Back to Main Page Madeleine’s Lawyers Wendy Stryker, Ron Minkoff and Ed Hernstadt resigned from the case as a result of William’s complaints to their law firm and to the Court. fffffffff After two years of representing Madeleine in this case her lawyers Wendy Stryker, Ron Minkoff and Ed Hernstadt along with the law firm of Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein and Selz all suddenly resigned from the case with no explanation. The explanation is this. William sent a letter to the principals of Letter_to_Madi.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0
 
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK WILLIAM GALISON, Plaintiff. -v- JEFFREY A. GREENBERG, ESQUIRE, BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP, MADELEINE PEYROUX, CYNTHIA HERBST, MADELEINE PEYROUX AND ROUNDER RECORDS, Defendants. Index No. 602478/04 AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM GALISON IN RESPONSE TO AFFIRMATIONS OF RONALD MINKOFF AND WENDY STRYKER William Galison, a litigant pro se in this case swears as follows under penalty of perjury. I am the Plaintiff pro se in the above captioned matter. I submit this affidavit in response to the affirmations of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker dated October 30, 2006. CONTENTS 1) My allegations against Former Counselors for Defense are true and supported by evidence. (Pg 1) 2) There are Critical Conflicts Between the Interests of Madeleine Peyroux and Those of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. It is in Peyroux’s interest to be Released From This Case, and it is in Beldock’s Interest to Keep Peyroux in this Case. (Pg 1) 3) Ms. Peyroux Was Offered Absolute Indemnification And Release From This Case With No Legal or Financial Consequences - But This Offer Was Ignored and then Dismissed Out Of Hand By Her Attorneys Minkoff and Stryker. (Pg 5) 4) Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker Have Knowingly Betrayed the Interests Of Their Client, Ms. Peyroux, in Order To Protect the Interests of Their Recent Employer and Contemporaneous Client, Myron Beldock. (Pg 6) 5) One Week After The Misdeeds Of Counselors Stryker, Hernstadt, And Minkoff Were Reported To Their Superiors, They all Suddenly, and Without Explanation, Resigned From This Case. (Pg 7) 6) Ms. Peyroux is Now Represented By The Same Firm That Represents Co-Defendant Myron Beldock: “Mob Lawyer” Richard Ware Levitt. (Pg 8) 7) Peyroux Is Not Competent to Waive the Conflict of Interest Between Her and Mr. Beldock For Two Reasons: A) Ms. Stryker and Mr. Minkoff Misinformed Ms. Peyroux About The Facts of This Case and Withheld Critical Information From Her, in Order to Prevent Ms. Peyroux From Protecting Her Interests and to Prejudice Ms. Peyroux Against Me. (Pg 9) a) Libel Claims (Pg 9) b) Facts of the Case (Pg 12) c) Tortious Interference Claims (Pg 17) B) Madeleine Peyroux Suffers From Severe, Chronic Mental Illness 8) According To The Statement of a Mutual Friend Of Ms. Peyroux and Myself, Ms. Peyroux is No Longer in Possession Of The Computer That Has Been Ordered Sequestered By This Court. (Pg 20) 9) APPENDIX A: Response To final Paragraph of Ms. Stryker’s “Affirmation for a Protective Order” (Pg 22) 10) LIST OF EXHIBITS (Pg 29)LIST OF EXHIBITS TO “AFFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM GALISON IN RESPONSE AFFIDAVITS OF RON MINKOFF AND WENDY STRYKER” EXHIBIT A: allegations against Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker … ………… 35 EXHIBIT B: October 30. 2006 Affidavits of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker… 36 EXHIBIT C: Galison letter to Frankfurt…………………………,,...……… 37 EXHIBIT D: Galison letter to Stryker etc………………………………………….. 40 EXHIBIT E: Threat from Ronald Minkoff against me …………………………… 43 EXHIBIT F: December 19, 2003 Letter from Steven Robinson to Jeff Greenberg... 45 EXHIBIT G: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶ 544-545…………….. 48 EXHIBIT H: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶530.18 to 532.24…. 49 EXHIBIT I: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶ 233.12 – 238……… 52 EXHIBIT J: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition 523.9 – 533 ¶ ……… …56 EXHIBIT K: Transcript of Jeff Greenberg Deposition 254 ¶……………………. 57 EXHIBIT L: 5/03/05 Letter from “unthetruth” to Andrea Canter………....…….. 59 EXHIBIT M: Affidavit of Mary Elizabeth Riley……………………….……… 61 EXHIBIT N: Example of Evidence Tampering by Wendy Stryker……………….. 62 EXHIBIT O: “How Beldock, Levine and Hoffman “Lost” an entire Year of E-mail”65 EXHIBIT P: BBC News Article………………………………………………… … 68 EXHIBIT Q: Transcript of Galison’s Voice Mail to Peyroux……………………… 70 EXHIBIT R: DECEMBER 3, 2003 Letter From Steve Robinson to Greenberg…… 71 EXHIBIT S: Deposition of Rounder Records 16.17…………………………… …. 74 EXHIBIT T: October 29, 2003 letter from Ms. Peyroux to Galison (handwritten)….. 77 EXHIBIT U: May 5, 2005 letter from Ms. Peyroux to Galison……………………….80 EXHIBIT V: August 31, 2004 Letter From Ned Peyroux to Galison…………………81 EXHIBIT W: Affidavit of Harvey S. Mars……………………………………………82 EXHIBIT X: Galison Settlement Offer to Madeleine Peyroux……………………… 83 EXHIBIT Y 5/05/05 Letter From Ms. Peyroux to Andrea Canter………………… 84 EXHIBIT Z: E-mail from Ned Peyroux Aug 25 2006 8:22 AM…………………… 85 My Allegations Against Counselors Minkoff and Stryker are True and Supported by Evidence. 1) In my Memorandum of Law Opposing Motion for summary Judgment dated October 5, 2006, I made a number of allegations regarding the misconduct of Ronald Minkoff, Wendy Stryker, and Ed Hernstadt. 2) These allegations are listed on page three of the Memorandum of Law as paragraphs a through f. (see EXHIBIT “A”: allegations against Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker). 3) Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker both affirm under oath that my allegations are false and unsupported by evidence. (see EXHIBIT “B”: Affidavits of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker). 4) I hereby swear that these allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, based on the evidence I have acquired through discovery and otherwise. 5) In their affirmations of October 30, Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker indignantly claim that I have “not a scintilla of evidence” to support my allegations of wrongdoing. 6) Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker are wrong. I have ample evidence to support my allegations that Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker maliciously betrayed the interests of their client Ms. Peyroux, through deception, in order to protect the interests of their former employer and simultaneous client in another case, Myron Beldock. 7) It was not within the scope of the Opposition Memorandum to discuss all the details of the evidence regarding the allegations. Therefore, I will endeavor herein to back up my allegations, in order to counter Mr. Minkoff’s assertion that my allegations are false and unsupported. What follows is a fraction of the evidence relevant to this matter. There are Critical Conflicts Between the Interests of Madeleine Peyroux and Those of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. It is in Peyroux’s interest to be Released From This Case, and it is in Beldock’s Interest to Keep Peyroux in this Case. 8) There are fundamental conflicts of interest between co-defendants Madeleine Peyroux and Myron Beldock’s lawfirm, Beldock Levine and Hoffman. That is why, by law, Ms. Peyroux cannot be represented by Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. 9) The conflicts of interest can be summarized thus: a) It is in Ms. Peyroux’s interest to be released from all claims in this case, but it is in the interest of Beldock and Greenberg to keep Peyroux in the case so that responsibility for Beldock’s misdeeds and misrepresentations can be shunted onto Ms. Peyroux and obscured by abuse of the “client/ attorney privilege” b) The libel case is largely based on Mr. Greenberg’s statement that I “physically abused” Ms. Peyroux. Of course, Ms. Peyroux has already testified that she never told Mr. Greenberg (or anyone else) that she was “physically abused” or harmed by me in any way. It is in her interest to disassociate herself from Greenberg’s statement that I “physically abused” her by telling the court exactly what she told Greenberg, but it is in Greenberg’s interest to assert that his libelous statements were based on what Peyroux told him, which he cannot divulge due to the client / attorney privilege. c) The tortious interference claim against Ms. Peyroux originates from Greenberg’s lie to Echomusic regarding my ownership and authorship of the CD. It is in Ms. Peyroux’s interest to disassociate herself from Greenberg’s misrepresentation, by explaining that it was Greenberg, NOT Peyroux that lied to Echo. But it is in Greenberg’s interest to say that he was merely representing what Peyroux told him, which he cannot divulge due to the client/ attorney privilege. d) Madeleine Peyroux possesses knowledge and documentation of allegedly privileged correspondence documenting the actions of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman in regard to this case, which include contract fraud, perjury and many ethical infractions. It is in Ms. Peyroux’s interest to testify truthfully and to comply with discovery demand) because a) the truth will likely exculpate her, and b) the alternative is the criminal commission of perjury. But it is in the interest of Beldock and Greenberg that Ms. Peyroux does not testify truthfully and that her testimony is limited by the client/ attorney privilege. e) Most sinister of all, Ms. Peyroux’s lawyers have made wildly false and defamatory accusations to Ms. Peyroux regarding me and my actions in this case, leading Ms. Peyroux to perceive me as an enemy and to reject any conciliation (see paragraphs 43 to 53 below) But Ms. Peyroux and her lawyers are “protected” from having to disclose these falsehoods by the client attorney privilege. 1 This is the most cynical and perverted use of the client/ attorney privilege. Greenberg and Beldock are using the privilege to imply that it is Ms. Peyroux, and not them, that is responsible for the libel and tortious interference that occurred and to force Ms. Peyroux through the anguish and tremendous expense of this case. The same privilege is then used to protect the lawyer at the expense of the client. So why don’t Ms. Peyroux’s attorneys advise her to waive the client/ attorney privilege and exculpate herself? Because, as will be conclusively shown, Ms. Peyroux’s lawyers are also the lawyers for Mr. Beldock, and Mr. Beldock’s interests are far more important to them than those of Ms. Peyroux. As will be seen, this betrayal of Ms. Peyroux’s interests has been demonstrated consistently throughout these proceedings. Two Years Ago, Ms. Peyroux Was Offered Absolute Indemnification And Release From This Case With No Legal or Financial Consequences, But This Offer Was Rejected By Her Attorneys, Minkoff and Stryker 10) In January 2005, I sent Ms. Stryker a settlement proposal that offered her client, Ms. Peyroux, complete release and indemnity from this case in exchange for truthful and thorough information and documentation regarding the deeds of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman in regard to this case, including the allegedly privileged correspondence between Ms. Peyroux and BLH. (EXHIBIT “R”: Settlement agreement) 11) Ms. Stryker did not respond to that proposal in any way, until I brought it up in person at a conference, when she dismissed it out of hand, calling it “outrageous”. However, Ms. Peyroux’s attorneys have never provided any evidence that Ms. Peyroux was ever shown my proposal. As will be shown, other critical documents have been undisputedly withheld from Ms. Peyroux by her lawyers, to Ms. Peyroux’s grave detriment and immense expense (see ¶34-36). I believe that Ms. Peyroux was never shown this offer, because if she had been, and if she had been informed of the true facts of the case, it would have been clearly in her interest to accept it. 12) Ms. Peyroux has often expressed her desperate desire to be released from this case. In a letter of May 3, 2005 to the editor of JazzPolice.com, (under the pseudonym “unthetruth”) Ms, Peyroux wrote: “funny how long one is guilty until proven innocent in this system, the system that is being used to sue madeleine peyroux right now from the person with whom you took that interview [Galison]. the truth is that she has been silenced by the great unstoppable William Galison because of his own lawsuit, a lawsuit that has basically forced her into a position of slavery.” (sic). (EXHIBIT “L”). 13) This settlement I proposed would have released and indemnified Ms. Peyroux entirely from this “enslaving” and massively expensive lawsuit with no consequences to her, financial, legal or otherwise. But it would have been potentially devastating to Beldock, Levine and Hoffman, who Minkoff was simultaneously representing, and so it was rejected. 14) Moreover, if Mr. Beldock’s firm were somehow vindicated by these documents, there would have been no downside to accepting my settlement offer - all defendants would have been released and the case would have been over two years ago. Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker Have Maliciously and Knowingly Betrayed the Interests Of Their Client Ms. Peyroux, in Order to Protect the Interests of Their Recent Employer and Contemporaneous Client, Myron Beldock. 15) Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Stryker are intimately tied to Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. Both worked for Beldock, Levine and Hoffman for over seven years until recently, when they both moved together to Frankfurt, Selz and Klein. Obviously, it was Myron Beldock that recommended them to “represent” Ms. Peyroux. 16) In fact, simultaneous with his representation of Ms. Peyroux, Mr. Minkoff was also representing Mr. Beldock in another case (Trepel v. Dippold, 04 Civ. 8310), in which Mr. Beldock and his wife Karen Dippold were accused of knowingly abetting the illegal transfer of millions of dollars in assets, which had been officially seized by the District Attorney. Immediately after their bid for a summary judgment was denied, Mr. Beldock and his wife settled out of court for an undisclosed amount with which the already phenomenally wealthy Dr. Trepel was well satisfied. 17) (Under the conditions of the settlement agreement, Dr Trepel is prohibited from revealing the full extent of Mr. Beldock’s misdeeds in “Trepel v Dippold”, but he has said that if subpoenaed in this case, he would reveal to the court all of Mr. Beldock’s deeds, if I felt this would help me prove a pattern of deception and contempt against the court.) 18) By rejecting my offer of absolute indemnity and release for Ms. Peyroux, Ms. Stryker and Mr. Minkoff placed the interests of their one client, Beldock, Levine and Hoffman before those of their other client, Madeleine Peyroux. 19) Furthermore, Mr. Beldock was so afraid that Ms. Peyroux might testify against him that immediately after my settlement offer was proposed, he claims that all of the correspondence exchanged between his firm and all other parties in this case during the events of this case was destroyed. Mr. Greenberg claims in his deposition that all of this correspondence was “lost” in a “crash of his Lotus Notes program”, (EXHIBIT “O”: Greenberg depo) but that explanation is a technical impossibility. 20) Note: The full extent of spoliation of evidence by Defense and defendants is documented in my “Letter Application For Electronic Discovery”, which has been pending submission since discovery was stayed in this case in December, 2005. 