(The mamarracho of Judge Fusté)
Judge Fusté's Opinion and Order / Analized
Guillermo Venegas: "A man is honest until he is cought stealing"
Two music publishers, Peermusic and ACEMLA-Latin American Music acted in the music industry for many years as if they owned rights to songs composed by Guillermo Venegas. In the case of Peermusic, a few songs (about 30) and in the case of ACEMLA, all the songs of the composer (over 700).
In 2001 the children heir of Guillermo Venegas sued these two publishers. The results are documented here. Briefly, ACEMLA was not penalized whatsoever for illegally stealing and claiming the ownership and earned royalties to all the songs of Guillermo Venegas, other than paying $16,000 in damages, whereas the real damage ran to many millions of dollars and incalculable emotional damages to the real owners of the songs.
The theft of songs by ACEMLA was well planned and abusive. The result as to Peermusic lawsuit was more or less the same, to a smaller degree, as Peermusic stole fewer songs. The theft of songs by Peermusic was also well planned. In the anals of music history we know of no theft of this magnitude and abuse. Peermusic's damages awarded by the Judge were of only $5,000.
The lawsuit and it's transformation by judge José A. Fusté
El main claim in the lawsuits against ACEMLA and Peermusic was for damages caused by defendants destruction of the market for the music of Guillermo Venegas. The judge apparently did not read that part of the lawsuit, did not discuss it in trial and did not mention it in his order/sentence. Apparently the judge did not read the lawsuit or decided to ignore it. Incredible. One sues ACEMLA for something (market destruction) and the judge ignores that something and turns the case into a copyright infringement case even though the case was not one and could not be one of copyright infringement. And the real culprits of the "copyright infringements" were indispensable parties but were not part of the lawsuits. An obvious and important legal principle (indispensable party) was violated by the judge.
An analogy would be a case where where the defendant is accused of murder, the accused attorney is a friend of the judge and the judge changes the accusation to possession of a weapon and gives the accused a three month sentence, on probation, without any explanation as to the change in the accusation.
As a consequence of judge Fusté's ignoring the damage claims resulting from ACEMLA's theft of the Venegas music and the destruction of it's market, the children of Venegas sued ACEMLA and others again in a Puerto Rico court, in en 2007 (case KPE-074409 Tribunal Superior de San Juan - Judge Angel Caban Ocasio).
The joining of two lawsuits
Sometime in 2001 the Peermusic lawyer (now Judge Francisco Besosa) in Venegas vs. Peermusic lied to his friend José A. Fusté, the judge who had the Venegas vs. ACEMLA lawsuits. Besosa claimed claimed that his case (Venegas vs Peermusic) was identical to the Venegas vs ACEMLA case and thus both cases should be joined. In fact the cases were very different and dealt with different acts by the two music publishers. While the Venegas siblings had no lawyer (their former lawyer had just quit) Judge Fusté joined the two case. An obvious illegal and bad faith action. First in the two cases the song (theft) transactions and the evidences were altogether different. Then there are rules for joining cases in court and the rules were violated by the judge. Anyway, the joining should not have been made while the Venegas siblings had no legal representation and no opportunity to object to the joining of the cases. We don't know why the judge did what he did... we can only suspect. The joining gave the case to Peermusic and to ACEMLA.
The minimal sentence
So for causing the total destruction of their ability to market the music of Guillermo Venegas for many years these two publishers had to pay damages that totaled $21,000. The $21,000 ($0.00 after legal expenses of over $200,000 not recouped) was actually a reimbursement -to the wrong party- of a small fraction of the money illegally collected (about $2,000,000) by the publishers of the money that should have been originally collected by the rightful owners but could not because of the interference by the named music publishers. The judge was José A. Fusté, the court's chief judge, who grabbed the Peermusic lawsuit by consolidating it with the case he has, the ACEMLA case, even though the facts of the lawasuits were unrelated and such consolidation is prohibited. The lawyer for Peermusic was Francisco Besosa, now a judge of the same court. Reportedly Fusté and Besosa are good friends.
That is the story in a few words: Judge Fusté committed hundreds of errors in his written orders and opinions and Besosa's customer was the great beneficiary directly and indirectly though the protection ACEMLA was given by Judge Fusté, as Peermusic and ACEMLA had a common enemy in the Venegas family that had to be stopped no matter the price. Many of Fusté's errors are simple lies, such as the denial that Lucecita, Puerto Rico's "National Voice", sang the song Génesis in a Banco Popular television special that half of Puerto Rico's population, saw so as to save ACEMLA the $43,000 that Banco Popular paid for that performance.
