony

Music and CBS Records this issue becomes not only the most

compelling

stories of generations and the rock and roll genre but it

also becomes a

paramount signature of what has become of the United States

Judicial System.

Damiano has Dylan beat at every stage of the game, from

Dylan not being able

to deny the allegations of Dylan's solicitation of

Damiano's songs, to motive

and finally to the credentials of the music experts.

Damiano's musicologist graduated Magna Cum Laude from

Harvard.

This E-mail was sent to me from one of the most prominent

intellectual property

Attorneys in the country: Please review. Thank You.

RE: James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan CV 0547 (JBS)

James

Thanks for the disclaimer. I think in general, all you need

to show for

Copyright infringement is access and substantial

similarity. To avoid

summary judgment against you, the plaintiff, there would

have to be some

dispute as to any material fact.

In your case, it would seem that all material facts are in

dispute and no judge

should grant summary judgment in favor of Dylan. Further,

the moving party has

the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of

material fact exist. So,

yeah, it seems like there are a thousand facts in dispute

in your case

and were I a judge, I'd never award summary judgment in

favor of the

other side.

END OF E-MAIL

On June 18th James Damiano E-mailed the following E-mail to

Bob Dylan's

attorney Steven D. Johnson

Hecker Brown Sherry and Johnson LLP

1700 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2769

Telephone: 215-446-6264

Fax: 215-636-0366

900 Haddon Ave

Suite 412

Collingswood, New Jersey 08108-1903

Telephone: 856-796-9000

Fax: 856-796-9006

sjohnson@heckerbrown.com

http://www.heckerbrown.com

Dear Mr. Johnson

You are beyond the date returnable to answer James

Damiano's motion. In fact

you are more than sixty days late. You cannot hide from

this matter anymore.

There are witnesses that you have been served. You must

notify Orin Snyder

which I'm, sure you have done. I spoke to the US marshal's

service and they

wanted to know when you were served initially. I told them

you were served

through E-mail in June 2002,

We are out of courtesy sending it to you via your E-mail

address at

sjohnson@heckerbrown.com once again.

Dear Mr. Johnson: Please find enclosed a link to

Plaintiff's motion to vacate

Judge Joel B. Rosen's order for confidentiality, Motion for

Admissions, and

other motions RE James Damiano vs. Bob Dylan for Copyright

Infringement CV

95-4795 JBS.

Bob Dylan's suppression of the truth (The confidentiality

order) is adverse to

the truth being a defense for libel and the first

amendment, (Freedom of

Speech).

Judge Simandle's decision is in conflict and adverse to the

first amendment .

Basic and simple: In every deposition of this lawsuit the

witness's were sworn

to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel

yet, all

depositions were designated confidential by Judge Joel B.

Rosen.

Damiano was found guilty of contempt for posting the truth

on the Internet. He

was unable to protect himself with deposition's that

incriminate Bob Dylan.

He was unable to protect himself with the truth. That

concept is un-American.

Judge Simandle's ruling to hold James Damiano in contempt

for disseminating

deposition materials on the Internet in violation of the

courts confidentiality

order designating all discovery materials confidential in

James Damiano Vs. Bob

Dylan for copyright infringement ( CV 95-4795 JBS )

jeopardizes the first

amendment Rights, of every American.

Elliot Mintz who is Bob Dylan's publicist testified in a

video taped deposition

the following:

"Under the subject of mistruths spoken to your client

during the course of

these telephone conversations he would frequently ask me to

pass along

information to Bob, asked questions about Bob or to Bob

about him and I in

fact told him that I would and that I did and on those

occasions, that of

course was a mistruth. [Deposition of Elliot Mintz]

Mr. Mintz's deposition is 183 pages. Further Judge Simandle

opined:

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 [**18] concerts, he was

allowed backstage

and gave his work to Dylan or his agents. (Damiano Decl. at

PP 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. From

Judge Simandle's

Decision END OF E-MAIL

RE Damiano V. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement. CV 95-

4795 (JBS)

The following letter has been E-mailed to Bob Dylan's

attorney Steven D.

Johnson and all the partners and associates of the firm

Hecker Brown Sherry &

Johnson. Dear Firm:

Please be informed that Steven D. Johnson and Orin Snyder

have committed an

abundance of fraud in their motion to hold James Damiano in

contempt Re: James

Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan for copyright infringement. CV 95-

4795 (JBS).

Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson both were aware that

there were eleven years

of documented facts of James Damiano's association with Bob

Dylan and Dylan's

management.

Not only did Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson ignore Mr.

Damiano's testimony

regarding, Mr. Damiano working with CBS for eleven years.

They never denied or

Contested, Mr. Damiano's testimony.

Also, Bob Dylan, Orin Snyder and or Mr. Johnson never

contested or denied Mr.