21) The critical question is this: would Mr. Minkoff, who was contemporaneously acting as Mr. Beldock’s personal attorney in a criminal matter, encourage or allow his other client, Ms. Peyroux, to reveal evidence that could expose his former boss and current client, Mr. Beldock, to severe punishment and disgrace, even if that action would be in his other client (Ms. Peyroux’s) interest? Mr. Minkoff’s secret and simultaneous representation of Mr. Beldock and Ms. Peyroux for over two and a half years is blatantly unethical and improper, if not illegal. One Week After The Misdeeds Of Counselors Stryker, Hernstadt, And Minkoff Were Reported To Their Superiors, They all Suddenly Resigned From The Case. 22) On September 18, 2006, I wrote to the principals of Frankfurt, Selz to alert them to this conflict of interest and of other misdeeds by attorneys Minkoff, Stryker and Hernstadt, including proven perjury, and tampering with evidence (EXHIBIT “N”: Evidence of Tampering by Ms. Stryker). I informed them that now that these principals were aware of these misdeeds, they would also be accountable under LCPR DR7-102 (b) (EXHIBIT “C”: Galison letter to Frankfurt). I enclosed my letter to Ms. Stryker and Mr. Hernstadt and Mr. Minkoff, informing them of Ms. Peyroux’s perjurous statements (EXHIBIT “D”: Galison Letter to Stryker etc.). Mr. Minkoff promptly threatened to sue me for libel but backed down after I reminded him that his frivolous threat was in violation of LCPR rules. (EXHIBIT “E”: Letter From Minkoff). Weirdly, nearly two years after dismissing my settlement offer as “outrageous”, Minkoff suddenly said that he would consider it! (EXHIBIT “E” Letter From Minkoff) 23) One week later, on September 27, 2006, Ms. Stryker, Mr. Minkoff, Mr. Hernstadt and the firm of Frankfurt, Seltz and Klein- after nearly three years of defending Ms. Peyroux- all suddenly resigned from the case with no explanation. I contend that they are trying to avoid the consequences of their misdeeds, and of any impending Motion for Sanctions. Perhaps they are no longer willing to jeopardize their careers and reputations to protect Mr. Beldock. Or was Minkoff fired by Beldock for considering my settlement? One thing is for Certain: Ms. Peyroux did not fire Minkoff and Stryker for conflict of interest, because they were replaced by a lawyer far more threatening to her interests. This means that either Minkoff was fired by Beldock or Minkoff quit because he realized he and his firm were about to be in deep trouble. Ms. Peyroux is Now Represented By The SAME LAWYER That Represents Mr. Beldock In This Case: Bonanno Crime Family Lawyer, Richard Ware Levitt 24) Ms. Stryker, Ed Hernstadt and Mr. Minkoff have been replaced by criminal lawyer Richard Ware Levitt, best known as counsel to the Bonanno Crime Syndicate. Ms. Peyroux has gone out of the frying pan and into the fire. 25) Mr. Levitt, (who is best known for his defense of numerous Bonanno crime family capos and hit-men, and Francisco Rosario, the policeman who participated in the sexual torture of Abner Louima by and was imprisoned for lying to federal officials about the incident), ALSO REPRESENTS MR. BELDOCK IN THIS VERY CASE. The heading of the 9/29/05 deposition of Madeleine Peyroux reads: LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD WARE LEVITT Attorneys for the Defendants: JEFFREY A. GREENBERG, ESQ., BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP 148 East 78th Street New York, New York 10021 212-737-0400 26) Apart from the glaring conflict of interest between his two clients, (and the fact that he has little or no prior experience in civil law), Mr. Levitt is a poor choice as Ms. Peyroux’s lawyer for a more important reason: According to the sworn affidavit of her sister, Ms. Peyroux lied under oath in deposition about the crucial matter of her mental illness. Ms. Peyroux needs a lawyer who is either discerning, ethical or prudent enough to encourage her NOT to lie to the Court, and to expose the fraud already committed by Ms. Peyroux in accordance with LCPR DR 7-102(b) (As Stryker, Hernstadt and Minkoff have failed to do). Mr. Levitt’s unsuccessful defense of Francisco Rosario indicates that he is either so naïve that he was fooled by Mr. Rosario’s perjurous account, or so corrupt that he knowingly encouraged Rosario to lie to the FBI. 27) If Ms. Peyroux is punished for lying to the Court, that will be very bad for her, but not for Mr. Levitt’s other client, Mr. Beldock, who’s interests are clearly the primary concern of Mr. Levitt. Ms. Peyroux Is Not Competent to Waive the Conflict of Interest Between Her and Mr. Beldock for Two Reasons 28) Defense will argue that even if there is a glaring conflict of interest between BLH and Ms Peyroux, I do not have standing to assert conflict of interest. They may argue that if Ms. Peyroux is willing, for whatever reasons, to be kept in this lawsuit, jeopardize herself and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to protect Mr. Beldock and his firm, that is her prerogative. I challenge this argument on two grounds: A) Counselors Stryker, Minkoff and Hernstadt Have Misinformed Ms. Peyroux About The Facts of This Case and Withheld Critical Information From Her, Thereby Depriving Her of the Understanding Needed to Defend Her Interests, and Poisoning Her Estimation of Me. 29) According to Ms. Peyroux’s sworn testimony, her lawyers have given her false information and have withheld critical documents and information from her regarding this case. Therefore Ms. Peyroux cannot possibly make an informed decision regarding her best interests in this case. Ms. Peyroux’s Lawyers Misinformed Her About The Libel Claims 30) On December 23, 2003; four months before this case was brought, my lawyer Steve Robinson sent a letter to Beldock, Levine and Hoffman, asking them and Ms. Peyroux to recant their libelous statements against me. Mr. Robinson specifically and exclusively demanded recantation of accusations of “physical abuse” and “documented claims and threats against Ms. Peyroux and her business representatives, which caused her to contemplate filing criminal harassment charges against Mr. Galison”. (SEE EXHIBIT “F”: Letter from Steven Robinson to Jeff Greenberg) 31) According to Ms. Peyroux’s sworn testimony- over the course of two years- neither Mr. Minkoff, Wendy Stryker, Mr. Beldock, nor Mr. Greenberg have ever showed Ms. Peyroux that letter or explained that the letter specifically and exclusively demanded retraction of claims of “physical abuse” and “documented claims and threats against Ms. Peyroux and her business representatives”. 32) QUESTION: Were you ever told – did you ever learn that Mr. Galison's lawyer had demanded a retraction of the false and libelous statements that were allegedly made in this letter? MS PEYROUX: I believe I was made aware of that to some extent, not that I was aware of which statements. QUESTION: Okay. Were you -- did you ever read a copy of Mr. Robinson's response to this letter? MS PEYROUX: I don't believe so. (EXHIBIT “G” Peyroux Depo 545) 33) Ms. Peyroux testified in her deposition (pg.360 ¶6): “I've never said I was physically abused by Mr. Galison. And that's something we went over last time, and I answered the same way.” 34) At any point in the four months between Mr. Robinson’s demand and the filing of the suit, Ms. Peyroux could have removed herself from the libel claims simply by recanting the accusations of “physical abuse” and “criminal harassment. But she was prevented from asserting that prerogative, because she was never told the basis of the libel charges nor the legal definitions of “physical abuse” or “criminal harassment” by any her six lawyers; Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Beldock, Mr. Minkoff. Ms. Stryker, Ms. Scanlon or Mr. Hernstadt. 35) Had any one of these six attorneys advised Ms. Peyroux that she was being sued specifically for saying that I “physically abused” her, and that, according to a recent New York Supreme Court ruling “physical abuse’ is defined as “tantamount to assault” (Huggins v. Moore 253 A.D.2d 297, 689 N.Y.S.2d 21), and that “assault” means “physical injury”, (penal code §120) she could have admitted then, as she has since, under oath in deposition, that I never injured or harmed her in any way, and that she never told anybody that I had “physically abused” her. Thus, Ms. Peyroux would never been a party in the libel portion of this case. The entire onus of that libel claim would have fallen squarely and solely on Mr. Beldock and his firm! 36) Furthermore, the allegation that Ms. Peyroux considered pressing charges of “criminal harassment” against me is obviously Greenberg’s creation, not Peyroux’s, as Greenberg, and not Ms. Peyroux, knows that threatening to sue a manager for non-payment of an engagement does not constitute “criminal harassment”. Likewise, Myron Beldock, with 50 years of criminal law practice behind him, knows that leaving a tender, conciliatory phone message on someone’s machine after six months of no communication whatsoever does not constitute harassment of any kind, let alone “criminal”. Ironically, if Ms. Peyroux had heeded that message, she would never have been in this case at all, but Beldock recorded that message and advised her to file a criminal harassment complaint with the police. Why didn’t any of Ms. Peyroux’s lawyers tell her that my phone message could never be considered criminal harassment? Clearly, because they were in league with their recent boss and simultaneous client, Mr. Beldock. 37) Furthermore, it is evident that Ms. Peyroux did not communicate the libelous statements at issue to anyone in writing. It was Jeffrey Greenberg alone- without the authority of Peyroux- that wrote and sent the libelous statements to parties outside the legal loop. 38) I did not, nor would I ever, sue Ms. Peyroux for saying the things she says she told Greenberg, e.g. that I accidentally knocked a mirror off her windshield, or that I threatened to break my guitar, or even for saying that I threatened to crash the car I was driving, even though that statement was false. 39) I SUED MS. PEYROUX SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE HER LAWYER, JEFFREY GREENBERG, WROTE THAT HE HAD “OBTAINED EVIDENCE, DIRECTLY AND FROM MS. PEYROUX”, OF NUMEROUS INCIDENTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE and “documented claims and threats against Ms. Peyroux …which caused her to contemplate filing criminal harassment charges against Mr. Galison”, sent these libelous statements to members of my professional community, and refused to retract these statements for four months, prior to the filing of the initial complaint and to this very day. 40) As we now know from the testimonies of Greenberg and Peyroux, Greenberg never had any “evidence” of physical abuse directly, from Peyroux, or otherwise. Regarding the “documented claims and threats”, Ms. Peyroux confirms that there were no “documented” claims or threats and that the only undocumented “threat” was the threat of a lawsuit for non-payment of debts, which, as Mr. Greenberg knows, in no way constitutes “criminal harassment” (SEE EXHIBIT “H”: Transcript of Peyroux’s deposition regarding “Criminal Harassment”. Nor has Mr. Greenberg produced any documents.) 41) The only possible explanation why Ms. Peyroux’s six lawyers have not given Ms. Peyroux the opportunity to retract the libelous statements and be removed from the libel case is that they are using Ms. Peyroux to absorb the blame for Beldock’s misdeeds, at enormous expense, anguish, and jeopardy to Ms. Peyroux. This manipulation is what I referred to as “using Ms. Peyroux as a human shield”. 42) The above notwithstanding, I am seeking damages from Ms. Peyroux because for the past three years, she has not yet publicly recanted the allegations of physical abuse, etc. made by her lawyer Jeffrey Greenberg and distributed among my professional community by him. Unfortunately, because Defense has managed to stay discovery for the past 15 months, Ms. Peyroux was never given the chance to complete her deposition and potentially to exculpate herself from this case once and for all. Ms. Peyroux’s Lawyers Misinformed Her about the Basic Facts of This Case. 43) At her deposition of August 30, 2005, nearly TWO YEARS after the libelous and tortiously interfering letters were written by Mr. Greenberg, Ms. Peyroux revealed that she has an entirely false understanding of why those letters were written, why Rounder threatened to cancel her contract and why she was being sued by me. 44) She testified unambiguously that she was told that Rounder Records nearly cancelled her contract because I had threatened a lawsuit against Ms. Peyroux for breaching a contract with me: “….William Galison was threatening to Rounder that I had breached my contract with [Galison and Laura Minor] by signing a contract with Rounder. [Galison and Laura Minor] were threatening various other things related to that accusation including lawsuits. And as a result of that, my understanding is that at the time that this letter was written, Rounder had directly -- and this is my understanding at the time the letter was written, that Rounder had directly decided to end my contract then immediately as a result of the statements that they were getting from Ms. Minor and Mr. Galison” (EXHIBIT “I” Peyroux depo 234). In her second deposition, Ms. Peyroux adds: “they also were threatening Rounder with a lawsuit at the time and claims that I had made those commitments to him to Rounder.” (EXHIBIT “J”: Peyroux deposition (p. 532 ¶9) Ms. Peyroux reasserts this confirms this at p. 526. ¶25 “So I do believe that what was said to Rounder Records was that I had made a commitment to tour this record, that I had hired William Galison as a producer, that I had committed to this other agent to tour, and various things that were a breach of my contract with Rounder Records, okay, specifically.” 45) Ms. Peyroux’s understanding of the origins of this case is entirely false and “off the wall”. Neither I, nor Ms. Minor have never accused Ms. Peyroux of breaching a contract. Moreover, no lawsuit against Rounder or Ms. Peyroux was ever threatened, mentioned or implied by me or my representatives. In fact, my entire position regarding the CD was spelled out precisely and explicitly in the December 3, 2003 letter from my lawyer Steve Robinson to Mr. Greenberg (EXHIBIT “R”). However, according to Ms. Peyroux, none of Ms. Peyroux’s six lawyers have ever shown her the letter from Robinson, to which the December 17th letter was a direct response. 46) Likewise, neither I, Ms. Minor, nor anyone else, ever told Rounder that a contract between Ms. Peyroux and I had been broken or that any “lawsuits” were threatened by me or my representatives before the libelous letter was sent. So where did Ms. Peyroux receive this entirely false information? 