As to the use of the song Génesis, it was originaly licensed to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico by Peermusic, in plain violation of a territorial clause in a song assignment contract (to Mexican publisher allegedly owned by Peermusic, Promotora Hispanoamericana de Musica - PHAM) signed by Guillermo Venegas. The judges did not mention the words contract violation in his Order, so as not to award damages for a contract violation.
Fusté's major error was that he acted as if he did not read the lawsuits at all, which were not about copyright infringement (using song without authorization) but about the destruction of the market (through fraudulent ownership claims and interventions) for the true owners of the songs. Fusté said absolutely nothing about that destruction and thus awarded no damages to the Venegas heirs.
Judge Aida Delgado's contrasting Sentence
Here we need to contrast the Fusté opinion and order as to Peermuusic claim to song ownership and the rescission of the o called assignments (without the author suspectinf) to Peermusic with another opinion and order. It is this sentence against ACEMLA and totally in favor of songwriter Catalino "Tite" Curet's children by judge Aida Delgado. The issues in the case under Judge Fusté are as to royalty reports and payments are similar but Judge Delgado decided in a totally different way. More details and comparisons can be seen here.
BTW... since the Fusté Opinion and Order of 2004, Peer has no reported or paid royalties to the heirs of Guillermo Venegas for the songs they own, as decided buy judge Fusté. As a result, since Guillermo Venegas died in 1993 to 2015 (22 years) no royalty have been reported or paid by Peermusic.
The Glenn Monroig case
In the case of songwriter Glenn Monroig, the same federal court in San Juan, Puerto Rico awarded damages for the improper use (no license and one word was changed) of one single song, of over $7,000,000 to Monroig. That is, for one song used, over 300 times the award given to the Venegas heirs for the market desctruction of all their 700 or so songs. Its actually worse if we take into account the unrecouped Venegas legal expenses of over $200,000. We know not why Judge Fusté did this, and can only suspect.
Fraudulent song ownership claims
Both music publishers, in addition to claiming the ownership of the songs, claimed to recognize the children of Guillermo Venegas as heirs to their fathers' royalty rights. But neither have never paid a single cent in royalties to any of the children in the many years they claimed wrongful ownership.
ACEMLA and their lawyer Angel Caro Padilla alleged they obtained the rights to the music through a valid assignment by the widow -and estate executor- of Guillermo Venegas, who by "chance" had married a vice president of ACEMLA. ACEMLA also alleged (thus lied to Jude Fusté, who welcomed the lie) that the Puerto Rico couts decided that they could not decide who owned the music because that was a federal juristiction only issue, thus denying what the Puerto Rico courts had already decided, that the owners were the Venegas siblings and that the widow had no rights at all and whatever rights she may have had, she ceded those rights explicitly to the Venegas siblings. Attorney Angel Caro Padilla has also alleged the Venegas siblings have tried to milk the widow out of her rights, which ACEMLA has fought -and stole, we add- so hard for her.
Even before the so called assignment by the widow of Venegas, ACEMLA was alrady trying to collect money from the Venegas song Genesis. See invoice here dated 1-8-96. The widow made the assignments 9 months later.
Peermusic obtained most of the they allegedly own, using their own wording in a letter they wrote, "without the author suspecting" and a two page typed letter allegedly assigning songs to Peermusic and allegedly written by Guillermo Venegas. The page that allegedly assigns the songs has no signature (so it could have been changed) , the letter was not written by Guillermo Venegas and the letter was written at the same time that (and sent with) the "without the author suspecting" letter was written, as it was all part of one scheme. Judge Fusté overlooked the facts and said the songs belonged to Peermusic because they timely registered the songs, a false statement as many of the songs were never registered by Peermusic. One song in the "without the author suspecting" letter, the one named "Borracho Sentimental" was not even composed by Guillermo Venegas but Judge Fusté knowingly decided it also belonged to Peermusic, because they registered the song on time. Why Judge Fusté unjustly took the song away without due process (was not present) from the real and unknown owner, so that Peermusic did not appear as a song thief, we don't know, we can only suspect.
Besosa and Peermusic want $1,000,000 fron Venegas heirs
In the end the now federal judge Francisco Besosa (and Peermusic) requested legal expenses to be paid by the Venegas family of $1,000,000, allegedly because his client proved they owned the songs, the songs he knew Peeermusic acquired (or is it stolen?) "without the author suspecting" and because Peermusic paid royalties to Venegas (based on a lie by the Venegas widow - see here).
Peermusic asks for assignments of songs to Venegas siblings
In 1997, while hiding from the Venegas siblings how they obtained the rights to some 30 Venegas songs, Peermusic decided to recognize the siblings as owners of all the songs while at the same time proposing in writing that the siblings, as owners, assign the songs so that Peermusic would own and manage them. The proposal, similar to proposals made by music publishers to get song assignments from songwriters, would make Peermusic the legal owner.
