what Blasi submitted

[ri...@marathonent.com]

Today I received and read how Rosa Blasi's attorney's answered the
amicus briefs handed in by the Talent Managers Association (TMA), the
National Association of Artists Managers (NAAM, the group made up of
Brillstein Grey, Industry, 3 Arts, and a few others), and the National
Conference of Personal Managers (NCOPM).

While their brief was voluminous - 55 pages - it contained nothing
that in any way caused me to waiver from our confidence in the
validity of our positions.

Blasi's attorneys spent most of their time trying to convince the
Court that the Court of Appeals erred in its decree that TAA
controversies must consider the legal doctrine of severance - allowing
the legal aspects to be upheld while voiding the unlawful elements of
a contract. (Even though we devoted 15 pages to that issue, my note
yesterday didn't speak to severance because our severability arguments
reiterated our previous briefs, which we felt and still feel are
invulnerable to Blasi's efforts. More important, since our main
argument is that the TAA doesn't apply to our profession, how the Act
is applied is irrelevant.)

Blasi's biggest contention is that because the Labor Commission and
previous courts have not incorporated severance, severance should not
be applied now. This is silly: our upper courts are specifically
responsible to, among other things, correct imperfections in
enforcement. Our point, and what the TMA and NAAM devoted their
entire briefs to, is that those rulings were incorrect; and just like
how two wrongs don't make a right, a generation of wrongs must now be
stopped.

Here's what I found most compelling: Blasi's attorneys answered the
NCOPM contention that the Act interferes with interstate commerce by
writing how the NCOPM "invents a residency requirement that appears
nowhere in the TAA - and that, in fact, does not exist." (Blasi
provided the emphasis)

Blasi's attorneys are wrong in writing this: as the Marathon answer at
page 50 informed the court. the California Code of Regulations, Title
8, Division 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter 3, Article 1.(2), Section 1200
[which explains to the Labor Commission how to enforce the TAA],
talent agency license applicants must submit their "proposed places of
business and the main office address of the talent agency in
California" and the "name, address and title of the persons ... who
have managing responsibility in California." IN CALIFORNIA BEING THE
OPERATIVE PHRASE: THE TAA DOES HAVE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.

Past wrong, they lied. And here's how I know that the attorneys
lied: on pages 10, 17 and 18 of their brief, Blasi cites the same
subchapter of the Code of Regulations where the above appears. I'm
not sure exactly what, if anything, can be done about such subterfuge;
I'm just glad that we included the true and correct facts in our
brief. And I know that if the Court recognizes that Blasi was willing
to subvert the facts in one area, they may have done it each time the
facts did not fit their objective. Which was often.

All of the facts have now been presented: I'm proud of our efforts and
know that whatever the result, it is clear, very clear that personal
managers should 1) not be insinuated into TAA disputes; and 2) if the
TAA can withstand the interstate commerce interference issues, the
doctrine of severability must be incorporated to those who can remain
vulnerable to TAA controversies.

We all deserve better.

Best,

Rick