47) It was her lawyers, Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Beldock, and her manager, Cynthia Herbst that conspired to convince Ms. Peyroux that Rounder threatened to cancel her contract because I had threatened a lawsuit. Moreover, it was, and continues to be, Mr. Minkoff, Ms. Stryker, Mr. Hernstadt (and presumably Mr. Levitt) who have perpetuated this lie to Ms. Peyroux over the past three years. In all that time, they have never told Ms. Peyroux the real reason why Rounder threatened to cancel her contract, which is that Jeffrey Greenberg lied to Rounder about my ownership of GYOMM, and Rounder found out. 48) QUESTION: And you got that [the story that Rounder was told that Peyroux had a contract with Galison ] from your lawyer? MR. FRIEDMAN: Hold it. MS. STRYKER: Objection. I believe that you're now inviting her to breach attorney-client privilege. You know, she gave the understanding. MS PEYROUX: I got that from more than one source. QUESTION: Okay. Someone besides your lawyer? Well, let me ask it in a proper way. Did you get that -- who did you get that information from? And if you got that information from your lawyer, don't tell me. And if you got that information from your lawyer, don't tell me. MS PEYROUX: Thank you. I do believe that I got that information from my manager. (EXHIBIT “I”: Peyroux Depo (p 235 ¶16) 49) Ms. Peyroux was misinformed by “more than one source”. One source was her manager. The other source, (or sources) was manifestly her lawyer- (or lawyers)- because she was required to tell every source of that information except her lawyer(s), and she named only one person, her manager, Cynthia Herbst. Far more disturbing is the fact that none of the six lawyers who have represented Ms. Peyroux have ever disabused her of this false understanding of the reason she has been in court for the past three years and has paid them hundreds of thousand of dollars in fees. 50) Mr. Greenberg himself testified that I “interfered” with Ms. Peyroux’s contract with Rounder ONLY by announcing that I was going to release the CD, and for no other reason. He claims that this is why he frivolously threatened to sue me for tortuous interference with contract - NOT because I had falsely claimed that Ms. Peyroux had breached a contract with me or threatened any lawsuit against Peyroux or Rounder: QUESTION: What independent wrong or tortious means did [Galison] use to procure [Peyroux’s] breach of that contract? GREENBERG: He put out a record, okay, other than at a live -- he was proposing to sell the record for retail, you know, other than for sale at live shows with a misrepresentation to other labels apparently, because it had been the rights to do so with knowledge that he didn't and it wasn't cleared. QUESTION: Anything else? GREENBERG: That's what it sounded like happened. (EXHIBIT “K”: Greenberg depo p. 254 ) 51) But Ms. Peyroux testifies that her understanding was THE EXACT OPPOSITE; that she believed that my releasing the CD was NOT in violation of her contract with Rounder. She makes this crystal clear in her deposition: Q: Okay. But you've told me that your understanding was that William selling that record nationally wouldn't violate your agreement with Rounder, right? PEYROUX: Yes, I did say that. Yeah, that's right. Q: Because you didn't feel like when you signed the contract, you were compromising in any way his rights to sell the album? PEYROUX: That's correct. (Peyroux Deposition 240.24- 241.11) Clearly, Ms. Peyroux did not think that my releasing the CD had anything to do with Rounder canceling her contract. She thought it was about threats of lawsuits, because that is what she has been told by her lawyers for over three years. 52) By lying to Ms. Peyroux that Rounder’s imminent cancellation of her contract arose from wrongful threats from me, Ms. Peyroux’s lawyers achieved two goals: a) they poisoned Ms. Peyroux’s feelings about me by convincing her that I tried to torpedo her career, and; b) they deflected the blame for Rounder’s threatened cancellation away from Mr. Greenberg, thus preventing her from recognizing the conflict of interest between her and Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. 53) Ms. Stryker’s efforts to poison Ms. Peyroux’s estimation of have been horribly effective. Whatever Ms. Peyroux was told about me by her lawyers, moved Ms. Peyroux to write the following: which was enclosed in Ms. Stryker’s letter of 5/9/05 (EXHIBIT U: Handwritten letter from Peyroux) 54) “To William Galison- I never knew someone could be capable of what you have done, what you have become. You give new meaning to darkness for the human race. I don’t ever intend to work with you again, moreover, that was a decision made by you long ago before your attacks on me by suing. Everything about you is destructive and despicable to me. There is nothing you could ever do to change that now except to go away and leave me alone forever. Seeing you in New Orleans just made it more clear how I feel about you. Don’t ever call on me, my friends, or my family again. This is taken by me as harassment and stalking- a manipulative way to get to me, and you mean me harm. There is nothing about you that doesn’t mean me harm in fact. If you had any human compassion at all, I’d never have had to explain in this letter how much we’re through. Forever, Madeleine Peyroux.” 55) Contrast this vitriolic letter with the prior communication from Ms. Peyroux to me; the loving, remorseful and conciliatory letter written on October 29th 2003. (SEE EXHIBIT T): 56) October 29th 2003 2:20 AM Brooklyn Dear William, How will we be as old friends; self righteous and smug with satisfaction? Not with so much living yet to be done. You must forgive and forget- forgive some part of me at least, and begin again. You must know that I do you- that we are friends already, even now as I am writing, because everything is eternal. It is all I can do to try to lighten the burden of the past right now. I don’t ask that you change your mind or yourself, or the things in which you believe; just that you’ll turn back with one second glance on everything. Because I have every reason to believe that all it takes is a small position of peace to heal our rift. Please- to consider it is to see the possibility! We are all human, no better and no worse. And this is the only reason that I propose all of this will seem someday so much smaller to you and to me and that the good parts, so much bigger. I can’t pretend that I don’t regret all of the awful results of our shared past together. And what’s more, how lonely guilt is! Sometimes, I have the notion, that the facts are as plain as the nose on one’s face and we don’t always see them. Were there a magic wand that could solve this kind of trouble, I guess the keeper of the wand would be a deceivingly gentle giant. Then again, old friend, I guess they always are. Just as I am sure that things like friendship are eternal (light stronger than dark etc.)- I believe there will be many many more chances after this little one, to make amends. Of course I hope that between the sooner and the later, you will choose the sooner. I respect and admire you deeply for all that you have been through with me. If you can make this the last thing you do for me, the world will be a better place. Madeleine Let it be forgotten Let it be forgotten, as a flower is forgotten Forgotten as a fire that once was singing gold, Let it be forgotten for ever and ever Time is a kind friend, he will make us old If anyone asks, say it was forgotten Long and long ago, As a flower, as a fire, as a hushed footfall In a long-forgotten snow. By Sarah Teasdale. (See EXHIBIT U: Original Oct 29 letter From Peyroux to Galison) 57) BESIDES THE PROVEN FALSEHOOD THAT I HAD JEOPARDIZED MS PEYROUX’S CONTRACT BY THREATENING LAWSUITS AGAINST ROUNDER, WHAT OTHER FALSEHOODS DID MS. PEYROUX’S LAWYERS TELL MS. PEYROUX ABOUT ME THAT CHANGED MS. PEYROUX’S ATTITUDE FROM THE AFFECTION AND REMORSE OF THE OCTOBER 2003 LETTER TO THE VENOM AND HATE OF THE MAY 2005 LETTER? 58) In her deposition, Ms. Peyroux testified why her venomous letter was written: “[Galison] also contacted my sister and asked for -- asked her to sign for -- use a signed affidavit of herself in regards to this lawsuit as a character witness against me. And he also continued to call my brother long after that to talk to him about this lawsuit, and, of course, was -- kind of had been contacting my mother. The extent to which he's contacted my family about this lawsuit especially during that time that we were dealing with – during the entire year, actually, that I was dealing with my father's cancer, his illness and then his death was – not only was it unnecessary, but I was -- this letter is a direct response to that behavior.”1 59) Whatever the real reasons were for the venomous letter, they had absolutely nothing to do with my contact with Ms. Peyroux’s family. For one thing, the affidavit from Ms. Reilly wasn’t requested or written for well over a year after Ms. Peyroux’s letter was written. Moreover, I did not coerce Ms. Reilly into writing the affidavit; she furnished the affidavit willingly and offered to testify at the trial or any evidentiary hearing because she is concerned for her sister’s well-being. Ms. Reilly and I both want Ms. Peyroux to disentangle herself from the treacherous cabal with whom she is associated, and who cultivate the very worst attributes of Ms. Peyroux. We also want Ms. Peyroux to take responsibility for her mental health and her tendency to harm others. 60) My prior contacts with Ms. Westgate took place nine months before the death of Ms. Peyroux’s father, and four month after his death respectively, and thus could not have elicited this letter. (Presumably, that is what Ms. Peyroux meant by “kind of contacted my mother”). I did speak to Peyroux’s brother, Ned Peyroux around the time of her father’s death, about his father’s death and about the lawsuit, but those conversations were the continuation of a fond and trusting relationship that began months before, and during which Ned sent me e-mails asking if he could stay with me for several weeks, while he searched for a job (because he did not want to stay with his sister, Ms. Peyroux). (Exhibit W: Letter from Ned Peyroux to Galison). My failure to call Ned, at the time of his father’s death, would have been a dereliction of my friendship with him. Phone records prove that our conversations at this time lasted over an hour, which indicates that Ned Peyroux was more than willing to speak with me- otherwise he would have hung up. 61) Furthermore, the affectionate e-mail of 8/25/06 from Ned Peyroux (EXHIBIT Y) to me shows that there was never any animus between us, even two and a half years into the lawsuit and over a year after Ms. Peyroux’s hateful letter was written. 62) Furthermore, The only communications or contact from me to Ms. Peyroux between August 2003 and the present, were the phone messages recorded by Myron Beldock and the note that I handed to a security guard at a Jazz festival where we were both performing which stated simply “Call me if you want to talk” (see Appendix A §7). 63) Other than Ms. Peyroux‘s provably false reasons above, there are no allegations or suggestions by Defense that I did anything that negatively affected Ms. Peyroux in the nineteen months between the two letters, other than defend myself against libelous allegation of physical abuse and libelous claims of copyright violation by Peyroux’s lawyers. Clearly, Ms. Peyroux wrote that letter because Ms. Stryker encouraged her to do so. If that were not the case, what responsible lawyer would possibly allow the enclosure of such a scrawled, hyperbolic and disturbed sounding letter along with a legal document? If there is any doubt that Ms. Peyroux was suffering from an episode of mental illness at the exact time Ms. Stryker exhorted her to write the letter of 5/5/05, consider the incoherent, disjointed e-mail Ms. Peyroux wrote ON THE SAME DAY to Andrea Canter, the editor of the internet news magazine “Jazzpolice.com”. (EXHIBIT Y: Peyroux 5/5/05 Letter to Andrea Canter) 64) Mental illness aside, the venom and blind fury behind Ms. Peyroux’s letter to me of May 5 is born of the incredible strain and expense this lawsuit has forced her to suffer through- strain and expense that she has suffered ONLY because her “counselors” Stryker, Minkoff, Hernstadt and Scanlon have conspired to betray her interests over the past three years. Ms. Peyroux’s Lawyers Misinformed Her About The Tortious Interference Claims 65) My claims of tortious interference against Ms. Peyroux are based on the fact that she used “wrongful means” to interfere with my contract with distributors. However, the “wrongful means” we cited were specifically Greenberg’s misrepresentation to my distributors that “Got You On My Mind” was owned by Ms. Peyroux and not by me. “We are writing to advise you that sales of the Album by echomusic.com and the WG Website … are violative of Ms. Peyroux's rights, including without limitation, her ownership rights in seven of the recordings on the Album (the "Masters"), [and] her authorship rights in a composition on the album (the "Composition)….Such sales would also interfere with the contractual relations of Ms. Peyroux and Rounder Records” 66) No one suggests that Ms. Peyroux communicated directly with these distributors about subtleties of copyright law. Ms. Peyroux is a defendant in this case only because Mr. Greenberg says she told him that I had no ownership rights, despite her sworn affidavit to the contrary, and that I interfered with her contract with Rounder, which is utter nonsense. In fact it was Greenberg alone and not Peyroux that threatened my distributors and told them that I was not owner and author, etc. 67) Likewise, it was Greenberg, NOT Ms. Peyroux, that told Rounder that the CD belonged solely to Ms. Peyroux and that I was merely an “accompanying musician”. That is made crystal clear by the deposition of Marty Willard, House attorney to Rounder: QUESTION NO. 19: Set forth the basis for your sworn statement in your declaration that: "at or about the time Rounder entered into the contract with Peyroux, Rounder knew that Peyroux had recorded the seven demonstration recordings with Galison as an accompanying musician, which Peyroux was going to sell as a seven-song EP only at her live shows". A: “The basis of my understanding was information that I obtained from Jeff Greenberg, who is Peyroux's attorney” Mr. Willard also affirms that he never discussed the ownership of the CD (or anything else) with Peyroux: “As I said above, I don't recall ever having any communications of any kind with Madeleine Peyroux”. (Rounder Depo p.14 ¶18) 68) It was, however, Ms. Peyroux who supplied the affidavit to Judge Stanton admitting that I was indeed the joint owner of the recordings and the co-author of a song thereon, in direct contradiction to Greenberg’s allegations. Had Ms. Peyroux been told that she was being sued because Greenberg had lied about my ownership, she would have written that affidavit five months earlier and would not now be a defendant in the tortuous interference case. Why didn’t Beldock, Greenberg, Minkoff , Stryker ever tell her to do that? MADELEINE PEYROUX IS A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE ONLY BECAUSE HER LAWYERS ARE USING HER AS A “HUMAN SHIELD” TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THEIR OTHER CLIENT, MYRON BELDOCK AND HIS FIRM. B) Madeleine Peyroux Suffers From Severe and Chronic Mental Illness 69) According to her sister’s sworn deposition, at the time of the events of this case, Ms. Peyroux was taking medication for ---------- mental illness, specifically ------------, --------------medication that is indicated uniquely for ---------------- and -----------. Both ------------ and -------- ----------------are chronic conditions which can be treated but never cured. Her mental condition makes her especially dependent on other people, and thus an ideal victim for manipulation. Her condition does not prevent Ms. Peyroux from being a brilliant artist, but she is not competent to decide what is in her best legal interest, especially against the coordinated, malicious influence and deception of at least six powerful lawyers with hidden agendas. The only person who could make this decision for her would be an independent lawyer who is not beholden to, influenced by, or in the employment of Mr. Beldock. 