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

I know I have said this before, but we do live in some interesting times.  Before all this copyright troll messed started, I never thought I would be on the Web in this form.  I’m a bit swamped (putting it mildly), but I’m having a great time also.  Before I get to the topic at hand, I wanted to give thanks to all the people out there who have been supportive in a multitude of ways.  Attorneys, Does, Court Employees, Judges, and especially the participants to these forums.  You have made this year something special.  Any help you are able to give will come back to you threefold – My Belief.  Sorry if this article has taken a little longer than I wanted.  Happy holiday wishes to all.  Note: I have a special lump of coal for naughty Trolls out there.

lump1

Violation of CO Court Order

When I first heard about Troll Timothy Anderson (Prenda Law Inc. contractor) planning to depose John Does in Virginia, I couldn’t believe Prenda Law Inc. (Now the “Anti-Piracy Law Group”) was trying this route again (previously used a few times in CA).  The method is a sound one for an attorney who actually wants to try to determine who the true offender is.  As the copyright trolls really don’t care who did it or trying to stop it, the tactic is not logical.  They really just want to use it to pressure the ISP subscriber into paying the settlement demand.  The negligence claim in these VA Sunlust cases is key – in their view it doesn’t matter if you didn’t know about what was happening – you are responsible.

After writing a few articles on the depositions (Article1  Article2), my research brought me back to a MASS Doe case in Colorado, 1:12-cv-00656-CMA-KMT, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Cisa (movie – Sunny Leone – Goddesss).   Complaint_00656(CO)   This case was filed on 15 Mar 12, with one ”John Doe” and 1385 “joint tortfeasors.”  Plaintiff eventually named Willaim Cisa as the main defendant (on 12 Sep 12), with the joint tortfeasors still attached to the case.   The case went the usual way of Plaintiff asking for early discovery of the ISP subscriber information associated with the public IP addresses.  After the court granted the early discovery, John Does and their attorneys started to file various motions.  Here is the archive of the case.  Please note the various attorneys and firms involved.

On 19 Oct 12, CO Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, issued an order that stated she would not dismiss the claims of civil conspiracy or all causes of actions against all the parties.  She did decide to reverse her order granting early discovery and QUASHED the outstanding ISP subpoenas.  What was really nice to read in this order was –

Insofar as any personal identifying information of the non-party “joint tortfeasors” has already been provided to Plaintiff from the “joint tortfeasors’” ISPs, Plaintiff is prohibited from further communicating with these subscribers.

Not a true shocker of an order, but still very nice.  What makes this order really fun in my view is what happened next.  As there were so many joint tortfeasors, Prenda Law Inc., was busy sending out the settlement demands.  As many of the joint tortfeasors did not live in the Colorado jurisdiction, Prenda needed to outsource to local copyright trolls to further apply pressure to the Does.  Also, note that during this time, John Steele was claiming they were hiring new local attorneys and that they were going to “name and serve” as many pirates as possible, “So watch out!”   One of the attorneys hired by Prenda law was Timothy Anderson, out of VA.

Now Troll Anderson started to file various single John Doe cases for various Prenda clients in VA.  Some of these John Does were still part of the CO Cisa case when these new ones were filed in VA.  Troll Anderson decided to go a different route and was able to get a VA judge to allow him to depose (interview) the ISP subscribers.  The court issued deposition subpoenas and the troll started to make service (or just leave them on people’s front door).   VA Deposition Subpeona    As soon as this started to happen, I heard from some Does who was part of the Cisa case.  OK, what just happened when the deposition subpoena was sent to the John Does?????  YES, a violation of the 19 Oct 12, CO Court Order.  That action is clearly a “communication” with a joint tortfeasor, and Troll Anderson was attempting to engage in further communication to seek a settlement.   I haven’t gotten around to comparing all the VA Sunlust cases (See below 12 VA cases are from CO Cisa), but I have found two that are from the CO Cisa case – 1:12-cv-01280 & 1:12-cv-01271.  The IP addresses and the date/time of alleged infringement for the individual cases are the same as in the Cisa case.  Complaint_00656(CO)   complaint_01271(VA)   Complaint_01280(VA)

On 2 Nov 12, Troll Anderson files an objection to the 19 Oct 12, Order killing the ISP subpoenas.   PlainObject_00656(CO)   He claims the Judge was in error and states -

The Court should sustain Plaintiff’s objections because the Magistrate Judge’s order was clearly erroneous and contrary to law.

