Dallas Buyers Club, LLC Attorney Tiptoes Dangerously Near Judge Hughes’ Order.


Thank you to attorney Robert Cashman for publishing this update to the Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) cases in Texas.  It looks like Troll Vogt is going to try the name & serve option that served Troll Maureen VanderMay so well in WA.  All it will take is one of the named Defendants to fight back and this Plaintiff is going to be hurting.  Greed makes people and organization do some pretty stupid things. If you are one of the named defendants, I suggest you contact attorney Cashman to discuss your options.  I will also note that in my “Defendant Answer” page, you can find some “Answer” templates (to include Dallas Buyers Club).

DieTrollDie :)

Originally posted on TorrentLawyer™ - Exposing Copyright Trolls and Their Lawsuits:

After my “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is a modern-day Icarus Story (TXSD)” article on August 13th, I called Keith Vogt, the plaintiff attorney for Dallas Buyers Club. In our call, I ascertained his motivations regarding how he plans to approach Judge Hughes here in Texas, and what he plans to do with the other cases (duck and run, or push forward).

As I suspected, he expressed no “duck and run” mentality (not even privately), as we have seen in similar past cases with other past “copyright troll” plaintiff attorneys. In fact, Vogt appeared to be undeterred considering the outcome of the case, mentioning that he has NINE (9) other cases alive and well in the Southern District of Texas, seven of which were in their INFANT STAGES and all current cases are assigned to judges other than Judge Hughes.

Below is a list of those new cases:

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC…

View original 494 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Defendant Butler Has No Computer Hard Drives – Malibu Media LLC, 1:13-cv-02707 (CO)

Here is a short post, as I have a costume party to get ready for.  Note: I certainly will not be dressing up like a Troll.  This is an update on Malibu Media LLC v. John Butler, 1:13-cv-02707 (CO). Since my last Butler post, the following has happened.

  • MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – Troll/Plaintiff requested the court strike three of the five affirmative defenses he asserted (Failure to State a Claim, Assumption of the Risk, and Intervening Cause)   Doc_36_MotionStrike _Answer_02707(CO)
  • UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE EXPERT WITNESS REPORT BY PLAINTIFF MALIBU MEDIA, LLC – Troll/Plaintiff asked the court for a 90 day extension (10 Nov 14) to serve expert witness reports.  The Forensic expert (assume it is P. Paige) has not receive the hard drive from the Defendant.  WHY??? Because the Defendant doesn’t have the computer anymore!  Defendant claims to only have a cell phone at this time.   Doc_38_MotionTime_02707(CO)
  • MINUTE ORDER – Judge Hegarty tells Troll Kotzker “NO” to 90 days – only grants 30 additional days.  Discovery is due NLT 17 Nov 14.   Doc_40_MinOrder_02707(CO)
  • RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE – Judge Hegarty agrees with Troll/Plaintiff and Strikes the three affirmative defenses.   Doc_41_Hegarty_REC_02707(CO)
  • DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BE GRANTEDAttorney Richard Hanes objects to the Recommendation based on – 1) Defendant was deprived of his right to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion and for it to be considered prior to the recommendation; 2) The recommendation lacks legal sufficiency to show that Plaintiff would succeed despite any facts from the Defense (especially since Discovery has not taken place); and 3) the recommendation would deprive the Defendant of his right to defend himself from Plaintiff’s allegations.   Doc_42_OBJ_Hegarty_REC_02707(CO)

HardDrivesWell this just got interesting.  No computer hard drives are available for Troll/Plaintiff to examine.  So what will the Troll do???  The only things I can imagine is using the list of “Other” files that were being shared via BitTorrent on Butler’s IP address, interviewing neighbors, friends, associates, and doing social media searches and records checks.  The “Other” files would somehow need to be able to be linked back to the Defendant’s hobbies, profession, or interests.  Example: Social media searches disclosed the Defendant really likes “Thomas the Tank Engine” and among the “Other” files being shared via BT is 4 DVD rips of Thomas the Tank Engine.

Thomas1As Troll Kotzker has known the computer was long gone and not tried to develop/show any linkage to the allegation, I bet they are grasping at anything.  If they decide to talk to neighbors, they will be looking for anything to show Defendant used BT, anything he said about illegal downloading of copyright protected media, and of course Plaintiff’s movies. The bottom line is the Troll has its work cut out for them to somehow scrape up enough evidence to show a preponderance of evidence in their favor.

Now I’m no Judge Hagerty fan, but it does seem like the judge is getting a little tired of the games Troll Kotzker and Malibu Media/X-Art are playing in CO.  We will see what happens.  It may turn out that Troll/Plaintiff tries to secure a “walk-away” deal with Defendant.  If this goes to trial with no forensic evidence, I will be surprised.

DieTrollDie :)   “You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve, and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart…”  {The Sorting Hat, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Copyright Troll Malibu Media/X-Art AGAIN Refused To Examine Exculpatory Evidence, 1:13-cv-03184 (CO)

21 Aug 14 Update

Some additional information made it my way after the article was posted.  I cannot validate it, so use you own judgement.  But I will say it does sound very plausible.  Additional information is this color (below).


The following closed Malibu Media/X-Art case is interesting in for two reasons.