70) Ms. Peyroux’s sister’s affidavit (EXHIBIT “M”) constitutes “compelling evidence” that Ms. Peyroux was not telling the truth and was indeed suffering from severe, chronic mental illness at the time of the events of this case. As is known to the court and the public, Ms. Peyroux’s mental illness has resulted in ------------- many subsequent episodes of ------------and self-destructive behavior. 71) Despite Ms. Stryker’s refusal to let Ms. Peyroux tell the truth about her history mental illness, Ms. Peyroux has been forthcoming in the past. In a letter to me she wrote “Ten years ago -------------. My mother was there at the time and it was she who put me in the hospital without my consent.” 72) More recently, in August 2005, Ms. Peyroux “disappeared” for a week during one of her tours, disrupting scheduled appearances and causing her record company to hire a private detective to search for her. (EXHIBIT “P”: BBC NEWS STORY) 73) Ms. Peyroux’s sister and I do not mention Ms. Peyroux’s mental illness in order to insult or demean her. We both recognize that mental illness is neither a choice nor a character flaw, and that tens of millions of Americans suffer from it. I do not believe that Ms. Peyroux is entirely innocent in this matter, but I am certain her actions have been largely influenced and motivated by misinformation told her by her attorneys. With a history of ----------------------------- episodes, it is imperative that Ms. Peyroux be protected from the potentially dire consequences of the ongoing betrayal by her attorneys. 74) It is this court’s moral responsibility to assure that Ms. Peyroux’s legal and personal fate is not in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers who would sacrifice her interests and future to those of their equally unscrupulous colleagues. According To The Statement of a Mutual Friend Of Ms. Peyroux and Myself, Ms. Peyroux is No Longer in Possession Of The Computer That Has Been Sequestered By This Court. 75) Sean Wayland, a mutual friend of Ms. Peyroux and myself, recently helped Ms. Peyroux move her possessions from one apartment in Brooklyn to another. When I asked Mr. Wayland if he remembered seeing the large and heavy computer tower (that was sequestered by this court) when he moved Ms. Peyroux’s possessions, he said that he had not, and that he would have certainly been aware of such a machine, because he carried the heavy objects. 76) Based on Mr. Wayland’s report, I believe that Ms. Peyroux has been advised by her lawyers to dispose of the computer, presumably without Ms. Peyroux’s understanding of the legal consequences of such disposal. If this is the case, Ms. Peyroux and her counsel must be charged with the criminal charge of destruction of evidence. The destruction of Ms. Peyroux’s computer would be consistent with Mr. Beldock’s other efforts to destroy all evidence of his firm’s wrongdoing. If defense can provide proof that this computer is still uncompromised and available for inspection, then this allegation will be withdrawn. All that would have been necessary to preempt this allegation is an account of the computers whereabouts and condition, but defense has never provided this information over the past two years. The Premature Summary Judgment is a Ploy by Defense to Avoid The Consequences of Their Actions 78) Finally, I believe that Ms. Peyroux’s lawyers have requested a wildly premature summary judgment with the hope that the destruction of evidence and other wrongdoings, and the consequences thereof will be “swept under the rug” by a wrongful upholding of that summary judgment. 79) In my opinion, Mr. Minkoff, Ms. Stryker and their colleagues should be subject to the most severe disciplinary sanctions available, up to and including disbarment, and appropriate criminal punishment, because they have violated the most fundamental and sacred duty of their profession; to defend the interests of their client. Signed, William Galison APPENDIX A to Affidavit in Response to Affirmations of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker

Response To Paragraph Five of Ms. Stryker’s “Affirmation for a Protective Order” Because the above affidavit primarily addresses the crucial issue of Ms. Peyroux’s Counselors’ betrayal of her interests in favor of those of Mr. Beldock, I have separated that argument from the response to Ms. Stryker’s other false statements as put forth in ¶5 of her affirmation: “ Specifically, I have not withheld any letters or settlement offers from Ms. Peyroux: I have not directed Ms. Peyroux to destroy any evidence or to lie at any time; and I have not made any misleading assertions to this court or to Mr. Galison” This statement may be broken down into its constituent assertions as follows: 1) “I have not withheld any letters from Ms. Peyroux” This sworn statement is false. According to Ms. Peyroux’s deposition, Ms. Stryker withheld at least two critical letters from Ms. Peyroux: a) the letter from Steve Robinson explaining my position regarding the commercialization of the CD “Got You On My Mind”. (EXHIBIT “R” of Affidavit) b) the letter from Steven Robinson demanding the recantation of specific libelous statements, including the terms, “physical abuse” and “criminal harassment”. (EXHIBIT “F” of Affidavit) As discussed in the Affidavit above, Ms. Peyroux was never shown these crucial letters, either of which would have disabused her of false information she received from her lawyers and managers, including Ms. Stryker. It is certain that Ms. Stryker possessed these documents, and therefore she withheld them from Ms. Stryker. As explained above, as a result of Ms. Stryker withholding these letters from Ms. Peyroux, Ms. Peyroux has been denied the chance to extricate herself from this case, thereby spending massive legal fees (to Ms. Stryker!!) and has been embroiled in an emotionally devastating legal battle for over three years, She has also been laboring under the painful and destructive misconception that her former partner (me) tried to maliciously undermine her relationship with Rounder Records, causing Rounder to threaten her contract (See Affidavit ¶54) . In actuality, of course, Rounder threatened to pull her contract because Mr. Greenberg had lied to them about my ownership of the CD; 2) “I have not withheld any settlement offer from Peyroux”: In light of the fact that Ms. Stryker’s statement regarding the withholding of letters is patently false, this statement must be held in question and must be backed up by evidence. Despite their indignant assertions that they showed my settlement offer to Ms. Peyroux, Ms. Stryker, Mr. Minkoff Mr. Hernstadt, and Ms. Scanlon have failed to provide the briefest affidavit from Ms. Peyroux, proving that she was shown the settlement offer and that she understood its conditions and terms. Furthermore, not one term or condition of this offer was ever negotiated or discussed, even though this offer would have released Ms. Peyroux from this case with complete indemnification. Days before he left -or was fired by Beldock from- the case, Mr. Minkoff suddenly offered to negotiate a settlement based on my proposal. Why did this offer take over two years, and come immediately after my exposition of his misdeeds to his superiors? Moreover, even if Ms. Peyroux had been shown the settlement offer, she would have been disinclined to agree to it, because according to her testimony, she was given entirely false explanation of why she was being sued in the first place. If Peyroux had been told that I had undermined her career by lying to Rounder, she would naturally be disinclined to apologize to me. But if she knew the truth, that Rounder threatened to cancel her contract due to Greenberg’s lie, then she may have felt remorse. Likewise, if Ms. Peyroux had been told the true definition of the terms “physical abuse” and “criminal harassment” by Ms. Stryker or any of her other five lawyers, she would have thought it pragmatic to recant that statement and to be released entirely from litigation. 3) “I have not directed Ms. Peyroux to destroy any evidence” My allegation that Ms. Stryker has counseled Ms. Peyroux to destroy the computer that holds the correspondence between Ms. Peyroux and Mr. Beldock. My argument is set forth in paragraphs 73-77 of the affidavit above. 4) “I have not made misleading statements to this court” This statement is misleading. Ms. Stryker has made many misleading statements to this court, including but not limited to, the following. MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO THIS COURT IN STRYKER’S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER. In Ms. Stryker’s affirmation for a protective order alone there are at least half a dozen misleading statements to this court: a) “Mr. Galison responded by complaining that I was a “liar” (¶6 Stryker Aff for protective order) As I have stressed ad nauseum, the transcript of the 12/7/05 conference proves conclusively, once and for all, that this statement is false. Any grade school student knows that quotation marks indicate the exact words spoken, but I did not call Ms. Stryker a “liar” or any synonym thereof. What puts this statement beyond “misleading” and into the realm of “perjurous” is that Ms. Stryker clearly conspired with her colleague Leon Friedman to affirm that they both clearly heard me call her a “liar”, with the implication that I was rude or insulting. In fact, there is nothing rude or insulting about anything I said at that conference, which is proven beyond question by the transcript. b) “Since the mediation, Mr. Galison has continued to act in an abusive and harassing manner. At several depositions, when we were alone in a conference room, Mr. Galison called me a “liar”…. (¶4 Stryker Aff for protective order) If Ms. Stryker is willing to affirm under oath and with the sworn corroboration of a fellow attorney that I called her a “liar”, when I unequivocally did not do so, why should this court believe that I called a Ms. Stryker a ”liar” when we were “alone in a conference room”? Revealingly, the only example of abusive and harassing behavior by me is my use of the word “liar”, which, as has been established, indicates something else entirely. c) Mr. Galison …raised his voice and accused me of being a “liar”. (¶5 Stryker Aff for protective order) What does Ms. Stryker mean by the use of quotation marks? Given the vast distance between what I said at the December 7th conference and the actual use of the word “liar”, it appears that Ms. Stryker employs quotation marks to imply the utterance of something far more benign and inoffensive than the quotation-marked term. So what did I say to Ms. Stryker while we were alone in a conference room? Considering what I said on December 7th, who cares? d) “I have been asked by Ms. Peyroux’s brother and mother to advise Mr. Galison that they no longer wish to receive his telephone calls and emails.” The recent affectionate e-mail from Ms. Peyroux’s brother Ned proves that this statement is false in the case of Ned Peyroux. (EXHIBIT “Z”: August 2006 e-mail from Ned Peyroux to William Galison) The falseness of statement “d” is further discussed in ¶57-60 of the affidavit above. Regarding Ms. Peyroux’s mother Dierdre Westgate; Ms. Westgate has never indicated to me that she does not want me to contact her, despite my asking her specifically to tell me if she would like me to cease communication. In my e-mail of 3/29/04 I wrote: “If you would like me to not contact you again please let me know and I promise I will cease communication immediately and if you like, permanently…. I repeat that if would like me to not contact you further- I will cease immediately and permanently. Just let me know.” Ms. Westgate has not responded over the past three years, but she forwarded all of my e-mails to Mr. Greenberg (as was disclosed in discovery). Far from wanting me to stop sending e-mails, she was trying to aid Greenberg by collecting and forwarding my e-mails to be used as “evidence” against me. Ms. Stryker had two objectives in making this downright false statement regarding the wishes of Ms. Peyroux’s family. One was to fool the court into thinking that Ms. Peyroux’s family finds me threatening. In fact, I speak with Ms. Peyroux’s sister, my dear friend Mary Reilly, several times a week and she is looking forward to testifying on my behalf in this case. The other was to prevent me from communicating the true facts of this case to Ms. Peyroux via her family. Ms. Stryker likewise tried to prevent me from speaking to anyone who could communicate the true circumstances of the case to Ms. Peyroux by writing: “Please advise your client that we hereby demand that he immediately cease and desist from… making any effort, directly or indirectly to contact her family, friends or business associates…If Mr. Galison continues this course of conduct, we will not hesitate to take any and all appropriate action…including…commencing legal action” (see example 5/9/ 2005). I should add that according to Ms. Reilly, Ms. Peyroux refuses to discuss any aspect of the case with her- certainly because Ms. Stryker has instructed her not to discuss the case with her. I HEREBY CONFESS to have directly contacted Ms. Peyroux’s friends and family on hundreds of occasions since Ms. Stryker’s threat was made, but Ms. Stryker and Ms. Peyroux have clearly “hesitated” from commencing legal action. Hence, this threat is a false, misleading statement made only to threaten and intimidate. b) “[Galison] moved to stand very close to me and tower over me, shook a finger in my face, yelled at me and accused me of “selling my client down the river”…I found Mr. Galison’s behavior quite threatening, because he was emotionally out-of-control…” The sworn affidavit of Mr. Harvey Mars, who is not my lawyer and currently has no allegiance to me or this case, is powerful evidence that Ms. Stryker is misleading the court by making me sound like a dangerous person. Mr. Mars affirms: “I was present during the conversation to which Ms. Stryker refers…at no time did [Mr. Galison] behave toward [Ms. Stryker] in a threatening manner. Certainly, if he had, I would have moved to intervene, which Ms. Stryker acknowledges I did not do.” (See: Exhibit “W” of Affidavit: Affirmation of Harvey Mars) c) “after period of time, Judge Cahn asked Mr. Friedman and me to join him, and explained that he was about to enter a protective order [against Galison].” This single sentence is misleading in two ways. - The statement is designed to make the Court believe that Judge Cahn placed a “protective order” on me for no reason, when in fact Judge Cahn said: “In view of the things I have heard here today I am going to do a number of things…I will put on the record outside an equivalent of an order of protection, but, you know, if you want more, you are going to have to formally ask it”, Obviously “the things I have heard today” refer to what was told him by defense. - Whatever an “equivalent of an order of protection” is, it is not a protective order –as Judge Cahn emphatically points out. There was no formal request, no evidentiary hearing, and no order of protection. All there was was an improper, ex-parte meeting. d) “We returned to the open court, where Judge Cahn put the protective order on the record.” Does Your Honor know of a protective order against me “on the record”? Is the record she mentions talking about the same record of which Mr. Friedman said: “I affirm under penalty of perjury that I have no knowledge of any such secret transcript “? How is it that Ms. Stryker had knowledge of a record that Mr. Friedman had no knowledge of? The purpose of this false statement is to imply that there was still a protective order against me in place when their affirmation for a protective order to Your