Peermusic offered $3 dollars for obtaining the ownership of 24 songs, or 12.5 american cents per song. That is what the song Genesis was worth to Peer, 12.5 cents. Of course the Venegas siblings, not being idiots, rejected the proposal, thus retaining the ownership (for themselves an their heirs and giving away one's inheritance in Puerto Rico for a simulated payment is illegal), which meant that that in 1997 the children of Guillermo Venegas were the owners of the songs formerly claimed by Peermusic.
And what did Judge Fusté do? He ignored the even for all but 8 songs. For the rest (some 18 songs) he ignore the Peermusic recognition that the siblings owned the songs and rather decided that Peermusic owned the songs because they had registered the songs on time (an absurd legal concept and a lie because Peermusic had never registered many of the songs). The details are here. Hoe did Peermusic get the decision from Judge Fusté, we don't know... we only suspect. We do know that Peermusic said the spent one million dollars proving their case and their case was to get Judge Fusté say that they owned the songs.
The ACEMLA theft and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court
ACEMLA stole the music through a public deed that says it was ordered by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Of course, the Venegas siblings do not recognize a fraudulent document no matter who ordered it made. Judge Fuste did not mention this fraudulent -though sanctioned by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court- document at all, we know not why, but can only suspect.
Stealing something not as bad as using something
A simple copyright infringement (making copies in a recording or singing the song in public without authorization) can get an award of damages millions of dollars, and that is infringement. The act of fraudulently claiming a song, stealing it, causes far greater damages to the real owners of the song than a copyright infringement of the song. Why Judge Fusté thought otherwise and basically forgave the thievery, and gave a minimal sentences we don't know, we can only suspect.
Illegal licensing (making available) does not violate owner rights
Judge Fusté decided that the illegal licenses for hundreds of Guillermo Venegas songs issued to radio stations (for money) was not a violation of the real owner's distribution rights. A very controversial determination in legal circles. See here for a serious legal analysis of the judge's decision. The Fusté decision saved ACEMLA probably millions of dollars.
Peermusic and ACEMLA wanted the worthless music
Peermusic and ACEMLA, after arguing the music belonged and should continue to belong to them, argued the music has no value. Peermusic, to justify their failure in promotion, licensing and lack of royalty payments claimed in court that the songs of Guillermo Venegas were not liked at all. ACEMLA, to justify that damages should not be awarded for their theft of all the music claimed the same thing as Peermusic, thet there is no market for the music. These music publishers claimed the music has no market, it's worthless, as if their business is to grab all possible songs, the good and the bad ones they do not care to promote and exploit for the benefit of the songwriters that assign the songs to them precisely for the purpose of sharing the royalties that the publishers earn.
Why the song assignments to Peermusic were not rescinded by the judge, based on a lie
Peermusic and judge Fusté alleged that the (alleged) assignments of songs that Venegas assigned to Peermusic could not be rescinded (annulled) because Peermusic paid royalties to Venegas. The evidence was a trial perjured statement by Venega's widow that Venegas received royalties from Peermusic. No amounts or dates were given by the widow. On May 21, 2009 during a sworn deposition, the widow stated that Venegas never received any royalties from anyone. We don't know how Peermusic got the widow to lie about the alleged royalty payments made bt Peermusic, but we suspect that Peemusic and ACEMLA conspired so that the plaintiffs won nothing in the case.
Judge Fusté never saw any documentary evidence that could prove that Peer made any royalty payments to Venegas in the more than 50 years Peermusic claimed to own (and manage) the Venegas songs. In the 22 years since Venegas died (1993-2015) Peemusic has not paid any royalties to the Venegas successors/heirs.
Why the judge was so sloppy in accepting worthless on which an important decision was based, we don't know.... we can only suspect.
This is how they killed the song Génesis.
Unbelievable, but, Peermusic has even claimed it has never earned any performance income from Venegas' most famous song, Génesis. Venegas assigned the song to a Peermusic "partner" publisher in 1969. Since then Peermusic has licenced the song but make no performance money on it, they say.
Peermusic spent, they allege, one million dollars to "prove" the songs belonged to them. They also alleged that they do not know what the words "beneficial owner" (the songwriter and heirs) means. Judge Fusté believed it all, we don't know why, we only suspect.
The appeal or lack of
As to the question of why none of the hundreds of Judge Fusté's plain sight errors were never appealed or reversed, we don't know and we never liked the explanation of our lawyers, simply that Judge Fusté and the courts are corrupt. We can only suspect.
Yes, justice is blind. Please read on for the proof documents.
