More Stupid Copyright Troll Filings In Illinois (Nicoletti) – Named Defendant, 1:12-cv-07029

NUCORP, LTD, v. Ron Bila, case # 1:12-cv-07029 , Northern District if Illinois.

Here is a named defendant case in which Troll Paul J. Nicoletti , has decided to “roll the dice” against. Take a read of the complaint filed on 1 Sep 12, and you will see it is very sparse compared to other complaints.   Complaint_07029(IL)

As there is no mention of a previous case this was associated, Troll Nicoletti appears to be trying to hide the fact that a previous case (State or Federal) was how he/Plaintiff obtained the subscriber information. For this case, no ISP subpoenas were issued and the troll states that Mr. Bila’s public IP address is 69.47.200.208 . This means NUCORP obtained Bila’s subscriber information from one of its Federal or State Bill of Discovery cases (Strike One). As they haven’t informed the court of this association, they are trying to hide this fact. What do you have to fear Troll Nicoletti????

The facts of the case as stated by Troll Nicoletti are as follows.

On three separate times on 12 Sep 11 and 13 Sep 11, the Mr. Bila’s public IP address was recorded downloading/sharing the “Sell You Girlfriend” site rip of 9 porn movies.   Movies_list_07029(IL)   Siterip_list_07029(IL)   This allegedly happened over a year ago and this is all the investigative information they have? Seems a bit odd to file such a case unless you think the defendant is likely to default.

The only claim against Bila is the direct copyright infringement. Here is what Troll Nicoletti and Plaintiff have to say about Mr. Bila.

23. As the subscriber of the Internet service being used to distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies, Defendant is the most likely infringer. Consequently, Plaintiff hereby alleges Defendant is the infringer.

24. Defendant is the only person who can be identified as the infringer at this time.

“Is the most likely infringer.” Sound like you are unsure of this. Especially when read with the next section in the complaint, “Defendant is the only person who can be identified as the infringer at this time.” Sounds like a counterclaim in the making for Troll Nicoletti and Plaintiff.

I also thought it was funny that in the complaint, Troll/Plaintiff mentions the following.

25. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or been waived.

26. Plaintiff has retained counsel and is obligated to pay said counsel a reasonable fee for its services.

A check of the case docket shows that on 19 Sep 12, a complaint was issued for Mr. Bila. I t will be interesting to see if service is made and what Mr. Bila does.

Mr. Bila, here is my suggestion. Immediately hire a good Intellectual Property (IP) attorney who is familiar with these cases.  Caution: I would avoid Mr. Adam E. Urbanczyk until it is determined if he is working with “Pirate Slayer” John Steele/Prenda Law. Please see the fightcopyrighttrolls.com post on this – The Judge asked Master troll John Steele and Mr. Urbanczyk if “Are you in bed with each other?” at a 25 Sep 12 hearing.  

File an answer to the complaint, as well as counterclaims for abuse of process. Troll Nicoletti knows how weak the public IP address is and it is irresponsible to name Mr. Bila as a defendant with no other evidence. Especially since it has been over a year and no additional investigate steps have been undertaken by the Troll.

DieTrollDie :)

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to More Stupid Copyright Troll Filings In Illinois (Nicoletti) – Named Defendant, 1:12-cv-07029

  1. Subscribe says:

    Subscribe

  2. AnonaDoe says:

    The line; “As the subscriber of the Internet service being used to distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies, Defendant is the most likely infringer. Consequently, Plaintiff hereby alleges Defendant is the infringer.” is being used by Malibu Media in Eastern District Court of PA when they sue individual. This seems pretty frivolous to me and hopefully they will get countered sued for harm and extortion,

    • Anon says:

      Nicoletti should be sanctioned for the simple fact that he’s laying all liability on the subscriber in a de facto negligence claim.. Didn’t Sorokin bite a piece out of Marvin Cable’s ass for doing almost the same thing? This has counter-action written all over it.

    • john doe says:

      also being used in named cases in Colorado

  3. Pingback: Open WiFi Is NOT Negligence | Copyright Attorney

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s