Honor was submitted, which there was not, That is a “misleading statement” if there ever was one. OTHER MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY MS. STRYKER: Following are a few other misleading statements by Ms. Stryker to the court: e) STRYKER ACCUSES GALISON OF HARASSMENT AGAINST ROUNDER On May 6, 2004, Peyroux’s attorney Wendy Stryker requested from Judge Louis L. Stanton “a protective order to prevent Galison from continuing his campaign of harassing communications with Rounder…” From: Stryker letter to of 5/6/04 to Judge Stanton. She wrote: “Throughout March and April 2004, Galison continued to make harassing phone calls to Rounder executives and employees in which he threatened litigation against Peyroux and Greenberg, discussed his pending disciplinary complaint against Greenberg and insisted on discussing his former relationship with Peyroux. Galison continued to make harassing phone calls and send harassing e-mails to various high level executives …” -After reviewing the entire e-mail communication between me and Rounder (which I provided), Judge Stanton rejected Stryker’s request for a protective order, commenting that my communications to Rounder appeared to be an attempt to avoid litigation against Peyroux. Greenberg or Rounder, and could not be considered harassing in any way. -Rounder executives never characterized my phone calls as “harassing”. Rounder Record’s founder Ken Irwin, after speaking with me for over an hour in our only conversation wrote: “I enjoyed our conversation and was sympathetic to your situation. ….I wish you well and feel badly that you find yourself in the situation you are in.” f) Most seriously; Ms. Stryker has also tampered with evidence, which is certainly “misleading the court”. (see EXHIBIT “N” of Affidavit) 5) “I have not made misleading statements to Mr. Galison” Ms. Stryker has never written to me directly, so it is technically true that she has not made misleading statements to me, but she made many misleading statements to my former attorney, Harvey Mars. Her objective was clearly to prejudice Mr. Mars against me and to intimidate me with frivolous threats of criminal prosecution. a) “as you know, Ms. Peyroux’s testimony is currently protected by the Confidentiality Stipulation and Order in this case, and Mr. Galison’s provision of this material to Boston magazine constitutes a clear violation of that order.”…. “As soon as the stay in this case is lifted, we will move to seek any and all appropriate remedies, including contempt and/or sanctions. a) The frivolity of this allegation is further addressed in my AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER and was acknowledged by Your Honor’s decision regarding Defense’s frivolous protective order of 7/10/06. Suffice it to say; a) the deposition was not covered by a Confidentiality Stipulation, b) my provision of material to Boston Magazine was not in violation of anything and c) neither contempt nor sanctions have been sought. Ms. Stryker’s entire letter was nothing but bullying, misleading bluster. Regarding the threat of contempt and sanctions; this is yet another example of Defense’s pattern of improper threats and intimidation. 7) STRYKER ACCUSES GALISON OF “A PATTERN OF HARRASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION” AGAINST PEYROUX. In her 5/9/05 letter to my then attorney Harvey Mars Ms. Stryker wrote: “We write to bring to your attention to several recent incidents involving your client, William Galison, which establish that your client has not ceased the pattern of harassment and intimidation he commenced against Ms. Peyroux in or about July 2003. The weekend of April 30, 2005, Mr. Galison followed Ms. Peyroux to her live performance at the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. There, Mr. Galison deliberately placed himself in front of the stage to make sure Ms. Peyroux knew he was there. Moreover, after the performance, Mr. Galison approached Ms. Peyroux’s family members and band who were present, and passed Ms. Peyroux a note through a fan asking her to call him. These actions reasonably caused Ms. Peyroux to feel harassed and threatened, and disrupted her ability to perform.” Following are just a few of the misleading statements in this paragraph: -Apart from depositions, Galison only saw Ms. Peyroux on only ONE occasion between August 2003 and December 2005 (and, in fact, the present). Ms. Peyroux’s affectionate letter of October 29th, 2003, proves that up to this date she perceived no harassment or intimidation from me. (EXHIBIT “T”) -The one occasion I saw Ms. Peyroux was at a Jazz festival in New Orleans at which I had performed days before. I had been staying in New Orleans over a week before Ms. Peyroux arrived, so in no way did not “follow” her there. I was sitting together with his long-term (and current) girlfriend in the front row of a tent auditorium, because that is where there were two seats available together. I had no communication with Ms. Peyroux, whatsoever, with words nor gestures, as my girlfriend can corroborate. -After the show, I handed a note to a security guard, not a “fan”, and asked that it be given to Ms. Peyroux. As Ms, Peyroux testified: “Mr. Galison passed a note to me through someone in the audience with his phone number on a postcard saying contact me or something to that effect.” The exact words on the note were: “Call me if you want to talk” with my phone number (Ms. Peyroux must possess this evidence if she found it troubling). This message was an effort, after having no communication whatsoever with Ms. Peyroux for well over a year, to try to resolve our legal situation without need for further litigation and independent of the conflicting interests of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman and the interference of counterproductive attorneys such as Ms. Stryker. Other than this note to the security guard, the only communication I have initiated with Ms. Peyroux since August, 2003, was the loving and conciliatory, phone message recorded by Mr. Beldock in April 2004. (EXHIBIT “Q” of Affidavit). - Ms. Stryker’s assertion that these two totally innocuous “incidents”, separated by 14 months of no contact whatsoever represent a “pattern of harassment and intimidation” …contacts that have begun to escalate to the point where they are disrupting Ms. Peyroux’s ability to perform and are causing her to fear for her health and safety” surely qualifies as a whopper of a “misleading statement”. (Incidentally, I have known and worked with members of Madeleine’s touring band since many years before Ms. Peyroux knew them. It was my right to speak with them after the show, and Ms. Peyroux was not mentioned in their conversation, as they will affirm.) To further support her misleading letter, Ms. Stryker wrote: “We are enclosing a copy of a letter from Ms. Peyroux to Mr. Galison communicating her feelings on these matters”. Ms Stryker enclosed the letter copied and discussed in paragraphs 55-60 of the above affidavit. The inclusion of that letter, which is so obviously the product of Ms. Peyroux in a highly agitated and unstable state of mind, is the most compelling evidence of Ms. Stryker’s manipulation of Ms. Peyroux’s mental illness to alienate Ms. Peyroux from me, and to ultimately serve the interests of Mr. Myron Beldock, to the tragic detriment of her client, Ms. Peyroux. Under normal circumstances, no responsible lawyer would allow their client to enclose a scrawled, hyperbolic letter. As discussed in the affidavit above, another letter written by Ms. Peyroux that same day (EXHIBIT “Y”) shows that Ms. Peyroux was in a severely disturbed state of mind at that time. I could fill many, many more pages with examples of Ms. Stryker’s false statements and frivolous threats, but I will spare Your Honor because the above suffices to establish that Ms. Stryker has done all the things she swears not to have done in her affidavit. THE ABOVE NOTWITHSTANDING, THE MOST EGREGIOUS OFFENSE THAT MS. STRYKER AND HER COLLEAGUES, MR. MINKOFF AND MR. HERNSTADT HAVE COMMITTED IN THIS CASE IS TO MISLEAD THEIR OWN CLIENT, MS. PEYROUX FOR THREE YEARS, IN ORDER TO SACRIFICE HER INTERESTS TO THOSE OF THEIR RECENT EMPLOYER AND SIMULTANEOUS CLIENT, MR. MYRON BELDOCK. LIST OF EXHIBITS TO “AFFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM GALISON IN RESPONSE AFFIDAVITS OF RON MINKOFF AND WENDY STRYKER” EXHIBIT A: allegations against Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker …… ……… 35 EXHIBIT B: October 30. 2006 Affidavits of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker… 36 EXHIBIT C: Galison letter to Frankfurt……………………………………… 37 EXHIBIT D: Galison letter to Stryker etc………………………………………….. 40 EXHIBIT E: Threat from Ronald Minkoff against me ………………………. 43 EXHIBIT F: December 19, 2003 Letter from Steven Robinson to Jeff Greenberg... 45 EXHIBIT G: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶ 544-545…………….. 48 EXHIBIT H: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶530.18 to 532.24…….. 49 EXHIBIT I: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition ¶ 233.12 – 238…………. 52 EXHIBIT J: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux Deposition 523.9 – 533 ¶ …………. 56 EXHIBIT K: Transcript of Jeff Greenberg Deposition 254 ¶……………………….. 57 EXHIBIT L: Letter from “unthetruth” AKA Madeleine Peyroux to Andrea Canter .59 EXHIBIT M: Affidavit of Mary Elizabeth Riley……………………………………. 61 EXHIBIT N: Example of Evidence Tampering by Wendy Stryker…………………. 62 EXHIBIT O: “How Beldock, Levine and Hoffman “Lost” an entire Year of E-mail” 65 EXHIBIT P: BBC News Article…………………………………………………… 68 EXHIBIT Q: Transcript of Galison’s Voice Mail to Peyroux……………………….. 70 EXHIBIT R: DECEMBER 3, 2003 Letter From Steve Robinson to Greenberg…….. 71 EXHIBIT S: Deposition of Rounder Records 16.17…………………………… 74 EXHIBIT T: October 29, 2003 letter from Ms. Peyroux to Galison (handwritten)...... 77 EXHIBIT U: May 5, 2005 letter from Ms. Peyroux to Galison……………………….80 EXHIBIT V: August 31, 2004 Letter From Ned Peyroux to Galison…………………81 EXHIBIT W: Affidavit of Harvey S. Mars……………………………………………82 EXHIBIT X: Galison Settlement Offer to Madeleine Peyroux……………………… 83 EXHIBIT Y:………………………………………………………………………… 84 EXHIBIT Z: E-mail from Ned Peyroux Aug 25 2006 8:22 AM………………… 85 EXHIBIT A ALLEGATIONS BY WILLIAM GALISON AGAINST RON MINKOFF, WENDY STRYKER AND ED HERNSTADT ETC, REGARDING THEIR BETRAYAL OF THE INTERESTS THIER CLIENT, MADELEINE PEYROUX. From: William Galison’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defense’s Motion for Summary Judgment, page 3. Third, Beldock Levine and Hoffman were not making these threats on the behalf of Ms. Peyroux, but to protect themselves from charges of contract fraud by Rounder. Ms. Peyroux’s attorneys Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker, who were recently colleagues of Jeff Greenberg and recently employees of Beldock Levine and Hoffman have clearly acted against Ms. Peyroux’s interests by protecting the interests of their former pals. They have been using Ms. Peyroux as a “human shield” by a) asserting that Ms. Peyroux made the allegations of “physical abuse” when it was actually Greenberg who made them. b) withholding letters to Ms. Peyroux that would have allowed her to retract the libelous statements that she in fact did not make. c) Refusing to pass on a settlement offer to Ms. Peyroux that would have exculpated Ms. Peyroux and removed her from the case at no cost to her (but may have exposed Mr. Greenberg.) d) Directing Ms. Peyroux to withhold and destroy evidence in a manner that may expose her to contempt charges. e) Directing Ms. Peyroux to destroy a computer holding crucial evidence in this case. f) Directing Ms. Peyroux to lie under oath about her history of mental illness among other things, thereby exposing her to charges of perjury. EXHIBIT B Affidavits of Ronald Minkoff and Wendy Stryker EXHIBIT C Letter From William Galison to Michael Frankfurt Concerning The Misconduct of His Partners, Ronald Minkoff, Wendy Stryker, and Ed Hernstadt, Which Led to Their Immediate Resignations As Counselors To Ms. Peyroux. William Galison 210 Thompson street New York, NY 10012 Michael Frankfurt esq. Frankfurt, Seltz, Kurnit 488 Madison Ave. New York, NY September 18, 2006 Dear Mr. Frankfurt, I am enclosing a letter that I recently sent to two of your attorneys, Wendy Stryker and Ed Hernstadt. It involves the New York Supreme Court case of Galison v. Greenberg: Index No. 602478/04, in which I am the plaintiff, pro se. The letter specifically involves the deposition testimony of Ms. Stryker and Mr. Hernstadt’s client Madeleine Peyroux. I have now presented these attorneys with information clearly establishing that their client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud on a tribunal, namely the New York State Supreme Court. I will not repeat the specifics here, as they are made plain in the attached letter. I thought you would appreciate my informing you that your associates are violation of LCPR rules so that you may bring this to their attention. Please be advised that unless these lawyers from your firm stop violating LCPR rules and take immediate measures to rectify past violations such as the above, I will pursue disciplinary and contempt charges to the highest levels of authority, regardless of the outcome of this case, for as long as it takes. You can be sure that this matter will also receive the attention of the media that it deserves. Due to the celebrity of Ms. Peyroux, and the testimony of celebrity witnesses, there is already great media interest in the case and I am in discussion with several journalists. The above incident is trivial compared to other unethical and illegal acts I will be alleging against your attorneys. I have, In addition to numerous violations of LCPR rules and without limitation, documented evidence of: -Tampering with evidence (This has been verified by a forensic expert) -Perjury -Conspiracy to commit perjury -Destruction of evidence -Conspiracy to destroy evidence variously, by lawyers Ed Hernstadt, Wendy Stryker and possibly Ron Minkoff and Vera Scanlon who are working with them on this case, but behind the scenes. All of these are being consolidated into a motion for a protective order to be brought before the Court. It is also apparent that, in egregious violation of LCPR rules, these lawyers are not working on behalf of their purported client, Ms. Peyroux, but on behalf of Defendant Myron Beldock, for whom Stryker and Minkoff worked until recently and with whom Ms. Peyroux has an obvious conflict of interest. Ms. Stryker has withheld crucial papers from Ms. Peyroux that could have prevented her inclusion in this lawsuit from the beginning. Ms. Stryker has also summarily rejected a settlement offer that would have released her client from the case permanently and with complete indemnification. She has given no indication that Ms. Peyroux was ever shown that settlement offer. The only risk in this settlement offer was to Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Beldock, and then only if they were guilty. It is apparent that Ms. Stryker is using Ms. Peyroux as a “shield” to protect her former boss and associate. I do not know to what degree you condemn or endorse the improper and illegal actions of your colleagues, but in my opinion, your colleagues are endangering the reputation of themselves, your firm and your clients. If this news comes as a revelation to you, perhaps you would like to learn more about these allegations from me. If you wish to contact me, please do so by mail, fax or e-mail. Do not contact me by telephone. Defense attorneys have been prohibited by the Court from contacting me by telephone and