In the Matter of Distribution of 2010-2013 Cable Royalty Funds in The

Before the COPYRIGHT ROYAL TY JUDGES Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) Distribution of ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0010-CD 2010-2013 2010-2013 ) Cable Royalty Funds ) In the Matter of ) ) Distribution of ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0011-SD 2010-2013 2010-2013 ) ~Sa~t~el~lit~e~R~o~y~al~ty~F~u~n~d~s------~-) MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS' OPPOSITION TO SETTLING DEVOTIONAL CLAIMANTS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS AND TO DISALLOW CERTAIN CLAIMANTS AND PROGRAMS Brian D. Boydston, Esq. California State Bar No. 155614 PICK & BOYDSTON, LLP 10786 Le Conte Ave. Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (213) 624-1996 Facsimile: (213) 624-9073 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Multigroup Claimants TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. • • . • • . • . • • . • . • • . • • . • . • . 4 Falsity #1: Multigroup Claimants did not "substantially refuse to respond to many of the SDC's discovery requests." ..•.••.•.•.••.••.6 Falsity #2: MC did not "[seek] to deceive the Judges and other participants concerning the true identity of [Multigroup Claimants] and Spanish Language Producers." ....••...••..•..•.•..•.•••..•.••..7 Falsity #3: Al Galaz has never been found to have engaged in any fraudulent activity......•..•.......•.•........••••....•...•..• 11 ARGUMENT A. AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT AND OF LAW, MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS HAD NO OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN CONSENT TO MAKE PROGRAM CLAIMS DIRECTLY FROM THE UNDERLYING OWNER OF COPYRIGHT•••••.•.......•.•.•••. 14 B. DENISE VERNON HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE 2010 "JULY CLAIMS" ON BEHALF OF IPG; NO DOCUMENTS SUGGEST THE CONTRARY; NO DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THE SDC DOCUMENT REQUESTS WERE WITHHELD.•.•.....•.•.•.... 17 C. SALEM BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHICAGO HAS AFFIRMED ITS OWNERSHIP OF PROGRAMMING CHALLENGED BY THE SDC, AND THE SDC PROVIDE NO INFORMATION CONTRADICTING SUCH CLAIM..................•.•.....••...••..........•... 19 D. THE SDC PERSIST IN DEMANDING A DISCOVERY SANCTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST•.•.•...........•.•.•.•..•..•...•••..•.•••..••.•• 22 2 E. THE SDC BLATANTLY MISREPRESENT THE SUBSTANCE OF KENNETH COPELAND MINISTRIES EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AS A PREDICATE TO ARGUING THAT THE "KENNETH COPELAND" TELEVISION PROGRAM IS NOT OWNED BY KENNETH COPELAND MINISTRIES.••........... 24 F. THE SDC MAKE NO SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISMISSAL OF IWV MEDIA'S CLAIM, PREMISE THEIR ARGUMENT ON A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENTS OF MAUREEN MILLEN'S DECLARATION, AND MISCHARACTERIZE BROADCAST NETWORKS AS CABLE NETWORKS......................•...............•......... 28 G. NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IPG ACTED IN BAD FAITH REGARDING CLAIMS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BOB ROSS, INC.•.. 30 CONCLUSION...........................•.•.......•......•..••.. 34 3 Multigroup Claimants hereby submits its Opposition to Settling Devotional Claimants Motion to Disqualify Multigroup Claimants and to Disallow Certain Claimants and Programs in the above-captioned proceeding. INTRODUCTION The first eighteen ( 18) pages of the SDC motion appear to be no more than a campaign to besmirch Multigroup Claimants. With literally zero information on which to understand the purpose for the existence and involvement of Multigroup Claimants ("MC") and Spanish Language Producers ("SLP") in these proceedings, the SDC fabricate a remarkable number of false, incendiary accusations against such entities, their principal Al Galaz, Independent Producers Group ("IPG"), Raul Galaz, Denise Vernon, and the undersigned counsel. The only thing that is truly learned from the SDC motion is that the SDC has educated itself about the absolute privilege to defamation for statements made in litigation, i.e., even malicious, knowingly false statements, are privileged from prosecution. 1 It is only by hiding behind this mother's skirt of protection that the SDC is so bold as to make the series of unfounded statements, including: 1 Notwithstanding, it has been noted that "[i]n strictly judicial proceedings the potential harm which may result from the absolute privilege is somewhat mitigated by the formal requirements such as notice and hearing, the comprehensive control exercised by the trial judge whose action is reviewable on appeal, and the availability ofretarding influences such as false swearing and perjury prosecutions ... " Zagami, LLC v. Mary Ann Cottrell, 403 N.J. Super. 