Follow Up – Your 5th Amendment Rights At A Copyright Troll Deposition

I’m doing a follow-up piece on invoking you 5th Amendment rights at a copyright troll depositiondepo1Take a look at what a deposition is from the Cornell University Law School.  Some Troll depositions in VA are scheduled in a few weeks.  Based on the results of the depositions, the Trolls may find this a new viable avenue to take. 

Some people may have an issue with invoking their 5th Amendment rights, but with these cases it is it a “no-brainer” in my opinion.

WHY????

First you need to look at the case complaint.  What is the allegation?  For case number 1:12-cv-01272, Openminded Solutions, Inc., v. John Doe IP: 108.56.171.121 Defendant, there is three allegations.     Complaint_01272(VA)   (** Please also not that the “Defendant” is public IP address 108.56.171.121**)

  • Copyright Infringement

  • Contributory Infringement

  • Negligence

So What???

The important thing to understand is with the Negligence claim, you don’t even have to have any knowledge that the activity was occurring.  Just that you were “negligent” as the ISP subscriber (and thus responsible for the wrongdoing).  Yes the negligence claim is very weak, but who wants to take a chance that some judge decides to rule differently.  The fact the Troll is claiming negligence, would make me invoke my 5th Amendment rights. 

If I Invoke My Rights They Will Think I Did It!!!

News Flash!!!  They already think you did it.  That or they think you know who did it.  By talking to them, you give them the opportunity to get additional information that can benefit their case.  By invoking your rights, they are left with the same weak evidence they had before – Only the Public IP address.  Even if you talk to them and admit nothing, they can still name and serve you if they chose to.  Speaking to them does nothing to benefit you – so why do it?  They decide what to do on this case, not you.  The worst they can do is whine to the judge, “they will not talk to me.” :(  Most judges will tell them to shut up and  name you if they want to go forward.  If they had the evidence to name you in the first place they would have.  If they name you with their weak evidence, they open themselves up to sanctions, as well as a defendant answering the complaint and making counterclaims.  Once a complaint is answered, it is not as easy for them to just drop the case.  They don’t want counterclaims – just your money. 

invoke1Again, you invoke your rights based on the possible criminal aspect of the copyright infringement and negligence allegations.  It doesn’t matter if the Troll is only going after you in civil court.  There is the possibility your answers could be used to come after you in a criminal proceedings. 

Well What If They Troll Offers Not To Go After Me In A Criminal Proceeding?

First off, it isn’t their option.  Criminal charges are brought by local, State, or Federal prosecutors.  The Plaintiff would be a Victim in these matters, but not the controlling factor.  Now the Troll could offer not to come after you in a civil suit, but I would only consider this if the offer included a dismissal with prejudice.  But be careful then – if you say a guest or your child/adult-child did it, they could go after them.   

Previous article – Your 5th Amendment Rights At A Copyright Troll Deposition

5th Amendment to the US Constitution

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 depositions and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Follow Up – Your 5th Amendment Rights At A Copyright Troll Deposition

  1. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a very nice article by Dona Szak, Ajamie LLP, titled “Asserting the Fifth Amendment in Civil Proceedings. http://www.ajamie.com/asserting-the-fifth-amendment-in-civil-proceedings-12-29-2010/ I’m trying to get permision to post it here and use parts of it. A very good read that highlights the fact that a judge/jury is allowed to infer you are hiding something if you invoke the 5th in a civil preceeding. Note: That means one of these cases would make it to trial and be judged on its merits – Unlikely IMO. It hasn’t happened yet to anyone who fights back. Default judgements are the only thing the Trolls can claim.

    DTD :)

  2. FU scum troll says:

    Could a person come to the depostion and just read a prepared statement exposing the extortion scam, explain how the trolls operate, sidestep due process and court procedure & extort Does? Then refuse to answer any questions?

    • trolldestroyer says:

      I often thought it would be quite hilarious utilizing the method FU scum troll speaks of.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I would assume you would have to respond to each question with “I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and respectfully decline to
      answer the question.” Be mindful that “IF” the case every actually went to a jury, they would be allowed to draw the inference that you were hiding something because you didn’t answer the question. As NO copyright troll cases (to date) have gone to a jury – been judged on its merits (lack of them IMO), then this is a minor risk.

      DTD :)

  3. I Just got back from depostion with one of Andersons troll underlings (Brian Harrison?). Told the truth and gave them my hard drive from the time of alleged download which I got back from my grandma who died recently. I hope there is a special place in hell for this scum sucking rat clan. Took about 20 mins with no terrible questions. I guess next these douches will wanna talk to my wife, and try to get some conflicting answers on purpose of course… I still pray to go Jeff Fantalis on these parasites…

    • pissed off Doe says:

      Dam, this sucks. Did have an attorney representing you? Did you just hand over your drive to them, or 3rd party?