While I noted this and laughed at how stupid the Trolls are, Anderson goes ahead and dismisses 12 individual VA Sunlust cases.   SunlustDisCourt(VA)   Why exactly did he do this???  I think there is some more interesting evidence out there that has yet to be exposed.  Note: If you are one of the dismissed Does, you are effectively cleared of any future claim for “this” action.  Two dismissals make it adjudicated on its merits and the Plaintiff cannot do it a third time.  Note: keep all your records as the Trolls have no ethics and I wouldn’t put it past them to try.

tor8Because of this clear violation of the CO court order, I decided to inform the court and other interested parties.  Due to time constraints, I crafted up a simple memorandum of the facts and faxed it to the CO court.  I would have preferred to have crafted a more formal “Torpedo” but sometimes it is worth it to be brief and to the point.  This morning I looked in PACER and saw that this mini torpedo had been filed in the Cisa case.   CO_Torpedo_00656(CO)1   CO_Torpedo_00656(CO)2   Here is a better copy of the memo - Torpedo8_00656(CO)   I don’t know what the CO court will do, but I cannot see the judge being too happy about the obvious violation of the 19 Oct 12, order.  More to come on this one I’m sure.

***  Took a look at all 12 of the VA Sunlust cases that Troll Anderson dismissed on 14 Dec 12.  Yes, all of the public IP address come back to the CO Cisa case, 1:12-cv-00656. 

On a side note to this Anderson/Prenda comedy, they have been trying to serve Willaim Cisa with a summons/complaint, but have had no luck.   DD_CisaService_00656(CO)   We will see what they do next, but I would expect them to ask the court to allow them to serve Cisa via an easier method – first class letter to last known address, etc.  If this happens, Prenda will likely move forward with a motion for a default judgment.  If they do this and get one, it effectively kills all the remaining cases derived from 1:12-cv-00656 – 1385 joint tortfeasors.  It then becomes the responsibility of Mr. Cisa to track down all the other joint tortfeasors and get them to pay their share.  I would bet that Prenda still tries to pressure the remaining Does to settle.  If Mr. Cisa were to come forward after a default judgment, the issue of how much settlement money did Prenda collect from all the joint tortfeasors becomes a hot issue that is relevant.

DieTrollDie :)             I will close with a quote from a book I really like.

Confine yourself to observing and you always miss the point of your own life. The object can be stated this way: Live the best life you can. Life is a game whose rules you learn if you leap into it and play it to the hilt. Otherwise, you are caught off balance, continually surprised by the shifting play. Non-players often whine and complain that luck always passes them by. They refuse to see that they can create some of their own luck.
-Darwi Odrade

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.

11 Responses to Copyright Troll Violation of CO Court Order, 1:12-cv-00656, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Cisa (CO) – Torpedo #8

  1. DieTrollDie says:

    OK. Made an update to the main body of the post. ALL 12 of the VA Sunlust cases Troll Anderson dismissed were from the CO Cisa case. I wonder how many of these Does went to a deposition OR even settled with Troll Anderson. For any of the VA Does from the Cisa case, please contact me with details on what communication Troll Andersen had with you on or after 19 Oct 12.

    DTD :)

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    This is what I have found concerning service of a summons/subpoena in CO. DTD :)
    ———————
    Other Service.

    Service by mail or publication shall be allowed only in actions affecting specific property or status or other proceedings in rem. The party desiring service of process by publication or mail shall file a motion verified by the oath of such party or of someone in the party’s behalf for an order of service by mail or publication. It shall state the facts authorizing such service, and shall show the efforts, if any, that have been made to obtain personal service and shall give the address, or last known address, of each person to be served or shall state that the address and last known address are unknown. The court shall hear the motion ex parte and, if satisfied that due diligence has been used to obtain personal service or that efforts to obtain the same would have been to no avail, shall:

    • Order the clerk to send by registered or certified mail a copy of the process addressed to such person at such address, requesting a return receipt signed by the addressee only. Such service shall be complete on the date of the filing of the clerk’s proof thereof, together with such return receipt attached thereto signed by such addressee, or
    • Order publication of the process in a newspaper published in the county in which the action is pending. Such publication shall be made for four weeks. Within fifteen days after the order the clerk shall mail a copy of the process to each person whose address or last known address has been stated in the motion. Service shall be complete on the day of the last publication. If no newspaper is published in the county, the court shall designate one in some adjoining county.

  3. Dough says:

    Where do you go to see the service documents?

  4. Pingback: Copyright Troll Dismisses Defendant Cisa Without Motioning For A Default Judgement, 1:12-cv-00656, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Cisa (CO) | DieTrollDie

  5. Pingback: – Prenda Law Tries To Dismiss Case After Being Accused Of Directly Violating Judge’s Orders

  6. Pingback: Does Prenda call it quits or cooking a new fraud? « Fight Copyright Trolls

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