this may apply to you as well. I am not interested in impugning your attorneys or your firm, or in getting people in trouble. I am only pursuing justice for myself, and I will not be bullied or intimidated into surrendering that pursuit by cowboy lawyers. I hope that my pro se status will not cause you to underestimate my determination or my legal resources in rectifying this situation. That is a miscalculation your lawyers have already made, to their detriment. I have limited funds, but unlimited patience and resolve, and access to friends and family at Cowan, Dechert and the New York Attorney General’s office. Now that you have been made aware of the impropriety of your colleagues you are obliged by the LCPR to rectify those improprieties. I hope you will do the right thing. I hope this information interests you and I look forward to a speedy resolution. This will be my last communication if I do not hear from you. William Galison Fax 212 677 7344 Email: wgalison@aol.com cc: Thomas Selz esq. cc: Rick Kurnit esq. EXHIBIT D LETTER FROM WILLIAM GALISON TO WENDY STRYKER AND ED HERNSTADT REGARDING THEIR FAILURE TO RECTIFY A FRAUD BEFORE THE COURT IN VIOLATION OF LCPR DR7 102 (b) (1) August 28, 2006 Ed Hernstadt esq. Wendy Stryker esq. Frankfurt, Seltz, Kurnit.. Madison Avenue New York, NY Dear Ms. Stryker and Mr. Hernstadt, By this letter, you are hereby given information clearly establishing that your client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud on a tribunal, namely the New York State Supreme Court. In keeping with disciplinary code DR 7-102. “Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law”: (b) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that: (1) the client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a confidence or secret. you are hereby requested to call upon your client to rectify the misrepresentation made at her deposition of 9/29/05. If your client fails to do so, you are required by DR 7-102(b) to reveal the fraud to the Court. The specific misrepresentation was made in Ms. Peyroux’s 9/29/06 deposition, paragraph 476: Q Ms. Peyroux, were you suffering from any mental illness in or around the time of the events that took place in this lawsuit? A No. The information clearly establishing that your client has perpetrated a fraud upon the Court is the following statement in an affidavit by Ms. Peyroux’s half-sister Mary Elizabeth Kuretsky. It asserts that Ms. Peyroux was in fact under psychiatric care and was prescribed antipsychotic medication during the time of the events that took place in this case: “In or about September, 2003, I found a bottle of prescription pills that had Madeleine had left at my home on a recent visit. The bottle was labeled “Seroquel 100 mgs.” it was prescribed to Madeleine Peyroux.” (from: affidavit of Mary Elizabeth Koretsky). The home page for Seroquel; www.seroquel.com states: “Seroquel (quetiapine) is a novel, atypical antipsychotic medication indicated for the treatment of acute and chronic psychosis including schizophrenia, and for the treatment of acute manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. Both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are mental illnesses. This information is not protected as a confidence or secret because, as Mr. Russell put it; “every witness who testifies puts their credibility into issue, and the credibility of a witness can be affected by mental illness and facts relating thereto.” If Ms. Peyroux has made false statements in her sworn deposition and refuses to rectify them we will seek charges of perjury. Ms. Stryker has known about this evidence since I informed her of it during our conversation of 12/7/05. Although Ms. Stryker neglected to mention this in her account of our conversation of 12/7/05 (exhibit a), her colleague Mr. Friedman was more forthcoming when he wrote in his sworn affirmation (exhibit b): “Galison claimed he had an empty medication bottle that showed [Ms. Stryker] had lied…” It should be noted that Mr. Friedman, “under penalty of perjury” also misrepresented the statements of Ms. Peyroux as “….testimony of Ms. Peyroux that she did was not taking any medication at the time of the deposition”. Mr. Friedman was present at the deposition, possesses the transcript thereof, and knows perfectly well that the issue was not about whether Ms. Peyroux was on medication at the time of the deposition, but whether “Ms. Peyroux was suffering from any mental illness or around the time of the events that took place in this lawsuit” The reason for this obfuscation is obvious and by no means innocuous: whether Ms. Peyroux was on medication during her deposition is trivial; whether she was suffering from mental illness while making the original allegations could be critical to her credibility. It is against the rules to make knowingly false statements to the Court and it is against the rules to represent a client without due diligence. Ms. Stryker has now had over seven months to ask Ms. Peyroux about the prescription of these pills and to correct the record and she has failed to do so. If Ms. Stryker does not make an effort to correct the record immediately, we will move for sanctions under LCPR DR7-102. Now that Mr. Hernstadt has been made aware of this matter, he is also subject to LCPR DR7-102. If we do not hear from Ms. Stryker or Mr. Hernstadt in the next week, we will assume that they are denying the fact that Ms. Peyroux was prescribed Seroquel during the late summer and/ or early fall 2003 and we will present this issue to the court for an evidentiary hearing. The easiest way to find out why these pills were prescribed to Ms. Peyroux is to subpoena this information from the psychiatrist that prescribed them. This subpoena would not necessarily represent a general waiver of doctor/ client privilege and would regard only this specific matter. If Ms. Peyroux’s believes that her testimony of 9/29/05 is true, she should have no objection to such a subpoena. I look forward to having this matter cleared up as soon as possible. With all due respect William Galison Cc: Leon Friedman Cc: Judge Bernard Fried EXHIBIT E Threat of Lawsuit and Request for Settlement From Ronald Minkoff EXHIBIT F 12/19/03 LETTER FROM WILLIAM GALISON’S ATTORNEY STEVEN ROBINSONTO MADELEINE PEYROUX’S ATTORNEY JEFF GREENBERG, SPECIFYING THE TERMS AND STATEMENTS WHICH UNDERLIE THE LIBEL CHARGES IN THIS CASE, AND WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN OR CHARACTERIZED TO MS. PEYROUX BY HER LAWYERS: JEFFREY GREENBERG, MYRON BELDOCK, RON MINKOFF. WENDY STRYKER, ED HERNSTADT OR RICHARD LEVITT OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS. Mr. Greenberg: Your December 17, 2003 letter to me contains the following statement: "Over the course of the last year, we have obtained, directly and from Ms. Peyroux, evidence of numerous incidents of physically and verbally abusive behaviors by Mr. Galison against Ms. Peyroux. This behavior contributed in part to Ms. Peyroux's ultimate decision to discontinue her business association with Mr. Galison in mid-2003. Thereafter, Mr. Galison made numerous libelous and slanderous statements about Ms. Peyroux to her business colleagues and representatives. Mr. Galison also made documented claims and threats against Ms. Peyroux and her business representatives, which caused her to contemplate filing criminal harassment charges against Mr. Galison when such behavior continued and began impacting her career." Jeffrey A. Greenberg's Letter of December 17, 2003 to Steven H. Robinson, page 4. The statements of purported fact set forth in this quotation are false. Without limiting the foregoing: 1. Mr. Galison never "criminally harass[ed]," assaulted or menaced Ms. Peyroux; 2. Mr. Galison never physically abused Ms. Peyroux at any time, in any manner; 3. Mr. Galison never "threatened" Ms. Peyroux or her "business representatives." Any claims he made were related to his legitimate business interests and were made in a reasonable manner; and 4. Mr. Galison has never made a "libelous or slanderous" statement concerning Ms. Peyroux. It is extremely unlikely that whatever "evidence" or "document[ation]" you actually have with respect to these allegations will withstand serious examination. What you do not have are genuine medical records, police reports, tapes of Ms. Peyroux's 911 calls to the police, photographs of a battered Ms. Peyroux taken under circumstances that establish Mr. Galison's responsibility therefore, eyewitness accounts or any other authentic, credible evidence because no incident of physical abuse ever took place. Mr. Galison never threatened Ms. Peyroux or anyone affiliated with her, and accordingly, it is similarly unlikely that you or any of Ms. Peyroux's "business representatives" have any credible documentation to the contrary. Finally, particularly with respect to whatever allegedly defamatory statements that you claim were "libelous," you should have supporting documentary evidence to present, but you do not, because Mr. Galison never made any defamatory statement concerning Ms. Peyroux, much less one in writing, as you claim. While Ms. Peyroux was the sole source of the false accounts of Mr. Galison's alleged physical abuse, they were merely an irritant and could be treated as such. As I understand it, Ms. Peyroux has a reputation for unreliability, and apparently no one of experience credits her undocumented accounts of any significant matter. If you had chosen to repeat these unfounded allegations solely to me, your actions would have been merely unfair and unprofessional. But by inserting these statements in a letter copied to Ms. Herbst and Mr. Willard, you published them to third parties, and you took this matter to an entirely different level. Your repetition of these unfounded allegations in correspondence sent on your law firm's letterhead to important people in the music industry, bolstered by additional false claims as to the existence of supporting "evidence," lent credibility to what might otherwise have been discounted. I will make the point in detail elsewhere that these allegations have no legitimate bearing on any legal issue that this matter involves and that making these allegations required you to violate at least two Disciplinary Rules. The immediate point is that your December 17, 2003 letter has rendered Ms. Peyroux, you, and your firm liable to Mr. Galison for defamation. I have been authorized to prepare litigation papers to assert Mr. Galison's claims for defamation and any other causes of action that arise from the dissemination of these falsehoods by Ms. Peyroux, you and your firm. That effort will go forward through the holidays without interruption. Litigation will commence as soon as the papers are ready. The only thing Mr. Galison is prepared to accept in settlement of his claims prior to the commencement of litigation is a statement on your firm's letterhead recanting the false statements of fact in the quotation set forth above, in a form acceptable to him, with proof of receipt of that statement by Ms. Herbst and Mr. Willard. Provided that your statement makes plain that these allegations are entirely untrue, Mr. Galison has no objection to the inclusion of an additional explanatory statement. Thus, you will be free to characterize the presence of the quotation set forth above in your December 17, 2003 letter as the result of miscommunication, administrative error, or in whatever other face saving terms you might want. Once litigation commences, this offer will be automatically withdrawn with no further notice to you, and Mr. Galison will then seek every appropriate remedy for the damage Ms Peyroux, you, and your firm have done to his reputation. Pending the resolution of his claims for defamation, Mr. Galison is suspending negotiations with Ms. Peyroux with respect to "Got You On My Mind." He has no obligation or inclination to sit at a table with people who believe that the dissemination of gratuitous, injurious falsehoods concerning him is an appropriate tool for advocacy or negotiation. Because Rounder Records, Inc. ("Rounder") is not involved in this matter, Mr. Galison will continue to cooperate with Rounder to develop approaches as to how the legitimate business interests of all parties can be reconciled. Very truly yours, SR EXHIBIT G Madeleine Peyroux Deposition 544.25 to 545.13 25 Q Were you ever told -- did 545 1 M. Peyroux 2 you ever learn that Mr. Galison's 3 lawyer had demanded a retraction of 4 the false and libelous statements 5 that were allegedly made in this 6 letter? 7 A I believe I was made aware 8 of that to some extent, not that I 9 was aware of which statements. 10 Q Okay. Were you -- did you 11 ever read a copy of Mr. Robinson's 12 response to this letter? 13 A I don't believe so. EXHIBIT H Deposition of Madeleine Peyroux 530.18 to 532.24 18 Q Ms. Peyroux, first of all, 19 thank you for all your patience. 20 The next sentence on page 4 21 of Mr. Greenberg's letter, 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 16, it says, 23 "Mr. Galison has also made documented 24 claims and threats against 25 Ms. Peyroux and her business 23 "Mr. Galison has also made documented 24 claims and threats against 25 Ms. Peyroux and her business 531 1 M. Peyroux 2 representatives which caused her to 3 contemplate filing criminal 4 harassment charges against 5 Mr. Galison when such behavior 6 continued and began impacting her 7 career." 8 So let's talk about that 9 sentence. What documented claims and 10 threats against you is Mr. Greenberg 11 talking about, if you know? 12 A Well, I would say that he's 13 referring to the harassing phone 14 calls to myself and Ms. Herbst in 15 September. 16 Q So -- 17 A In which he would have 18 threatened Ms. Herbst in various ways 19 and the lawsuit. 20 Q Where are the documents 21 that he's referring to, if you know? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q Now, the threats you're 24 talking about are threats of a 25 lawsuit? 532 1 M. Peyroux 2 A I'm aware of a threat of a 3 lawsuit, yeah. 4 Q Any other threats against 5 you and your business 6 representatives? 7 A That would have been -- 8 claims and threats would have been 9 also -- he also -- they also were 10 threatening Rounder with a lawsuit at 11 the time and claims that I had made 12 those commitments to him to Rounder. 13 Q Okay. So to the best of 14 your understanding, he's talking 15 about claims with respect to your 16 supposed commitments to him, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 MS. STRYKER: Object to the 19 form. 20 Q And to the best of your 21 knowledge, he's talking about threats 22 against you that had to do with 23 litigation? 24 A I believe so, yeah. EXHIBIT I DEPOSITION OF MADELEINE PEYROUX 233.12 - 238 12 Q Let's stop right there 13 because I want to hear what you have 14 to say about what your understanding 15 was about what Ms. Minor was 16 proposing to Rounder. 17 A Ms. Minor -- and, of 18 course, this is unfortunately not 19 something that I have directly heard 20 from Ms. Minor, nor from any of the 21 people that she spoke to, but from, 22 you know, indirect sources. 