FUSTE'S OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARY
A story of greed, stupidity, temerity and arrogance of music publishers:
SUMMARY AND ANALISYS OF FUSTE'S OPINION
(Over 200 errors by Judge Fusté (Que mamarracho !!!)
VIDEO: LA ESCRITURA (ESPAÑOL)
(El Gran Robo de la historia de Puerto Rico)
THE PEERMUSIC METHOD OF GETTING SONGS
How Peermusic grabbed the music of Guillermo Venegas and other songwriters
SONGS STOLEN BY PEERMUSIC "WITHOUT THE AUTHOR SUSPECTING"
The Peermusic plan to steal Venegas songs is in writing!
A REASON TO GIVE SONGS TO PEERMUSIC: TIMELY REGISTRATION
But registrations were never made, per the same judge
THE INCREDIBLE PEERMUSIC ASSIGNMENT CONTRACT
A very lopsided contract
PEERMUSIC ASK VENEGAS HEIRS IN 1997 FOR ASSIGNMENT OF SONGS
Peermusic says in Court: We own the songs anyway
$1 MILLION PEERMUSIC LAWYER FEE CLAIM AGAINST VENEGAS HEIRS
Or, how to scare the victims of a theft
FUSTÉ OVERLOOKS THE $1,000,000 SONOLUX-LAMCO INFRINGEMENT
Incredible: Millions of records sold but it never happened
FUSTÉ OVERLOOKS THE $43,000 LUCECITA PERFORMANCE OF GÉNESIS
Incredible: The videotaped act that never occured
THE COST OF GETTING $21,000 AWARDS: OVER $250,000
Thanks you so much, José A. Fusté
PEERMUSIC DECEIT AND GAME PLAYING WITH GVL HEIRS IN THE COURT
With an incredible judicial blessing
SONGS ASSIGNED FOR 111 (OR 128) YEARS TO PEERMUSIC?
The tricks for eternal copyrights
FAKE GUILLERMO VENEGAS SIGNATURES ON CONTRACTS
Is faking signatures without a power of attorney a crime?
A GUILLERMO VENEGAS SONG MASSACRED BY PEERMUSIC
The result of getting the songs "without the author suspecting"
LETTER OF 12-30-04 TO PEERMUSIC
Result: Peermusic ignores all Venegas heir requests as of 2007
LETTER OF 1-5-05 TO OMBUDSMAN AND REPLY
A total failure of a government agency, twice
A SURPRISING PEERMUSIC ADMISSION OF ILLEGALITY
OK because no one complained?THE INCREDIBLE VENEGAS SONG EARNINGS REPORT FOR ~50 YEARS
Were the songs really that bad?, as Peermusic said at trial, or were the songs acquired simly to place them in deep freeze storage forever? Why has a beautiful song as Ausencia (mp3 here) never earned a single cent in over 50 years of being "administered" (or mis-administered) by Peermusic?
GÉNESIS: THE KILLING AND DEATH OF A SONG
Excuse me friends, but I am looking for the composer of my favorite song Borracho Sentimental (Sentimental Drunk). Some are saying this song was composed by Guillermo Venegas, but that is not so. Federal Judge Fusté says that Peermusic owns the song because Guillermo Venegas gave the song to Peermusic. But Guillermo never wrote or owned the song and the judge knows it! What a scandal! The real owner or a heir may have the rights to 50 years of royalties and much more. If you know the composer or a family member please contact 787-250-7602 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
THE MYSTERY OF THE ARDILA LULLE DAMAGE AWARD OF $1.6MILLION
How big money runs from the law and the laws does nothing about it
PEER EN CUBA - THE CUBAN CONNECTION
Result: Cubans beat Peermusic song ownership claims British court
CABAN VS PEERMUSIC (SPANISH)
The author of this page is Rafael Venegas, son of the composer and Executive Director of GVL Inc. This page or parts thereof may be copied as long as no alterations are made and credit is given to the author. © Copyright 2009, GVL Inc.
For more information: email@example.com tel. 787-250-7602 / Celular 787-310-3574
mamarracho = Cosa ridicula, mal hecha o enredo (ridiculous, poorly made, a mess).
This includes, in present value (royalty plus interes) over $200,000 collected in royalties for the song Génesis and over $1,800,000 for the song "Desde que te marchaste". Unpaid to this date (March 2009).
Music copyright Infringement is the violation of a copyright owners 6 exclusive rights related to making records, videos, and publicly performing the song. None of defendants ACEMLA and Peermusic made any records or performed any Venegas songs because they are not in that type of business.
Simulated payments (the well know "for one dollar contracts") are invalid in Puerto Rico as decided by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court delaring the payments "causas disimuladas".