Damiano's Testimony regarding Bob Dylan's solicitation of

plaintiff Damiano's

music.

All of said facts incriminate Mr. Dylan and were left

disregarded and

unresolved after Judge Simandle's decision to dismiss the

case . The courts

dismissal endorsed the appearance of partiality by Judge

Simandle.

All decisions by Judge Simandle in this case were at best

subjective.

Disregarding Judge Simandle's subjective decisions, Orin

Snyder and Steven D.

Johnson's knowledge of these facts document the extent of

their fraud in filing

a motion to have James Damiano held in contempt of the

courts confidentiality

order. The legality of the confidentiality order is

irrelevant given the fact

that someone anonymously published and posted Mr. Damiano's

website on the

World Wide Internet for the last six and a half years and

defendants Bob Dylan and

Sony Music have not filed a motion to have it taken off the

internet.

Judge Simandle's decision to dismiss is inconsistent with

the evidence produced

to the court. Many lawsuits have survived summary judgment

with only a few

material facts .In this case Damiano has fifty hours of

video taped depositions

which incriminate Bob Dylan and Bob Dylan's attorney Orin

Snyder ( who forgot

he was wearing a microphone at the Elliot Mintz's

deposition ), eleven years of

documented facts of Dylan's solicitation of Damiano's

music, extremely

credible expert testimony from a Harvard musicologist with

a PH-D, and sworn

blatant admissions of guilt by defendants.

All of the above evidence was disregard by the court when

Judge Jerome B.

Simandle dismissed the lawsuit in summary Judgment. (

Defendant first

procedural motion, which was not legally substantial enough

to warrant summary

judgment.)Orin Snyder and Steven D. Johnson filed their

contempt motion to hold

JamesDamiano in violation of the confidentiality order

based on Damiano

disseminating said facts and deposition materials on the

Internet, all of which

incriminate their client Bob Dylan.

Plaintiff Damiano produces the following transcript in

support of his proof

that it is conclusive that Orin Snyder and Steven D.

Johnson were aware of

Damiano's "Eleven Years" association with Bob Dylan and CBS

Records thus both

Snyder and Johnson who are attorneys for Bob Dylan

committed fraud.

In the following transcript James Damiano testified under

oath in his contempt

hearing in front of The Honorable Judge Jerome B.

Simandle :"I feel like there

is so much testimony and documentation of your clients

solicitation of my music

over a period of eleven years, and there's deposition

materials to that effect

which no one made reference to in the lawsuit, I feel it's

an unfair decision.

I feel that I wrote songs for eleven years with Mikie

Harris, those songs

showed up on Bob Dylan's albums. No one ever made

referenceto the eleven years

that I worked with CBS. No, No, one's ever contested those

issues."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24537083)

http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24540221)

After thirty-five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Bob Dylan, after fifteen and a half million dollars have been spent on this litigation, and after this website has been published on the world wide web for over eighteen years defendant Bob Dylan has never filed a counter, slander or libel suit against James Damiano.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24540245)

sorry your music sucks little breh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24541880)

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 Orin Snyder during discovery There were approximately fifteen to twenty five boxes filled with anywhere from 200 to 400 finished and unfinished songs in each box (thirty five 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

See link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuHl1REQVZM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24542967)

BOB DYLAN DEPOSITION NO # 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSqYJm9mgos

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24544148)

Some choice lines from the court decisions are as follows:

“[D]efendants show, through the deposition testimony of plaintiff, that the purported “works” set forth in the complaint were actually created for the first time in the complaint and not registered with the copyright office as alleged.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 625 (D.N.J.,1996).

“[T]he court suspects that any similarity between these two songs is the result of an appropriation of Dylan's work by Damiano, not the other way around.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 626 (D.N.J.,1996)

“Apparently, for the sake of creating a side-by-side comparison of plaintiff's lines with Dylan's lines, plaintiff and/or his attorney pieced together lines from many different untitled verses composed by Damiano to create a total of five single “works.” ( Id. at 192–3, 196). The allegedly infringed lyrics are titled and organized in such a way that misleads the reader into thinking that a single piece by Damiano contains several words and phrases in common with those in a single piece by Dylan. The complaint also contains altered versions of some of Dylan's lyrics. ( Id. at 175, 199). Some of the words in Dylan's songs are rearranged or left out, again giving an impression of similarity that otherwise does not exist.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 626 (D.N.J.,1996)

