Kiwi Camara Fights the RIAA One More Time
You learn a few things when you survive a major outbreak of alleged racism before you even graduate from law school. One thing you learn is that you don’t have to step aside quietly when million-dollar judgments go against your client.
Last month, we reported that Jammie Thomas-Rasset — who is represented by K.A.D. Camara — was hit with a $1.92 million judgment for illegally downloading 24 songs. When we spoke to Camara about the verdict, he expressed his belief that the high penalty could be problematic for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA):
I think a verdict this high may backfire against the RIAA. It makes clear that there’s a problem with the statute. And there are many grounds for appeal in Jammie’s case.
The problem is that Jammie Thomas-Rasset has already been tried twice.
But that isn’t going to stop the law firm of Camara & Sibley. Threat Level reports that Camara has asked U.S. District Judge Michael Davis to set aside the $1.92 million verdict, declare the Copyright Act unconstitutional, or at least order a new jury trial to assess damages.
Put another way, we’ve gotten to the “kitchen sink” point of this litigation.
More details after the jump.
Camara is going with due process concerns on behalf of Thomas-Rasset:
Among other things, Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers claimed Monday a so-called “due process” violation in the jury’s conclusion to ding her $80,000 a copyrighted track. The Copyright Act allows for fines of as much as $150,000 a song….Thomas’ lawyers do recognize they have bumpy legal terrain to navigate to convince U.S. District Judge Michael Davis to declare the Copyright Act unconstitutional. After Thomas-Rasset’s first trial in 2007, in which Davis declared a mistrial because of an error in a jury instruction, the judge noted that the original verdict of $222,000 for the same 24 songs was ridiculous but nevertheless suggested Congress should change the law.
But you have to love how Camara frames the verdict against his client:
On Monday, the lawyers told Davis “Mrs. Thomas contends that even if the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act is constitutional, the jury’s application of it in this case is excessive, shocking, and monstrous.” They suggested Judge Davis reduce the fine to the minimum $750 per song if he doesn’t order a new jury to retry a new damages award.
Monstrous indeed. Many people might feel that an $80,000 per song fine is ridiculous, but is this the kind of lawyering that is going to give the judge a legal hook upon which to hang a sense of decency?
Thomas-Rasset evidently thinks so. She’s sticking with the horses that brought her to the $1.92 million party. That has got to say something positive.
Thomas Seeks New RIAA Trial; Says $1.92 Million Verdict ‘Monstrous’ [Threat Level]
Earlier: $80,000 Per Song Could ‘Backfire,’ Says K.A.D. Camara
(55) Comments
Comments
Uno
Dos
"hit with a $1.92 million" what, Elie?
it does seem a little unconstitutional
why couldn't they have just asked for 100k? would have served the same purpose without looking ridiculous
That is a weird picture of Lat.
she hasn't been "tried" you moron
#5 - That is not a picture of Lat, it is a picture of the attorney in the post.
SMU3L
Someone apparently likes throwing good money after bad. What a waste of time by Camara. You got punked, take your asswhooping like a man, sit back and reflect on what you did wrong and how to avoid it again in the future.
Or, you know, just keep thinking you are better and smarter than everyone. That really wins over juries.
7 is "doesn't get the joke" guy.
camara shows us once again that really smart people have no common sense. my secretary is currently typing my letter to ms. thomas-rasset recommending that she retain my services for the legal malpractice suit to recover the difference between her $222k initial verdict and her $1.92 mil retrial verdict. seems like only one thing changed in the interim.
You know what's the best part about this? Kamara's co-partner is Joe Sibley, quoted in the HLR piece Elie links to as saying "that the incident reveals a 'racial double standard' and it was blown up in a type of 'racial McCarthyism.' If the outline had been submitted by a black student who had put 'crac.' or ' honk.' as an indicator for a European-American, there would be no controversy."
Any surprise that two morons and racists would now be running their own firm, losing trials and making a**es of themselves in front of our judicial system?
Layoffs at CWT today.
Isn't the one who decides to censor ass to protect our tender, virgin eyes truly the one making an ass of himself?
"But you have to love how Camara terms the verdict against his client."
I don't get this sentence. Is this another inside joke?
#11 -- do we have any idea what these guys try to charge per hour for their services? You could be the greatest law student in the world, and it won't mean jack once you actually have to engage in the practice of law itself. Theory is great and all, but the practice is what brings the money in the door.
