EVIDENCE THAT GREENBERG DEFRAUDED ROUNDER RECORDS REGARDING GALISON’S CO- OWNERSHIP OF GYOMM

There glaring contradiction between Mr. Greenberg's testimony and Rounder's regarding the ownership of "Got You On My Mind" is the key to understanding both the libel action and the counterclaims in this case.

Both Mr. Greenberg and Ms, Peyroux have testified that Rounder was fully aware of my joint ownership of the CD “Got You On My Mind” from the time the CD was recorded in February 2003, as is shown by Mr. Greenberg's sworn statements:  Q). Did you tell -- did you  tell anybody at Rounder that William Galison was the co-owner of  the...  A). Yes....  Yes....Yes, I did tell the label that he had his interest in these recordings .Q).    When?  A). Before the signing of the agreement [April 2003} and over the course of these negotiations....  I talked to Troy Hansborough.  And I talked to Marty Willard.  And it was no secret that William -- you know, it was no secret, William's interest in these things. [JAG depo  0162]

In direct contradiction of the above, Rounder swears under oath that they absolutely DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING about my ownership rights or any agreement until late December, 2003- ten months after the contract was signed, when they found out independently of Mr. Greenberg. “[Galison’s lawyer] Steven Robinson made me aware [that Galison and Peyroux were joint owners of GYOMM in December, 2003]… the only knowledge I had then, and continue to have now, with respect to the issue of ownership, is that these issues were and are a point of contention between Galison and Peyroux". [Rounder depo 14.23]

The clear conviction behind these testimonies shows that this is not a matter of conjecture or foggy memory. Somebody is committing perjury, and/or conspiracy to commit perjury. It is imperative to the fair dispensation of this case to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. If Rounder knew about my ownership from the beginning, they would have no basis to blame or punish Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Peyroux for deceiving them.

However, if Rounder, (as they have testified), did not know that I was the joint owner of the recordings and owner of the masters, because Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Peyroux never told them, then Mr.  Greenberg and Ms.  Peyroux would have been compelled to cover up this deception before it was expose.  Furthermore,  the alleged "verbal agreement" that Mr. Greenberg claims he told Rounder about (but has no evidence for) would not have made any sense to Rounder if they thought Ms. Peyroux was the sole owner.  Hence:

-Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Peyroux were compelled to end my  performances with Ms. Peyroux, thereby preventing  further distribution of the CD which could alert Rounder to their deception.

-in the fall of 2003, Mr. Greenberg effectively tried to extort me into selling my rights to the CD by refusing to pay me an acknowledged debt if I did not agree to sell my rights to the CD.

- Rounder, when they found out that I had proposed to sell the GYOMM,  threatened to pull the plug on Ms. Peyroux’s contract.

MOST IMPORTANT, this explains Mr. Greenberg's motivation in composing the defamatory letter of December 17th.

In this letter, Mr. Greenberg accused me of violating Ms. Peyroux’s copy rights, the non-existent verbal agreement, the contract between Peyroux and Rounder (?}, the Donnelly Act, The Lanham Act, and "various state and common law unfair competition and unfair trade laws.. " Mr. Greenberg threatened to sue me for all of these causes, but followed through on only two; violation of  the non-existent verbal agreement and the use of a cartoon of a woman on the CD cover, which Mr. Greenberg says resembles Ms. Peyroux. Just in case these frivolous threats failed to deter me from asserting my rights, he threw in some heavy artillery.

The cherry on the top of this letter was the accusation of physical abuse and criminal harassment. The letter specifically threatens that Ms. Peyroux is considering having me arrested for criminal harassment. In the context of a letter addressing a civil dispute (a clear violation of LCPR DR 7-105).

The implication of this threat in a letter intended to stop sales of a CD is clear; if I do not give up my plans to release the CD, Ms. Peyroux will press criminal charges and I will have to defend myself against a major New York law firm. The letter was not intended to protect Ms. Peyroux from "harassment",  as I had had no contact whatsoever with her for over three months, except for her overtly affectionate and apologetic letter to me of 10/29/03. [Exhibit  ]

Greenberg's strategy was clever except for one small detail. I knew that I had never done anything remotely definable as physical abuse or criminal harassment. I will not be blackmailed. That is why I am suing the defendants for libel.

In summation; if Defendants lied to Rounder, Defendants' motivations for making the libelous statements become obvious, and their calculated effort to deprive me of my rights becomes startlingly clear. This will be reflected in the jury’s calculation of punitive damages.

DESPITE THE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TESTIMONIES OF  MR. GREENBERG AND ROUNDER RECORDS, NEITHER PARTY HAS PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION REFLECTING THE DISPUTE OR SUPPORTING THEIR POSITION. THIS BLATANT NON-COMPLIANCE UNFAIRLY IMPEDES MY ABILITY TO DETERMINE DAMAGES IN THIS CASE. FOR THIS REASON, I REQUEST ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY OF ROUNDER'S DATA STORAGE MEDIA IN REGARDS TO THE DISPUTE WITH MR. GREENBERG.