“[Damiano] argues that coupling the word “stumble” with the word “lips” creates a sufficiently original arrangement of otherwise trite words. Likewise, plaintiff argues that an arrangement combining the cliche “truer words have not been spoken” with the word “broken” is creative enough to be worthy of protection. Thus, plaintiff concludes, Bob Dylan cannot subsequently use the same pairs of words or phrases together in a lyric, even if separated by many intervening lines and ideas in some instances, without infringing plaintiff's original work. . . . The law of copyright does not support the logical extension of plaintiff's theory. In effect, he asks us to grant him a monopoly over the use of common combinations of words such as “bell” and “hell,” “run” and “hide,” or “mind” and “behind” merely because they are found together in a single song—regardless of context or placement within the song.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 629 (D.N.J.,1996)

“To the ear of this court, there is no substantial similarity in the structure, instrumentation or melody of the two songs. These songs “speak” for themselves and no reasonable factfinder could find substantial similarity.” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 975 F.Supp. 623, 631 (D.N.J.,1996)

“At an October 29, 1999 hearing, after plaintiff published by use of the Internet confidential discovery materials protected under Judge Rosen's August, 1996 Order, this Court found plaintiff to be in contempt of the protective Orders and directed him to immediately cease all such dissemination. ( See Order filed October 29, 1999.) At the hearing on October 29, 1999, Mr. Damiano apologized to defendants and to the Court for his contempt of the confidentiality orders,FN3 and asked for the Court to be lenient, indicating, “It makes no sense. I want to come on-off-I don't want to be on the internet. It's senseless, it's senseless and I don't want to hurt-I just want to forget the whole thing. I give you my word I won't even put up the story. I just want to end it, I really do,” by which he meant discontinuing his Internet war against Sony and Dylan. ( See Tr. Oct. 29, 1999 at 26:19-24.)” Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. 2000 WL 1689081, 2 (D.N.J.) (D.N.J.,2000)

The Third Circuit dismissed Damiano’s appeal. Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 166 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1998).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24545006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLT3nUuiHbM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24547502)

Censored by Mainstream Media

http://www.jamesdamiano.yolasite.com

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24548339)

Bob Dylan has a message for critics who think he plagiarized the works of others in some of the songs: You're all a bunch of "wussies and pussies."

In an interview with Rolling Stone hitting newsstands on Friday, the legendary troubadour not only stood by his longtime habit of liberally quoting the words of literary giants and other writers in his lyrics, but also went on the offensive.

"Oh, yeah, in folk and jazz, quotation is a rich and enriching tradition. That certainly is true. It's true for everybody, but me. There are different rules for me," the 71-year-old Dylan noted in an excerpt released online.

Bob Dylan:

Hitting back at folks who took issue with his lifting the words of Japanese author Junichi Saga and Civil War poet Henry Timrod in his 2001 and 2006 albums Love and Theft and Modern Times respectively without citing them as a sources, Dylan brushed off the complaints.

"Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff," said the singer-songwriter. "It's an old thing—it's part of the tradition. It goes way back. These are the same people that tried to pin the name Judas on me. Judas, the most hated name in human history!"

Added Dylan defensively: "If you think you've been called a bad name, try to work your way out from under that…and for what? For playing an electric guitar? As if that is in some kind of way equitable to betraying our Lord and delivering him up to be crucified. All those evil motherf--kers can rot in hell."

"I'm working within my art form. It's that simple. I work within the rules and limitations of it," lectured Dylan. "There are authoritarian figures that can explain that kind of art form better to you than I can. It's called songwriting. It has to do with melody and rhythm, and then after that, anything goes. You make everything yours. We all do it."

However there is so much more Dylan does not cite or even hint about.

http://bobdylanplagiarisms.yolasite.com/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24548486)

UsLawJournal@gmail.com

Over the past several years more and more Bob Dylan plagiarisms have been reported in the mainstream media. We have published links to all these sites in which Bob Dylan has blatantly released other peoples work with out crediting the true authors name to songs he has released and received royalties for. One song was "Blowin In The Wind".

These media publications specifically The New Jersey Law Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, Howard Stern, CBS News, Rolling Stone, MTV, The New York Daily News, Spin Magazine The Gannett Corp, Simon & Schuster and the federal court reporters in NJ are all well aware of the facts presented on this website.

The facts of this case have never been reported to the public by the mainstream media. They have reported Dylan's plagiarisms but never the facts (which are judicially uncontested) of this case.

The reason these news outlets never reported the facts of this case is because they know that when this information is added to the context of all the other documented blatant infringements by Mr. Dylan that it is this information that adheres together and makes conclusive Joni Mitchell's statement to the public that Bob Dylan is a Plagiarist.

You can rest assure that Bob Dylan's attorneys are monitoring this website regularly. The reason Dylan's attorneys come to view this site is because they obtained a confidentiality order on certain information discovered through the James Damiano Bob Dylan litigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuHl1REQVZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kAkfjzcxRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLT3nUuiHbM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2426815&forum_id=2#24548991)