23 But unfortunately, my 24 understanding was that Ms. Minor had 25 told people at Rounder that I had 234 1 M. Peyroux 2 made prior commitments to Ms. Minor 3 that were in direct conflict with my 4 contract with Rounder at the time. 5 And that she was 6 threatening to great lengths or 7 someone amongst Ms. Minor and William 8 Galison was threatening to Rounder 9 that I had breached my contract with 10 them by signing a contract with 11 Rounder. They were threatening 12 various other things related to that 14 And as a result of that, my 15 understanding is that at the time 16 that this letter was written, Rounder 17 had directly -- and this is my 18 understanding at the time the letter 19 was written, that Rounder had 20 directly decided to end my contract 21 with them immediately as a result of 22 the statements that they were getting 23 from Ms. Minor and Mr. Galison and 24 perhaps if there was anybody else to 25 represent them at that time. I don't 2 know. 3 As a result of that, I 4 hadn't started making any recordings 5 with Rounder at that time. I was in 6 preproduction at that time. And they 7 were -- it sounded as if it would 8 have been an immediate ending of, you 9 know, the contract together. That 10 they would just like to part ways and 11 not continue. 12 That is the reason that I 13 understood this was written to 14 establish -- well, that's all I want 15 to say. 16 Q And you got that from your 17 lawyer? 18 MR. FRIEDMAN: Hold it. 19 MS. STRYKER: Objection. I 20 believe that you're now inviting 21 her to breach attorney-client 22 privilege. You know, she gave 23 you the understanding. 24 A I got that from more than 25 one source. 1 M. Peyroux 2 Q Okay. Someone besides your 3 lawyer? 4 Well, let me ask it in a 5 proper way. Did you get that 6 information -- who did you get that 7 information from? And if you got 8 that information from your lawyer, 9 don't tell me. 10 A Thank you. I do believe 11 that I got that information from my 12 manager. . 13 Q Now, I know you said a lot 14 of things, and I apologize if I 15 didn't get them all right. So I 16 might just take the time and go over 17 a couple of them again. 18 You understood that Rounder 19 was prepared to terminate its 20 relationship with you on the basis of 21 something that had happened? 22 A That's correct 23 Q And the something that ha 24 happened was not merely that 25 Laura Minor called Rounder to say 237 1 M. Peyroux 2 that Mr. Galison plans to release the 3 recordings together with instrumental 4 material as fully -- as a full album 5 in February 2004 and to undertake a 6 national marking campaign in 7 connection therewith? 8 MS. STRYKER: I object to 9 form. 10 A That's correct. I would -- 11 I don't know much about what they 12 were intending to do, but I also 13 belief that there are more things 14 that Ms. Minor had said beyond what 15 you just said, yes. EXHIBIT J: Transcript of Madeleine Peyroux 531.23 to 532.24 23 Q Now, the threats you're 24 talking about are threats of a 25 lawsuit? 532 1 M. Peyroux 2 A I'm aware of a threat of a 3 lawsuit, yeah. 4 Q Any other threats against 5 you and your business 6 representatives? 7 A That would have been -- 8 claims and threats would have been 9 also -- he also -- they also were 10 threatening Rounder with a lawsuit at 11 the time and claims that I had made 12 those commitments to him to Rounder. 13 Q Okay. So to the best of 14 your understanding, he's talking 15 about claims with respect to your 16 supposed commitments to him, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 MS. STRYKER: Object to the 19 form. 20 Q And to the best of your 21 knowledge, he's talking about threats 22 against you that had to do with 23 litigation? 24 A I believe so, yeah. 25 Q And the same sorts of 533 1 M. Peyroux 2 threats and claims as against 3 Ms. Herbst, correct? 4 Well, it says business 5 representatives. Who do you 6 understand that to mean? 7 A Ms. Herbst and Rounder as 8 well. EXHIBIT K Deposition of Jeffrey Greenberg 229.18 and 253 18 Q When Ms. Peyroux testified 19 at her deposition, I showed her the 20 letter from December 17th. She told 21 me that around this time, Rounder 22 told her through you that they were 23 going to cancel her contract and walk 24 away from it. Did anything like that 25 ever happen? 0230 1 J. Greenberg 2 A Yes. 3 Q When did that happen? 4 A In December, during this 5 period that we're talking about? 6 Q Who said that to you? 7 A Marty Willard was concerned 8 about going forward with Madeleine's 9 project because it was -- you know, 10 we were at that point that we were 11 ready to start doing it and they'd 12 have to release funds. And this was 13 a -- you know, this was raising an 14 issue. Q So how does Mr. Galison's 4 activities constitute a tortious 5 interference with the contract 6 between Ms. Peyroux and Rounder? 7 A Because he was proposing 8 through his agent to put out a record 9 during the term of her exclusive 10 recording agreement of which he was 11 aware including material pursuant to 12 which he had agreed to restrict 13 commercial exploitation. 253 20 What wrongful means did 21 Mr. Galison use to procure 22 Ms. Peyroux's breach of her contract? 23 What tortious means did he use or 24 independent wrong did he commit to 25 procure that breach that would bring 0254 1 J. Greenberg 2 it within the purview of the law for 3 tortious interference with contract? 4 A What? 5 Q What independent wrong or 6 tortious means did he use to procure 7 her breach of that contract? 8 A He put out a record, okay, 9 other than at a live -- he was 10 proposing to sell the record for 11 retail, you know, other than for sale 12 at live shows with a 13 misrepresentation to other labels 14 apparently, because it had been 15 offered to other labels, that he had 16 the rights to do so with knowledge 17 that he didn't and it wasn't cleared. 18 Q Anything else? 19 A That's what it sounded like 20 happened. 21 Q Did you do any research 22 before you put this allegation in 23 your E-mail to Mr. Robinson 24 concerning what the elements were of 25 the tort that you were accusing his 0255 1 J. Greenberg 2 client of having committed? EXHIBIT L Letter from Ms. Peyroux (under the pseudonym“unthetruth”) to Andrea Canter, Editor of “Jazzpolice.com” and Response From Ms. Canter Subj: Still “Got You On My Mind”: Madeleine Peyroux and William Galison’s Star-Crossed Duet  Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 6:54:33 AM From: unthetruth@yahoo.com To: Cantermps@aol.com andrea, the jazz police are interested in gossip- but they don't do justice to journalism.  there are two sides to every story. you have heard the accuser's side, in this case, the attacker, the harasser, and the liar.funny how long one is guilty until proven innocent in this system, the system that is being used to sue madeleine peyroux right now from the person with whom you took that interview.  the truth is that she has been silenced by the great unstoppable William Galison because of his own lawsuit, a lawsuit that has basically forced her into a position of slavery.  usually it is arecord company that controls the freedom of an artist ainst their will due to a contract.  in this case, it is a musician, and that without any verbal or written consent on her part.  the release of Got You On My Mind was done by Galison without any consent nor consultation on her part, the sales for which she doesn't receive royalties or compensation.  It is as if Galison has taken her prisoner and lets her out of the closet to dance for him in a clown outfit.  his whole experience with her was much less than a year, almost two years ago.  now he claims he liked working with her so much that it is the highlight of his career.  at the time, he would have to explain his tantrums, screaming fits, and threatening acts against her during the lonely hours in transit to and from shows and before and after rehearsals with her.  many a lass has had her laddy turn into Mr. Hyde.  most of themrefrain from telling the tale, as there is a sort of evil to the look of the madman.  some never survive.  she survived william galison.  she just doesn't need to gloat about it, and that is why she has not gone to the press. however, one cannot stand a bully.  i'd like Mr. Hyde to serve his term as it were, and for the Invisible Man to come back into the full light of day. do some more research on galison and see if his storyrings true. why haven't you heard about him until now? Andrea Canter to “Unthetruth@yahoo.com” Subj: Re: Still “Got You On My Mind”: Madeleine Peyroux and William Galison’s Star-...  Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 9:02:22 AM From: Cantermps To: unthetruth@yahoo.com We have attempted to get the other side (for surely there is one). I have had contact with Peyroux's agent who didn;'t respond for about a week and then asked if it was too late, and was told to please go ahead and give us whatever.... and no further response. On the other hand, I have received copies of correspondence etc between Galison and Peyroux and her attorney. If we receive any credible documentation or even just statements from credible sources (I'm afraid anon, emails from addresses such as this don;t count), we will present that as well. The source of the JP article are noted. If you have something credible to share, please send along. If Galison's lawsuit is without merit, it will likely be dismisssed as there is a hearing to dismiss upcoming. I suppose you chastised the Boston Herald as well.... Andrea Canter EXHIBIT M AFFIDAVIT OF MARY REILLY, HALF-SISTER OF MS. PEYROUX REGARDING MS. PEYROUX’S SEVERE AND CHRONIC MENTAL ILLNESS EXHIBIT N EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE BY WENDY STRYKER, CYNTHIA HERBST AND MADELEINE PEYROUX THE TAMPERED LETTER

This letter between Madeleine Peyroux and her manager Cynthia Herbst was produced in discovery both by Ms. Peyroux and by Ms. Herbst. Both copies were tampered with in exactly the same way, except that on one the signs of tampering are evident and the other they are not. Clearly both parties colluded to decide what information they wished to suppress and colluded to suppress this information. Ms. Stryker, who is representing both parties, has admitted on the record to instigating this collusion. Upon the discovery of the tampering, Ms. Stryker tried to justify it by claiming that this letter is privileged. However, there is no provision for privilege in a correspondence between two parties in a case. Furthermore the letter from Ms. Peyroux to Ms. Herbst in Ms. Herbst’s discovery production is not marked “redacted” despite all of these deliberate alterations. It is presented to the Court as the original, unredacted letter, even though it has been thoroughly altered and abridged. THE ILLICIT DELETIONS The most obvious deletion is in paragraph 3, beginning at line 5 after the word “thing”. The tops of letters that have been “whited-out” are visible directly underneath the words “even in” in line 4. They continue beneath the words of line 5. It appears that the excised writing originally continued all the way to the following “paragraph” which begins “(I am looking….). The fact that this paragraph is in parentheses indicates that it referred to what directly preceded it; which is obviously missing. Similarly, the parentheses enclosing the third visible sentence of paragraph 1 shows that it too was preceded by a sentence that has been deleted. There is obviously no logical continuity between the sentence “Ironic that the show at the Bottom Line was cancelled…” and “I have another offer to go to Europe….” Whatever came between then has been removed. The non-sequitur between the first sentence of paragraph 1 and the second also indicates that a sentence has been removed without notice of redaction. This letter was written three days after Ms. Peyroux cancelled a performance at the Bottom line, precisely at the time when Ms. Peyroux claims that Greenberg claims she could not perform with me because I was “abusive”. Yet the third paragraph reads: “Although I have not spoken to William Galison, I wish we could just get back to working together again….It would make sense to kind of put a stamp on the recording we did by adding songs….and licensing it on Rounder ”. These sentences wholly discredit the assertion that Peyroux didn’t want to perform with me because I was abusive. If this paragraph- which totally undermines Defense’s argument regarding abuse- was left in this letter, it is clear that the deleted sentences were even more destructive to Defense’s case. EXHIBIT O Greenberg Deposition re: How Beldock, Levine and Hoffman “Lost” an Entire Year of E-Mail 8 Q To the best of your 9 knowledge, anything you haven't 10 deleted is still sitting in your 11 inbox or in one of the files that you 12 opened in Outlook? 13 A What's the question? 14 Q So to the best of your 15 knowledge, all of the E-mails you 16 ever received, unless they were spam 17 or something that you deleted, they'd 18 still be sitting on the firm's 19 server? 20 A No. Well, the firm lost 21 its E-mail. We had a -- we have 22 Outlook now. We had another program 23 that crashed. It was a Lotus 24 program. 25 Q Lotus Notes? 0030 1 J. Greenberg 2 A Yeah, and it was not 3 supported by Lotus. And we lost -- 4 the whole firm lost saved E-mails. 5 So that there would be -- 6 you know, if you had printed one out, 7 you would have a record of it, but 8 there would be others that were lost. 9 Q Sure. When did that 10 disastrous event occur? 11 A I think -- I'm not sure. I 12 think it was last year. 13 Q 2004? 14 A Yes. 15 Q So the E-mails that you 16 produced in this litigation, were 17 they the hard copies that you have? 18 A It was everything I had 19 that wasn't privileged. 20 MR. FRIEDMAN: I think his 21 question was, was that something 22 that you had printed out 23 previously? 24 THE WITNESS: There were 25 things I printed, yeah. 0031 1 J. Greenberg 2 Q I mean, at the time that 3 you responded to discovery in this 4 case, I understand from your earlier 5 answer there was nothing left of 6 whatever was on Lotus Notes or your 7 server. Isn't that right? 8 A I don't remember when I 9 responded to this. 10 MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, we 11 responded in early spring 2005. 12 MR. RUSSELL: I don't 13 think -- 14 MS. STRYKER: I think it 15 was around Christmastime last 16 year. 17 MR. MARS: My recollection 18 was it was around December 2004. 19 Q So let me ask it this way: 20 If you made production of documents 21 in this case in December of last 22 year, would that have been after the 23 Lotus Notes program crashed? 24 A I don't remember exactly 25 when the Lotus Notes program crashed. 0032 1 J. Greenberg 2 Q Well, let me ask it to you 3 this way: Do you remember how you 4 went about collecting the documents 5 that were produced in discovery in 6 this case by you and your firm? 7 A I read -- 8 MR. RUSSELL: Off the 9 record. 10 (A discussion was held off 11 the record.) 12 Q So you were going to tell 13 me what process you went through in 14 order to collect the documents that 15 were turned over in discovery in this 16 case by you and your firm. 17 A I read the production 18 demand, and I went through all of the 19 documents and E-mails that I had. 20 Q Do you remember if you went 21 through them in hard copy or -- 22 A Both. 23 Q So -- 24 A Well, whatever I had, I 25 mean, those would be -- anything that 0033 1 J. Greenberg 2 would be responsive, I looked for on 3 my computer and in my files. 4 Q But do you have your own 5 Lexus or West Law account at the firm 6 where you work? 7 A No. EXHIBIT P August 19, 2005 Article from BBC News EXHIBIT Q TRANSCRIPT OF WILLIAM GALISON'S APRIL 12 VOICE MESSAGE TO MADELEINE PEYROUX [Mr. Beldock's vioice]: "Beldock dictating testing one two three four It's April 12th. We're attempting to record a message from Mr. Galison which is on Ms. Peyroux's cell phone": [machine voice] "Saved message; Monday, two-o-six pm." [William Galison's] voice: "Hi Madi, its William. Listen, um, I spoke to Danny the other day and uh, I think that you've missed, that you perhaps might have been misadvised for a long time about what's going on legally. Um, You're going to be served papers soon; later this week, and its something I had to do because um I had to defend my reputation and my career. And I just want you to know that I don't hate you- that I'm really am concerned about you, and that I'm concerned about me, and uh, I think its, its going to get quite serious legally Uh, Jeff Greenberg's gotten himself in big trouble as far as I understand with the New York Bar Association and he won't be able to defend you, as far as I understand. and um, I don't want your life to be badly affected by this but I had to do this because my life is being badly affected. Um, so I'm really sorry that its come to this. If you ever want to talk to me about it you can call me.. um ...I still have a lot of fond feelings for you. We went through a lot of things together. We helped ourselves, each other through a lot of things. So I hope you'll call me. I don't think your friends have served you well, I don't think your Mom has served you well and I don't think Danny and all the other people who have given you advice and uh I'm not looking forward to seeing this thing go on. but it has to now, it’s in the hands of the Federal Court. I miss you a lot and I wish this whole thing wasn't happening. But please call me. Bye Bye. EXHIBIT R DECEMBER 3, 2003 LETTER FROM STEVEN ROBINSON TO JEFFREY GREENBERG STEVEN H. ROBINSON, ESQ. 320 West 89th Street, 9A