98, 957 4 "Through counsel, Alfred Galaz has intentionally sought to deceive the Judges and other participants concerning the true identity of [Multigroup Claimants] and Spanish Language Producers." "The authorization and transfer [from IPG to Multigroup Claimants] is a tainted conveyance apparently designed to obscure IPG's and Raul Galaz's criminal history, and is likely a fraudulent conveyance for the purpose of defrauding claimants." "It is also likely to be a fraudulent conveyance for the purpose of defrauding unwitting claimants, in order to avoid IPG' s responsibility to pay them royalty distributions that are or may become due to them." "IPG has a history of swindling legitimate claimants out of royalties. "2 "The instant strategy to transfer all authority from IPG to Alfred Galaz has all the hallmarks of another fraudulent transaction designed by Raul Galaz to insulate [Multigroup Claimants] from the adverse rulings issued by the Judges against IPG and Raul Galaz in prior distribution cases and to defraud IPG's creditors ...." Literally nothing supports these malicious accusations of the SOC. If the SOC is. so confident as to utter any of the foregoing accusations outside of the context of litigation, Multigroup Claimants welcomes such opportunity and the A.2d 691, 695 (2008), citing Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc .. 19 N.J. 552, 562, 117 A.2d 889 (1955). 2 Since its inception in 1998, no party has ever brought suit against IPG for failure to properly account for collected royalties, nor has IPG ever found it necessary to negotiate a settlement with any party, confidential or otherwise, based on any allegation of a failure to account. See Exhibit A (Deel. of R. Galaz). 5 inevitable prosecution of the SDC and its legal counsel for its multiple accusations of criminal acts. 3 In fact, throughout its discourse, it is the SDC that makes multiple, significant false statements. Falsity #1: Multigroup Claimants did not "substantially refuse to respond to many of the SDC's discovery requests." Review ofMC's discovery objections reveals the fact that several SDC "document" requests were, in fact, interrogatories, or sought information relating to parties for whom MC does not even make claim for in these proceedings, e.g., Bob Ross, Inc., Feed the Children. See SDC Exh. 4 (MC responses to SDC initial and follow-up discovery). Following MC's articulated objections, the only two areas of interest for which the SDC then moved to compel production were the employment agreements of two individuals, and the legal structure of Multigroup Claimants. Ironic to the SDC's argument is that MC's document requests were effectively identical to those propounded by the SDC, yet the SDC refused to produce documents reflecting the legal structure of its claimants. The Judges ultimately compelled MC to produce documents relating to the MC legal structure, but did not compel the SDC to similarly produce such documents, holding that: 3 A false accusation of a criminal act constitutes defamation per se, for which injury is presumed and need not be proven by the offended party. See California Civil Code Section 45(a), and Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc., 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 6 "When addressing the issues of these two particular participants with regard to business ownership, relationships, and asset transfers, sauce for the goose is not, ipso facto, sauce for the gander. Cf. Order Granting In Part Settling Devotional Claimants ' Motion to Compel Production by Multigroup Claimants at p. 3 (Sept. 14, 2016), with Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Multigroup Claimants Motion to Compel Production by Settling Devotional Claimants at p. 4 (Sept. 14, 2016). Regardless of such disparate application of discovery, after being ordered to produce such documents, which the SOC did not similarly produce, MC nonetheless complied. The sole responsive document reflecting the "legal structure" of MC was a recorded filing in Bell County, Texas and was produced on September 22, 2016. See SOC Exh. 9. To MC's awareness, no further issue surrounding such matter existed. Falsity #2: MC did not "[seek] to deceive the Judges and other participants concerning the true identity of [Multigroup Claimants] and Spanish Language Producers." As part of its initial production of documents on April 6, 2016, Multigroup Claimants produced the aggregate chain-of-title for any programs claimed in this proceeding, i.e., all documents reflecting agreements amongst the underlying copyright owner claimants, IPG, SLP, and MC. Notably, the authorization and transfer documents amongst IPG, SLP, and MC clearly and conspicuously reflect the names of all signatories, including that of"Al Galaz" as a 7 signatory for SLP and MC. See SDC Exhs. 9 and 39. Notwithstanding, and without explanation, the SDC accuse that Al Galaz's identity has remained "concealed" in an attempt to "deceive the Judges and other participants". Not a single fact supports the SDC accusation, which runs contrary to the fact that all SLP and MC documentation was produced. As part of its accusation of covert activity, the SDC further charge that MC failed to produce documents relating to the legal structure of Spanish Language Producers, despite

Load more