p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4,000 default judgment they’d gotten against a lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an ‘enforcement’ proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. It turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA’s collection lawyer, the motion ‘contained factual inaccuracies … which plaintiff needs to sort out’.
A few little ‘factual inaccuracies’ never bothered an RIAA lawyer before. The attorney, Simon Mann, must be new around here. He won’t have the RIAA as a client for long if he’s going to be finicky about getting his facts right. He wouldn’t fit in with Matthew Oppenheim and the Holme Roberts & Owen crowd. By the way, here’s a pointer for you law students out there: you’re supposed to “sort out” the facts before, not after, you sue somebody. But you might not have picked that up if you’ve been following the RIAA cases.
So what's new. True facts never bothered the RIAA before.