Has any one not ever heard of the due process punitive damages cases where the SC requires a fit between punies and real damages? Why not put statutory damages in that class?
I'm only watching the memorial service to see Lou Ferrigno
I want to know what the RIAA's counsel told the jury to convince them that $80,000 per song was a just result. Seriously, that would be some useful argumentation. I would think most jurors would view the statutory minimum $750 to be ridiculously punitive, so to crank that up 100-fold is pretty impressive. There must be one hell of a gaping chasm separating the brilliance of RIAA counsel from Kiwi's ineptitude.
16, because due process is at the end of the day about notice. Since a company never knows how much punitive damages would be imposed, it is unfair for a random jury to spring on it punitive damages that are 100x the actual damages. Thomas-Rasset knew how much the statutory damages would be.
why does anyone care about this guy's law firm and this uninteresting case? i understand his background and recall his past newsworthy stories re: law school notes, but remind me why do I care about the status of this litigation at all?
18 - Camara/Sibley kept telling the jury that the RIAA wanted $150,000 per song, or something like $3.2 million. RIAA's counsel said that was simply not true. They were not asking for a particular amount, they leave the amount "in your good hands." - At least that's what I read elsewhere. If true, apparently effective.
Didn't they make a sega genesis game about this kid? You pick up new helmets and become different characters?
That is NOT a picture of Lat.
WGWAG!!!
Comment removed by moderator.
The reason she is sticking with C & S as her lawyers is because they took the case pro bono after her old lawyers quit. They are looking for exposure for their new firm. I don't have a link, but someone can look it up, I am pretty certain she's paying nothing.
He looks like he's tap dancing in that photo.
21,
Ha ha. If that's true, then Camara/Sibley have never taken a psychology class. I'll give them a lesson, it goes like this:
juries think "fair" is halving numbers. They would split everything if they could. You anchor them with a big number and zero, they split the big number in half and consider justice done. You should have said $1,500 per song if you wanted the statutory minimum. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
-18
The statute is patently unconstitutional and just plain ridiculous.
And was the jury on coke when it handed down that figure? $80K per song?
10 - she has no assets and was represented pro bono, so there is no material adverse change w/r/t the 200k and 1.9m judgment. In a lot of ways the more the better since it will lead to a bankruptcy more quickly.
Everyone seems to miss the point. If the RIAA can not enforce the IP rights on behalf of recording artists like Madonna those artists will suffer horrendously. For example, how will an artiist like Madonna maintain her lifestyle (i.e. private jet, a host of servants and expensive clothing jewlery etc) that we enjoy so much vicariously.
Unless you were there, you won't know how Camara did in front of the jury. The articles writing up the verdict indicated that the jury didn't like his client. Maybe he was part of the reason, maybe not.
Bottom line is that Camara is now going to practice the kind of law found in those dusty books in the library and on Westlaw - appellate law.
19 is correct. Here, the damages are actually written, which is unlike the punative damages abuses. The complaint here more boils down to "this law that Congress passed is asinine and so unfair that it must be unconstitutional." In other words, substantive due process.
I think we know how those arguments tend to wind up.
32 - camara. nice logic, too. denying that us commenters could know what happened at the trial because we weren't there, discussing the opinions of those who were there, and then ignoring them. it was a godsend they didn't sentence this woman to death with those advocacy skillz.
Does Ellie, a HLS graduate seriously not know the difference between a civil and a criminal proceeding.
"She has already been 'tried' twice."
Ellie, you are not very bright, plain and simple. You do not deserve your station in life and are a clear affirmative action backfire.
Beyond being a moron. You let your biases poor out in every single story you write. You harbor clear bias against this KAD character for using the term "nig" when he was 17 YEARS OLD. Isn't just possible that he made a mistake and that he, as the youngest graduate of HLS, is in fact a very capable lawyer.
Try writing in complete sentences, 35. Also, it's "pour" not "poor" and a verbal misfire in any case.
36,
Or should I say, "Ellie." I am not writing for a blog; I am commenting on the moron writing for the blog that gets paid money to write for the blog. I am doing this while I am at work and not really worrying about my grammer or usage because I have little time.
My question is why does Ellie deserve to write for this blog. He is clearly a moron and also lets his bias override all sense of objectivity. But, go one commenting on the commentors grammer and usage - that is a worthwhile pursuit. Hilarious.
35
#22 is my hero!
