A note from Joel

Posted by Joel Tenenbaum

With all the strangeness surrounding the case, I’ve been asked, “Joel, wouldn’t you be happier with more ..um… conventional representation?
Someone who doesn’t post everything to his blog?”  My answers:

Q:  What do you think of Nesson as a lawyer?

A: It’s really amazing the reactions he manages to elicit.  People get a few sprinkles of information about him from the articles and are confounded as to what to think of him.  Does he even know law? I can imagine people wondering.  Doesn’t he realize he’s giving away his whole case?

It amuses me how quickly people can forget A Civil Action or the Pentagon Papers when he posts audio of his wife calling his student a schmuck.

It’s remarkable just to talk with him.  I think he’s singularly talented and possesses a profound understanding of the legal concepts, principles, and how to convey them, yet has the humility to hear new opinions, especially those threatening to his own.  I’m very lucky to have him.

Q: What about posting his conversation with the copy-left, who said fair-use was a loser?  Did he have permission from you?  Do you think it’s damaging to your case that he shows this?

A: Professor Nesson has an interesting paradigm, an almost radical transparency to his actions, which is only accentuated by the plaintiffs’
penchant for secrecy.  If I have anything personal I’d like to be kept private, he respects that.  As for the legal strategy in the case, he knows I entrust him to make the best decisions concerning the privacy of the case and court filings.  Does this give away too much?

One of the axioms Professor Nesson’s teaching, which he has ardently advocated for, is the parallel of poker to law practice.  He is the founder of the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society.  Point: he knows when he’s showing too much of his hand.  So the idea that he of all people would post the debate about my defense out of some kind of negligence, because he doesn’t know any better, that’s just funny.

Q: What’s all this about Ray being a schmuck?  Does Ray care?

A: Like the rest of this, I was curious, so I actually asked Professor Nesson, “Does Ray care that your wife called him a schmuck?”

The gist was that Ray is a man with no qualms about frankly stating his opinion, which is often contrary to those around him. This makes him enormously valuable as well as frustrating.  I get the sense the kind of play associated with calling someone a schmuck happens on a regular basis, and that’s the amazing thing about Ray, Debbie, Isaac, Anna, Jen, Jimmy, Daniel, Yvette, Aaron, Matt, Charlie and Fern: that they’re comfortable enough to do that.

PS: A picture of the team — including infamous Ray — can be seen here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19502.