In this Opinion And Order of 9-11-03 Judge Fuste, on page 2, says that the Puerto Rico courts had not decided who owned the songs that had entered the so called copyright renewal period.
Said Judge Fuste on page 2:
Of course, this is a false statement.
In this Opinion And Order of 9-11-03 Judge Fuste, on page 4, says, speking of rights ownership (see words "musical works beloned") that the Puerto Rico courts had not decided it had no jurisdiccio over copyright claims. This is false. On January 28, 2000 the court decided that all righsts belonged to the children of GVL. That is what was affirmed. The widow chavez appealed the anuary 28 decision twice (and specifically claimed owmership on renewal period songs) and twice the appeals were rejected.
Fuste could not have found that the Puerto Rico courts did not decide who owned the righs to GVL songs or to GVL renewal period songs . What Fuste did was to repeat the lie he was told (obviously without reading the Puerto Rico courts decisions himself) by ACEMLA-LAMCO's lawyer, (Angel Caro Padilla) that the Puerto Rico courts had inhibited because of an alleged lack of jurisdiction. This lie has been repeated many times by Mr. Caro Padilla, obviously on behalf of ACEMLA-LAMCO. Fuste thus rejected a valid res-judicata (meaning that was already decided by another court) argument by the heirs of Guillermo Venegas.. The fact is that the Puerto rico courts received two Certioraris (to Appeal and to Supreme courts) from Lucy Chavez (who had previouslt assigned those songs to ACEMLA-LAMCO) where she claimed to have the rights on the renewal songs and that the court had erred by taking those rights from her. The Puerto Rico courts rejected Chavez' claim twice.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, established by the US Supreme Court did not allow Fuste to review what has already been decided by the Puerto Rico courts.