One law for well-off lawyers and another for poor homeless defendants it seems folks.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15650In Warner v. Berry, where the RIAA was suing a man who lives in a homeless shelter, the Magistrate Judge — Hon. Kevin Nathaniel Fox — recommended that the plaintiffs’ application for a default judgment be denied, and that the plaintiffs be ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. The Judge agreed that the default judgment should be denied, but chose not to sanction plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The Magistrate Judge found that “y affixing the summons on April 9, 2007, the plaintiffs demonstrated they never intended to conduct ‘a thorough address investigation …’ because they employed the ‘affix and mail’ method of service without exercising due diligence to effect personal service pursuant to CPLR s 308(1) and (2).” Magistrate Judge Fox concluded that Plaintiffs’ representation to this Court to the effect that they intended to conduct an investigation to locate Defendant’s current address implicated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) because it was made for the improper purpose of unnecessary delay.
This seemed an ideal case opportunity for a judge to make clear the rule of law should apply to all, instead we see a blind eye turned to obvious false statements made by the recording industry lawyers, what a sad day for justice, shame on this "judge".
