Re: Facts, Opinions, Truth and Balance

There has been a lot of talk about, facts, opinions, speculation
and truth. It is essential to differentiate between these.

George W Bush doesn’t believe in the existence of Global
Warming or Evolution because he ignores the facts. He also
ignored the facts when he attacked Iraq to rid them of WMD’s.

I would assume that Madeleine’s fans have the brains and
integrity to examine facts that have been verified and
documented.

Notice that Geoff and Amelie do not offer any veriifiable facts in
their postings. They offer opinions and personal anecdotes.
The statement “Madeleine is a very fine person” is an opinion. It
may be true for Geoff but not to somebody else. It is factually
neither true nor false and cannot be proven to be one or the
other. Opinions are nice, but they will never resolve the serious
matters at hand, and will convince nobody of anything.

Facts are different. They are verifiably true or false.

The statement “William Galison violated Madeleine’s
copyrights by selling GYOMM” is a “factual statement” because
it is verifiable, and it turns out to be false.

The statement “Jeffery Greenberg misrepresented the
ownership of GYOMM to Rounder Records” is both verifiable
and true.

At least “Cornish jazz” had the good sense to question facts:
Was it $15,000 I spent on GYOMM or $80,000? He asked and I
answered. End of conversation.

fact (fkt) n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an
account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed:

SOME FACTS:

FACT: On Dec. 17th 2003, Madeleine’s lawyer Jeffrey
Greenberg wrote:

“it is the position of our client and Rounder that if Mr. Galison or
his designees [sell Got You On My Mind outside of Peyroux’s
shows] ...such claims will give rise to material breach of the
agreement between Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux concerning
exploitation of the recording, tortious interference with the
contractual relationship between Ms. Peyroux and Rounder
Records, infringement of Ms Peyroux's rights in the recordings
and her performance thereon, unauthorized use of our client's
name, likeness and trademark, false designation of origin
under the Lanham act and violation of various state and
common law unfair competition and unfair trade laws. Ms.
Peyroux and Rounder records will advise any third party
seeking to sell, distribute or otherwise exploit any of the
recordings that such release is unauthorized and actionable.”

FACT: The “agreement between Mr. Galison and Ms. Peyroux”
refers to an unwritten, unwitnessed conversation Galison had
with Peyroux in February, 2003. There is no evidence outside
of Peyroux’s word that this agreement limited Galison’s ability
to sell GYOMM in any way.

FACT: The “contractual relationship between Ms. Peyroux and
Rounder Records” DOES NOT MENTION ANY LIMITATION
ON Galison’s SELLING GYOMM. IN FACT, BECAUSE
PEYROUX AND GREENBERG LIED TO ROUNDER ABOUT
GALISON’S OWNERSHIP, HIS NAME WAS NEVER
MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT. In any case, a contract
between two parties can't limit the rights of a third party .
Otherwise I could make a contract with my cousin requiring
Rounder to pay me $1,000,000 and then sue Rounder for
breaking it. (Where did Greenberg go to lawschool?...)

FACT: “Infringement of Ms, Peyroux’s rights in the recordings
and her performance thereon” unambiguously means that my
selling GYOMM violates Madi’s copyrights. Six months later,
when forced to t