Interesting new Kesha Case facts revealed

[Noah 26,972]

http://www.someecards.com/entertainment/music/judge-shirley-kornreich-conflict-of-interest-kesha-sony-lawsuit/

The Judge who threw out Keshas case against Sony had a massive conflict of interest.

This is interesting: it turns out that the New York State Supreme Court judge who threw out Kesha's appeal in her lawsuit against producer Dr. Luke and Sony had a pretty big conflict of interest, in that she's married to one of Sony's lawyers. Hmm. Apparently, Judge Shirley Kornreich's husband, Ed Kornreich, is a partner at a firm called Proskauer Rose, which has Sony/RCA as a client.

In April, Judge Kornreich dismissed the appeal Kesha had filed against Sony, in which Kesha requested to be released from her contract, alleging that her producer Dr. Luke (real name Lukasz Gottwald) had sexually assaulted her. Judge Kornreich said:

Although [Luke's] alleged actions were directed to Kesha, who is female, [her claims] do not allege that [Luke] harbored animus toward women or was motivated by gender animus when he allegedly behaved violently toward Kesha. . . Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime.

Kesha dropped the case against Sony in Los Angeles, but she's continuing her appeal in New York. On August 1, the performer posted on Facebook about the lawsuit, writing: "The lawsuit is so heavy on my once free spirit, and I can only pray to one day feel that happiness again."

[PaperIz 7,346]

http://www.breatheheavy.com/judge-that-dismissed-keshas-suit-against-dr-luke-is-married-to-a-lawyer-representing-sony/

I didn't see this posted anywhere but sorry if AP. This is sickening. I hope she loses her job or something? Poor Kesha 

[mucinex 4,260]

i wish so badly that if she was raped  there is some sort of solid evidence they somehow forgot about to help her win a case & leave her contract.

[Raikov 183]

Can't read the article because it's blocked but get that conflict of interest I guess 

[FATCAT 60,100]

Well, the judge should have recused themselves, BUT Kesha's case against him wasn't strong anyway.

[PaperIz 7,346]

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Well, the judge should have recused themselves, BUT Kesha's case against him wasn't strong anyway.

Well I think it's pretty obvious that the whole thing has been stacked against her. I mean the whole thing is fkd up

[mucinex 4,260]

7 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

BUT Kesha's case against him wasn't strong anyway.

this

[pie-kun 1,765]

There's nothing in the article that says the lawyer represents Sony. It says he is a partner at a firm that has Sony as a client. That doesn't mean that he himself has Sony as a client.

According to his page, he chairs the Health Care Department of the law firm. 

"Ed works primarily on health care transactions, regulatory compliance, health care payment and governance issues for varied providers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), vendors, GPOs, distributors and entrepreneurs."

So he doesn't work with Sony nor does he work in Entertainment law at all, his specialty is healthcare and he generally represents hospitals and other health care providers. 

I see nothing that implies a conflict of interest here.

[NewYorkCity 10,536]

Wondering What certain person has to say about this 

[FATCAT 60,100]

Just now, PaperIz said:

Well I think it's pretty obvious that the whole thing has been stacked against her. I mean the whole thing is fkd up

Yes, but the rule of law has to stand, and if she can't prove it without a doubt, he's innocent.

[pie-kun 1,765]

To add to my post above, Dr. Luke's lawyer is Christine Lepera who works at a completely different law firm than Proskauer. That adds even less credence to the claim that there was a conflict of interest.

[PaperIz 7,346]

14 minutes ago, Raikov said:

Can't read the article because it's blocked but get that conflict of interest I guess 

https://www.google.com/amp/pagesix.com/2016/08/23/judge-who-tossed-keshas-case-married-to-lawyer-with-sony-ties/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us there's another link lol

[PaperIz 7,346]

5 minutes ago, pie-kun said:

There's nothing in the article that says the lawyer represents Sony. It says he is a partner at a firm that has Sony as a client. That doesn't mean that he himself has Sony as a client.

According to his page, he chairs the Health Care Department of the law firm. 

"Ed works primarily on health care transactions, regulatory compliance, health care payment and governance issues for varied providers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), vendors, GPOs, distributors and entrepreneurs."

So he doesn't work with Sony nor does he work in Entertainment law at all, his specialty is healthcare and he generally represents hospitals and other health care providers. 

I see nothing that implies a conflict of interest here.

He has an affiliation with Sony and that's enough. It's sick.

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Yes, but the rule of law has to stand, and if she can't prove it without a doubt, he's innocent.

Still doesn't make it right. If the judge is corrupt then there is no real justice. 

[elijahfan 26,312]

How in the hell was it not known since day ****ing 1?????

[pie-kun 1,765]

Just now, PaperIz said:

He has an affiliation with Sony and that's enough. It's sick.

Legally, no, it's not. He does not represent Sony and the law firm he works at was not even involved in the case in question. Dr. Luke's attorney works for a different law firm.