  4. FU scum troll says:

    I had no attorney or $7500 to pay one. I offered my hard drive which I was positive did not have the Katie Jordin clip. I thought about pleading the 5th to almost every question but I have nothing to hide. But these shi*bags aren’t known for being honest are they….

    • ano says:

      You offered, did they actually take it this time?

      • FU scum troll says:

        Yeah, offered! But my grandma had the drive for almost a year, no telling if anyone came to her house to compromise it. I doubt grandma was a pirate, ARRRR!! She died this year, rest her beautiful soul……Yeah he took it and didn’t say a word about scanning it, Also didn’t have me sign anything for it.

  5. pissed off Doe says:

    Well heck, u don’t think that scum will try to plant something there with a timestamp?

    • Anonymous says:

      If they actually try to pursue the case after this, they may have actually blown it by taking your hard drive. If it was handed over to opposing counsel and not a neutral third party investigator I don’t think there is any way the trolls will handle that drive in a way that maintains the chain of custody. I would be interested to know what some of our commenters with more legal experience think, but this sounds to me like they are just following through with a bluff, so far none of the trolling operations have shown the willingness or competence to pay up for legitimate e-discovery.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        It really depends on how they handle the drive from this point on, as well as maintaining a chain-of-custody and having someone who can speak smartly to their actions. I agree that it really isn’t worth their time or money at this point to have it examined. As they actually took it, they are doing better then Malibu Media who refused to even touch hard drives from multiple defendants. If they do nothing with it, then it will still show they have no intention of actually doing anything with these cases. On a side note. as this hard drive was voluntarily provided (verbal consent) to the Troll, the defendant can revoke his consent at any time and demand it be returned. As the Troll accepted it without any written paperwork from the Doe, he is a fool IMO.

        DTD :)

  6. Well poo. I thought lawyers would be honest enough not to plant evidence and if they do I will personaly declare all out fu*kin war on them and dedicate my life to making theirs a living hell, courts be damned. Also, even if the trolls find any movie on a doe’s hard drive that does not mean the PC owner or IP subscriber downloaded it. The downloader could have been a friend or someone else on the PC. Would that Doe be forced to name someone else for these swine to screw over? Would the 5th apply?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Even for the low ethical standards of the Trolls, I don’t believe they would risk planting evidence. It is too risky of a stunt in comparison to the benefit.

      As far as if they find anything on the hard drive? Lets say they find a BT client, copyright protected movies downloaded via BT (Nothing belonging to Plaintiff), and some drive cleaning/wiping software. No direct evidence supporting the infringement of Plaintiff’s movie is found, BUT what they have found does paint a picture. Remember that if one of these cases ever goes to a trial (unlikely unless something like the PA Bellwether), the Troll only needs to show that the defendant is more than likely (51%+) to have committed the infringement to win a judgement. For my example, the Troll would point out it was your IP address recorded, there is BT on the system, other copyright protected movies were on the system (showing a disposition to do this), and you most likely wiped the direct evidence with the software on your system.

      It then becomes YOUR responsibility to try and explain why each of these factors does NOT add up to you committing the infringement. It can be done, but it can be a pain in the rear.
      - BT is a default load on the operating system (Linux) I use.
      - The copyright protected movies found were from a friend’s laptop that you were helping to recover data from after a system crash. Your forgot to remove the files from your system after moving data to his new system.
      - The software in question is part of your normal system clean up and security practices. It is a “best practice” to properly destroy your electronic data that contain sensitive and/or PII, instead of simply deleting it. If you system is ever stolen or lost, you don’t have to worry about identify theft as a result.

      And if a judge or jury doesn’t think you are credible, the truth doesn’t matter too much. A simple claim of “I didn’t do it,” may not help in this situation. This is why I would not give up a hard drive for an examination without limiting the scope of their search to the specific facts of their case.
      - Date/time in question
      - Specific BT client they noted
      - Specific torrent file for the movie
      - Specific movie in the complaint
      - All other information on the drive is not part of the consent.

      DTD :)

      • I wonder if it would help to send them an email saying I revoke my verbal consent and to preserve proper procedure and evidence rules that if they would like to keep the drive I’ve included a form limiting scope as you explained above, sign it myself and leave a place for them to sign also and ask they email me the form back signed or they should send my drive back? I would bet they have a laugh at this. I have no idea who could’ve had access to it while not in my posession for almost a year, so just to attempt a safer avenue for me, Would any of you try this?

  7. A hell sort of like these blogs have done to all the troll scumbags, to be more specific. No illegal acts intended…

  8. I also think emailing and revoking would paint a picture of appearing to want to hide something to a jury, I’m going to let it ride and see the trolls next move. I hope my crap situation can at least be some gold info for the next person these ambulance chasing people try to extort….. Thanks for all your help!

  9. Pingback: Copyright Troll Violation of CO Court Order, 1:12-cv-00656, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Cisa (CO) – Torpedo #8 | DieTrollDie

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