New York, NY 10024
212.501.8233
212.501.8234 (fax)
shrobinson@earthlink.net December 3, 2003 BY TELECOPIER Jeffrey A. Greenberg, Esq. Beldock Levine & Hoffman, LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10016 Re: William Galison; Got You On My Mind Dear Mr. Greenberg: This office represents William Galison as co-counsel with Jon Waxman, Esq. Mr. Galison has asked us to advise him concerning the professional aspects of his relationship with Madeleine Peyroux, and in particular, his rights and obligations with respect to the prospective commercial exploitation of the recording entitled Got You On My Mind (the “Recording”). As I understand it, at the time the Recording was made, there was a prospect that Ms. Peyroux might enter into an agreement with Rounder records to record one or more projects (the “Rounder Projects”). Mr. Galison financed and produced the Recording, provided musical arrangements for it and contributed his personal services as a musician in reliance upon Ms. Peyroux’s representations that she would support the effort to sell the Recording by touring and performing with Mr. Galison at least through the date on which the first of the Rounder Projects was released. However, shortly after the Recording was completed, Ms. Peyroux stopped working with Mr. Galison and arranged for other musicians to perform with her in preference to him. By so doing, Ms. Peyroux damaged the prospect for sales of the Recording, and in fact, Mr. Galison has yet to recoup his investment in it. Without recounting the facts at greater length, the Recording appears to have been prepared by Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux jointly with the intention and the mutual understanding that they were each creating inseparable or interdependent parts of a single work. Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux appear, therefore, to be joint authors of the Recording under the Copyright Law. As such, either can exercise their respective rights as authors, subject to an accounting to the other. Indeed, Ms. Peyroux has been selling the Recording at her live performances and on her website, and has discontinued doing so only because she has apparently sold all the copies currently available to her. As matters stand now, there is no understanding between Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux with respect to the Recording. I am aware of no reason why Mr. Galison cannot proceed, at any time he deems appropriate, to enter into lawful agreements to promote, sell, distribute and otherwise commercially exploit the Recording, including without limitation, by releasing all or part of it to the public, subject to an accounting of the revenue generated to Ms. Peyroux. However, in your correspondence with Mr. Galison, you have referred, more than once, to “open matters” and “outstanding issues” between Ms. Peyroux and Mr. Galison. After a detailed discussion of those references and the facts surrounding the creation of the Recording, it is important to clarify the relationship between these “open matters” and “outstanding issues” and Mr. Galison’s rights in the Recording. As I understand the facts, the “open matters” and “outstanding issues” all relate to Ms. Peyroux’s obligations to pay Mr. Galison various sums of money. These issues can and will be addressed at the appropriate time, but they appear to have no bearing whatever on Mr. Galison’s ability to take whatever lawful steps he sees fit to commercially exploit the Recording, again subject to an accounting to Ms. Peyroux. Accordingly, whatever you had in mind when you referred to “open matters” or “outstanding issues” between Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux, Mr. Galison takes the position that they do not restrict him in any manner from making commercial arrangements concerning the Recording. In the interests of proceeding amicably, Mr. Galison will voluntarily delay making arrangements for the commercial exploitation of the Recording for a reasonable period of time in order to give Ms. Peyroux an opportunity to raise with him any and all concerns that she may have with regard to the Recording. I am authorized to assure you that Mr. Galison will take that discussion into account in formulating his plans with respect to the Recording. As an initial step in that discussion, please confirm or correct my understanding that Ms. Peyroux has no objection to Mr. Galison’s lawful commercial exploitation of the Recording, provided that an accounting is made to her as joint author. With respect to the timing of your response to this letter, I ask you to bear in mind that it has been more than a month since you first raised the issue of “open matters” and “outstanding issues” in your correspondence with Mr. Galison, yet there has been, to my knowledge, no communication thereafter to define or resolve them. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Galison will not remain in a position where he faces either the loss of his investment in the Recording by doing nothing, or a threat of litigation, albeit with no discernible basis, if he attempts to exercise his rights in the Recording. In practical terms, this means that Mr. Galison will not allow his plans to exploit the Recording to be delayed indefinitely based solely on ambiguous references in your correspondence that Ms. Peyroux cannot or will not clarify. I will contact you shortly to obtain a comprehensive statement of Ms. Peyroux’s position in this matter. In the event that we do not obtain substantive clarification of Ms. Peyroux’s position by the end of December 2003, I will take her failure to provide clarification to mean that she: (1) has no objection to Mr. Galison’s lawful commercial exploitation of the Recoding; (2) waives whatever objections she may have to any such exploitation; or (3) is prepared to wait to state her objections until she receives an accounting from Mr. Galison for the anticipated revenue derived from sales of the Recording, as she may thereafter clarify. I look forward to hearing from you at your first opportunity with a complete statement of Ms. Peyroux’s position with respect to the Recording and to Mr. Galison’s plans. Very truly yours, Steven H. Robinson cc: William Galison Jon Waxman, Esq. . EXHIBIT S Deposition of Rounder Records 16 QUESTION NO. 19: Set forth the basis for your 17 sworn statement in your declaration that "at or about 18 the time Rounder entered into the contract with Peyroux, 19 Rounder knew that Peyroux had recorded the seven 20 demonstration recordings with Galison as an accompanying 21 musician, which Peyroux was going to sell as a 22 seven-song EP only at her live shows". 23 MS. BROSIUS: Object to form. 24 A The basis of my understanding was 17 1 information that I obtained from Jeff Greenberg, who 2 is Peyroux's attorney, and on the Rounder's side, I 3 had that understanding from Troy Hansbrough, who, 4 again, is our A and R staff. 5 QUESTION NO. 20: In December 2003, did you have 6 any knowledge whether or not Galison was a joint owner 7 of GYOMM. 8 MS. BROSIUS: Object to form. 9 A All I knew in December of 2003, was that 10 Galison's rights in "Got You On My Mind" were 11 apparently a point of contention between Peyroux and 12 Galison. And I had, and I have, no personal 13 knowledge of what his rights are, or are not. 14 QUESTION NO. 21: Did there come a time when 15 Rounder or any of Rounder's agents or employees learned 16 that Galison and Peyroux were joint owners and joint 17 authors of GYOMM? 18 MS. BROSIUS: Object to form. 19 A That is a claim that Steven Robinson made 20 me aware of. To the extent that I understand what 21 you are asking, again, the only knowledge I had 22 then, and continue to have now, with respect to the 23 issue of ownership, is that these issues were and 24 are a point of contention between Galison and 18 1 Peyroux. 2 QUESTION NO. 22: Did either Peyroux, her agent 3 Cynthia Herbst or Greenberg ever represent to you or 4 Rounder that Galison and Peyroux were under a 5 contractual agreement concerning distribution and sales 6 of GYOMM? 7 MS. BROSIUS: Object to form. 8 A With regard to Madeleine, personally, 9 again, I never talked to her, so I don't know. And 10 I don't know of any conversations Rounder employees 11 were having with her related to that topic. EXHIBIT T October 29, 2003 Letter from Madeleine (Handwritten) EXHIBIT U May 5, 2005 Letter From Madeleine Peyroux to William Galison EXHIBIT V 8/31/04Letter From Ned Peyroux to Galison “... I'm in a weird spot because I stopped talking to madi for rocky's sake, though my relationship with her was not a smooth one before... I'm homeless, unemployed, couch-surfing & pounding the pavement looking for work... my counselor wants me either to have a local job or plans in work to move back to the city where I know people & can get work easily (there's almost nothing uphere)... You & madi both fall on a very short list of people I can ask (though not expect) for help there. You, I hope I can ask for a temporary couch, only because you've offered to help me in the past in anyway you can (though I know that doesn't mean you can)& madi, I know I can ask, because she owes me, she's practically invited me, & what I can't endure forever, I can endure temporarily... it would be a can of worms, but it's one I'll have to deal with in one way or another...I know I can get work fast in the city provided I have a clean place to sleep, a phone & a way to get back & forth... there's also the chance I could go back to work for silly billy, my old boss, & that he might out me up, but it's not necessarilly solid... I've put off contacting people in the city (you're the only one so far) because I don't want to ask anyone for help if I don't have to & my internet time is very limited (I actually hacve to rush to get off today so please don't mind the poor orthography...) As much as rocky rails about other people needing to ask her if they want to knoiw about her, I will only ask that no matter what you hear rocky say about me, you remember that she hasn't seen me in a month & that I've recerntly learned that her second-guessing isn't as accurate as I one time believed. I wonder a great deal more about the validity of many of the claims she's made about madi, though I have to admit I do know that many of them are true, I wonder more about the motivation & ultimately, I, too, would like to see us all heal... I finally have a counselor I can stick with & that's a huge help, just having weekly phone sessions... anyway, I really have to run... I'll be in topuch as much as I can much love & many thanks” EXHIBIT W Affidavit of Harvey S. Mars, Esq EXHIBIT X: Galison Settlement Offer to Madeleine Peyroux EXHIBIT Y 5/05/05 Letter from Madeleine Peyroux to Andrea Canter Andrea Subj: Re: Jazz Police interview  Date: Thursday, May 5, 2005 7:59:23 AM From: mpeyroux@verizon.net To: Cantermps@aol.com i hope you got the email i sent prior to this list of questions.  much of these are explained therein. the rest doesn't merit the detail status they have been given. and galison misrepresents me throughout. as a journalist, in what context are you asking these questions? i hope you know why you are asking these tangential questions.   if you have a clear answer, it is a dissappointment that you'd ask, because the story is clear enough, so that the truth comes very quickly  - just before the boredom. speaking of boredom: let's talk about the passions of the world. like love, music, ego, excitement, showmanship, competition. let's talk about it all. man and woman, soul and savior, pleasure and glutteny. what couldn't you find in the story of intimacy? i don't think we ever listened to the trees enough, him and I. Because when a couple listens to trees a lot, they hear the lessons of the Oldest Soul, whispers in the wind, Wisdom of Old Lovers.  It teaches peace, peace, only peace, always peace.   you said it was the same old story. boy meets girl.  boy loses girl.  girl threatens boy. boy sues girl. what is the moral of this story? of note: why would i want to share personal emails with you outside of a legal order? aren't those emails you printed as direct quotes of Galison a failure to protect my privacy rights? aren't you supposed to have the expressed consent of all parties involved? why did you print those without consulting me, for example? in all cases, your journalism is abominable and tabloid. EXHIBIT Z Aug 25 2006 E-mail from Ned Peyroux to Galison will, I'm sorry my time yesterday was too limited to reply to your message, let alone log into my other profile to read the other - in all honesty, I only read the first half of this message - I am very strapped for time - look through some of the groups in my profile related to 911 & the "New World Order" to see what I'm upto - or go to the forums select "news & politics," then "general" & view the "favorite threads" topic - I'm doing a lot of grassroots activism online & have little time for else, though I did manage to send a quick hello to my mom & to my new girlfriend today... I appreciate that you sent me back some of the things I've written to you & I do recall the extension of your hospitality when I had nothing - In the last two years I've slowly been putting my relationship back together with madi, & out of respect for her, I left you alone while the lawsuit was still pending. I have nothing against you personally, william, & what was between you, madi, & the department of justice is out of my sphere of reference (madi doesn't talk about it with me anyway, though I think she mentioned it's over now)... I hope your sales are going well enough to cover the cost of your investment - it's a good album & I'm glad it's available to your & madi's fans. when I have more time I will read but for now I hope you won't interpret my silence as anything other than preoccupation with my own affairs.. I'm not out to get anyone but the Oligopolists perverting our constitution, & even they I wish only to expose, not persecute (I'm sure as more people wake up to the incremental takeover there will be enough who want to prosecute - The Presidential Cabinet already faces a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) Lawsuit from the families of the victims of 911 - you won't hear much on PBS or NPR about it, but maybe that's because they get so much funding from the gummint) check out my music profile when you get a chance - I'd love to know what you think peace,brother