@35/37,
You generally want to get 1/2 of your words right for a sentence to make any sense at all.
"go one commenting on the commentors grammer and usage" isn't really cutting it.
Whatever "work" you are "at" clearly doesn't involve literacy, but literacy as a hobby is always a commendable pursuit. Don't get so defensive about comments from people who can read, though.
- Not 36
39, different grammar/spelling standards apply to blog posts, and anonymous comments on those blog posts. You can stop being such a pedant and an ass now. I bet you're real fun at parties.
-- not 35/37
19/33, lol. Yes, notice is obviously part of due process but it isn't the whole story (as 33 even hints at). Do you really think that any old penalty is just fine and dandy by the constitution as long as people have "notice" of it? Would it be constitutional, then, for the penalty for shoplifting to be life in prison without parole? How about if the penalty were one billion times the cost of the item shoplifted? And of course neither of these would stop shoplifting, even though they would have *some* deterrent effect.
The idea that any punishment is acceptable simply because it is spelled out beforehand is ludicrous. Due process requires some level of proportionality.
41, please learn the difference between the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. What kind of "liberty" is being infringed upon here that warrants substantive due process?
Anyone on this thread who is arguing that this verdict is unconstitutional is a moron. The SCOTUS' punitive damages cases all hinge on the idea that punitive damages are quasi-criminal and expressive of moral condemnation, thus more easily triggering 14th Amendment concerns.
Here, you have a civil stautory penalty that is indicative of what Congress felt was needed to protect the integrity of copyrights by penalizing and deterring future violations. It is not for the courts to pass on whether this congressional determination is reasonable, given that it is a direct extension of Congress' express power to pass laws allowing copyrights to be secured.
35/37/40, I thought I told you to stop being so defensive!
43, you mean kind of like how Congress' express power to regulate interstate commerce is not subject to judicial review because, you know, it's express and all?
FAIL.
@39 and 36
You're right. The guy or gal @ 35 and 37 should really proof read his/her posts before posting on this site. Then again, he or she could just go on living their lives and let d-bags like you worry about pedantic criticisms out of your lack of anything better to do.
Here is an idea 39 & 36 for something more useful for you to do with your time: try having sexual intercourse with another human being or, if that is impossible in your case, make a friend.
I mean, if I ever actually spend time criticizing the grammar and spelling of another commenter on a blog I would probably seriously consider suicide, because there is really no where lower to go as far as being utterly pathetic. Seriously, think of killing yourselves.
- Not 35, 37, 40
pathetic? as opposed to what you're doing now, 46. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
45 = 0L
And how's that judicial review of interstate commerce working out?
If you think the real world Supreme Court is going to exercise judicial review on the Copyright Act, you are more delusional than Kiwi.
Can above the law please stop validating and advertising the obviously inept independent legal practice of a racist. "Alleged" is really too kind to this 'camera' kid. Why don't you go to a law firm, or into public service, and learn how to try a case like the rest of us instead of whining about your polished credentials denying your scummy beliefs.
45,
43 here. As I said, anyone arguing that the verdict in this case is unconstitutional is a moron. That would appear to include you. My point was not that the Copyright Act is immune from review, but that one would have to be insane to think a trial court would reduce a jury award within the parameters of the Act based on a 14th Amendment SDP argument.
Congress has plenary authority over copyrights and absent some extreme abuse of that authority, no court is going to intervene. Your analogy to the Commerce Clause undermines your pathetic argument, as 48 astutely points out.
If you are in fact a law student, please drop out and save the rest of us the headache of ever having to litigate against someone as incompetent as you.
After losing the case, Camara was reported to have said: "I expected it; the judge was a nig."
50, nice try, but saying "it is not for courts to do [x]" is not at all the same as saying "I doubt a trial court will do [x]." (Which would be an irrelevant point here anyway, as it's now a question of what an APPELLATE court will do). Your statement very clearly conveyed your incorrect belief that the copyright clause somehow means the Copyright Act is immune from review. If this wasn't your intended meaning, I suggest you learn to express yourself more clearly before you appear before a judge.
By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your backtracking assessment of what the court will ACTUALLY do. That doesn't mean review isn't within its power, though.
- former IP lawyer, not a law student.
52 = kiwi
52 is insane and thus probably Kiwi.
Just ask yourself this: Which five votes on the Supreme Court? Assuming you get cert, of course.
Dag he's ugly!!!