Paula 'Pinocchio' McDonald
Named plaintiff Paula McDonald filed an untrue declaration -- in my opinion a perjuriously false one -- in support of the motion for final settlement approval. I did a post about this a few days ago ("Then There's Named Plaintiff Paula McDonald's Slight ... Problem With the Truth," http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/09/then-theres-named-plaintiff-paula.html). For those of you who don’t want to go back and forth, I again am reproducing our August 22-23 email exchange at the bottom of this post.
I intended to amplify on this in a declaration of my own accompanying objectors attorney’s Charles Chalmers’ rushed written response prior to next Tuesday’s hearing in New York. I forgot. There were too many other substantive, fundamental issues to focus Judge Daniels’ attention on. These include-but-are-not-limited-to: the License By Default; the mysterious four-year gap in damages analysis; the improper notice; the inadequate, indeed collusive on its face, representation of the class by the named plaintiffs, the authors’ associations, and their counsel; etc., etc.
But telling “the rest of the story” is what blogs are all about.
· In paragraph 3 of her declaration Paula McDonald calls me “an individual I had never heard of, or from.” It’s unclear how this statement (whose second part, at least, is true as far as I know) squares with paragraph 4, which states that this first email ever sent to her by me constituted “harassing of this Class Representative.”
· And as I noted in the earlier post, McDonald proceeds to state (in paragraph 5) that “I hit ‘reply all’ to Mr. Muchnick’s email, thinking that I was sending my query to all the other named plaintiffs.” It’s quite obvious that my August 22 email to McDonald was sent just to her, not to a list, and that her email to me on August 23 was not a “reply all.”
+++++
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Irvin Muchnick"
Subject: FREELANCE RIGHTS: Open Letter to Plaintiff E.L. Doctorow -- 'Please Stop This Terrible Settlement'
To: "Paula McDonald" eieiho@msn.com
OPEN LETTER TO PLAINTIFF E.L. DOCTOROW -- 'Please Stop ThisTerrible Settlement'
http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/open-letter-to-plaintiff-el-doctorow.html
P.S. to Open Letter to E.L. Doctorow
http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/ps-to-open-letter-to-el-doctorow.html
+++++
From: "Paula McDonald"
To: dsherrick@uaw.net, fpeterson@cpacomputerreport.com, gcolby@nwu.org, jfeldman@omsoft.com, jtasini@economicfuturegroup.com, Michael@mcastleman.com, posner@posner.com, ravaughan@rcn.com, rom.web@verizon.net, shermama@bc.edu, writerink@cox.net, "Gary Fergus" , "Irvin Muchnick" , "Jonathan Tasini" , "Diane Rice"
Subject: Amazon and Highbeam confusion
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:56:58 -0700
Fellow plaintiffs, attorneys, Jonathan:
Miriam Raftery and I are very confused regarding the Amazon/Highbeam amendment and if or how it affects us. To our knowledge, there has been no information to date, aside from the announcement of the amendment and the wording of the amendment itself, that details which defendants are involved, exactly which plaintiffs are involved, what works have been further infringed, how to find out, and how to file a further claim, if that's necessary. Both of us have spent hours searching Amazon, A9 (Amazon's new information system) and Highbeam with no results other than our published books showing up on Amazon. But A9 has hundreds of web sites under its umbrella so it's almost impossible to search it effectively at this time.
In Irvin Muchnick's open letter to E.L. Doctorow yesterday, he states that "With the recent amendment to the settlement, a good portion of the B’s will convert to A’s."
If that's true, nobody has told us---or the other members of the class---how to pursue specific information regarding this new wrinkle in the case, how to find out if any of our works are moving up a class and what actions we need to take if this is the situation.Does anyone know what's going on here? The deadline for filing claims is fast approaching and if many class members have to search themselves out and file a new set of claims, we need to know that now.
Cheers.
Paula McDonald
I intended to amplify on this in a declaration of my own accompanying objectors attorney’s Charles Chalmers’ rushed written response prior to next Tuesday’s hearing in New York. I forgot. There were too many other substantive, fundamental issues to focus Judge Daniels’ attention on. These include-but-are-not-limited-to: the License By Default; the mysterious four-year gap in damages analysis; the improper notice; the inadequate, indeed collusive on its face, representation of the class by the named plaintiffs, the authors’ associations, and their counsel; etc., etc.
But telling “the rest of the story” is what blogs are all about.
· In paragraph 3 of her declaration Paula McDonald calls me “an individual I had never heard of, or from.” It’s unclear how this statement (whose second part, at least, is true as far as I know) squares with paragraph 4, which states that this first email ever sent to her by me constituted “harassing of this Class Representative.”
· And as I noted in the earlier post, McDonald proceeds to state (in paragraph 5) that “I hit ‘reply all’ to Mr. Muchnick’s email, thinking that I was sending my query to all the other named plaintiffs.” It’s quite obvious that my August 22 email to McDonald was sent just to her, not to a list, and that her email to me on August 23 was not a “reply all.”
+++++
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Irvin Muchnick"
Subject: FREELANCE RIGHTS: Open Letter to Plaintiff E.L. Doctorow -- 'Please Stop This Terrible Settlement'
To: "Paula McDonald" eieiho@msn.com
OPEN LETTER TO PLAINTIFF E.L. DOCTOROW -- 'Please Stop ThisTerrible Settlement'
http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/open-letter-to-plaintiff-el-doctorow.html
P.S. to Open Letter to E.L. Doctorow
http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/2005/08/ps-to-open-letter-to-el-doctorow.html
+++++
From: "Paula McDonald"
To: dsherrick@uaw.net, fpeterson@cpacomputerreport.com, gcolby@nwu.org, jfeldman@omsoft.com, jtasini@economicfuturegroup.com, Michael@mcastleman.com, posner@posner.com, ravaughan@rcn.com, rom.web@verizon.net, shermama@bc.edu, writerink@cox.net, "Gary Fergus" , "Irvin Muchnick" , "Jonathan Tasini" , "Diane Rice"
Subject: Amazon and Highbeam confusion
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:56:58 -0700
Fellow plaintiffs, attorneys, Jonathan:
Miriam Raftery and I are very confused regarding the Amazon/Highbeam amendment and if or how it affects us. To our knowledge, there has been no information to date, aside from the announcement of the amendment and the wording of the amendment itself, that details which defendants are involved, exactly which plaintiffs are involved, what works have been further infringed, how to find out, and how to file a further claim, if that's necessary. Both of us have spent hours searching Amazon, A9 (Amazon's new information system) and Highbeam with no results other than our published books showing up on Amazon. But A9 has hundreds of web sites under its umbrella so it's almost impossible to search it effectively at this time.
In Irvin Muchnick's open letter to E.L. Doctorow yesterday, he states that "With the recent amendment to the settlement, a good portion of the B’s will convert to A’s."
If that's true, nobody has told us---or the other members of the class---how to pursue specific information regarding this new wrinkle in the case, how to find out if any of our works are moving up a class and what actions we need to take if this is the situation.Does anyone know what's going on here? The deadline for filing claims is fast approaching and if many class members have to search themselves out and file a new set of claims, we need to know that now.
Cheers.
Paula McDonald
posted by Irv Muchnick at 1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home