  1. What it “Doesn’t” say.
  2. For highlighting the normal course of action for Malibu Media.

The case is a standard Malibu Media copyright troll case in Colorado (1:13-cv-03184), in which a single public IP address/John Doe was sued over allegedly downloading/sharing 12 Malibu Media/X-Art movies.   Complaint_03184(CO)   Complaint_IP_12Movies_03184(CO)   Complaint_12MoviesReg_03184(CO)   As this is a Colorado court, Troll/Plaintiff had no problem obtaining early discovery and getting a rubber stamp of approval from the court based off of questionable documentation from some of our German “friends.”   Discovery_MFR_03184(CO)   Decl_Tobias_Fieser_03184(CO)   Discovery_Order_03184(CO)

Troll_DM1Now after the ISP subscriber information was released on 20 Jan 14, Troll Jason Kotzker followed the standard Malibu Media course of action.  If you have been following these cases, you will know that Malibu Media does not generally send out settlement demand letters.  They let the ISP subscriber start the process by – 1) Contacting Troll Kotzker directly; 2) Hiring an attorney who contacts Troll Kotzker; or 3) Letting the ISP subscriber ignore the matter for a time.

On 20 Mar 14, Troll Kotzker amended the complaint to name the ISP subscriber as the defendant.   A summons was also issued at this time.  One day after filing the amended complaint, the Troll requested an extension of time in which to serve the defendant. The court granted the extension out to no later than 21 Apr 14 (3 months since receiving the ISP subscriber information).

True to Troll form, they failed to show the court that they serve the Defendant with a summons/complaint by 21 Apr 14.  On 23 Apr 14, the court issued a show cause order giving the Troll TWO days to explain why the case should not be dismissed. This was a bit of a shock to me as the CO courts have been a Troll favorite for some time. Troll Kotzker then got off his @$$ and filed the paperwork showing the Defendant had been served on 16 Apr 14.  NOTE: I assume the Defendant hired Christina Saunders, Sparkman Foote Minor LLP, to represent him after he was served.   ShowCause_03184(CO)   Def_Served_03184(CO)

On 5 May 14, Defendant filed an answer with the court.   Def_Answer_03184(CO)   The answer is a basic denial with Eight Affirmative Defenses (MISUSE OF COPYRIGHT, ONE SATISFACTION RULE, NO VOLITIONAL CONDUCT, DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION, INVALIDITY OR UNENFORCEABILITY OF COPYRIGHT, DE MINIMUS INFRINGEMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, and FAIR USE).  I think I will add this one to my “Answer Page.”  The first affirmative defense best describes the BT Copyright Trolling business model and lets Troll Kotzker and Troll Lipscomb what is in store.

 First Affirmative Defense: MISUSE OF COPYRIGHT

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the misuse of copyright. Plaintiff intends to elicit settlement funds from Defendant, rather than prevent infringement of its copyrights. Moreover, Plaintiff has developed and engaged a litigation centric business model, whereby Plaintiff tracks BitTorrent sites in order to locate IP addresses, which may lead to a potential copyright infringer, in order to generate income for the alleged downloads rather than use this as a method to stop infringements. In doing so, Plaintiff has illegally extended its monopoly beyond the scope of copyright and violated public policy underlying the copyright laws.

On 5 May 14, a proposed scheduling order was filed with this “notable,” but otherwise unsurprising report of Troll/Plaintiff refusing to look at the exculpatory evidence – Defendant’s computers.   SchedulingOrder_03184(CO)

Defendant has made several attempts to settle this matter with Plaintiff, and in doing so, has offered Plaintiff exculpatory evidence and the ability to access Defendant’s electronic capable devices, but to date, Plaintiff and Defendant have not reach mutually acceptable settlement terms. The parties believe that early neutral evaluation or a settlement conference facilitated by this Court would help parties in promptly settling this case without incurring further unnecessary cost and expense.   {My Emphasis}

The next interesting document is a report on the 13 May 14, Scheduling and Settlement Conference.   SS_Conference_03184(CO)   The conference only lasted 28 minutes, in which both sides sides agreed to settle.  The unfortunate part of this conference is that the portions in which the Defendant and his wife were questioned by the judge, as well as the settlement terms were sealed.

Additional information – I have been informed that the Defendant brought the hard drive from their computer to the conference.  For some reason, Troll Kotzker did not want take it for examination.  Surprised???  Also that Troll Kotzker got to have a nice conversation with the judge behind closed doors – I don’t think was a good one for Troll Kotzker. 

On 20 May 14, the judge signed the proposed stipulated dismissal (With Prejudice), in which both sides cover their own costs and fees.   Order_Dismiss_03184(CO)

This case is clearly indicative of Troll/Plaintiff who is engaged in a systematic business model to misuse the Copyright Law (My Opinion) in order to generate income.  I can only hope the CO court eventually starts to see this and put a stop to it.  I’m not too hopeful of this as the court decided to seal the interviews it conducted of Defendant and his wife.  I understand sealing the settlement portion, but what is the harm of letting the world see what these people had to say???  I’m sure once Attorney Saunders got involved, she made it clear to Troll Kotzker that the Defendant and his wife didn’t do this, their computers would validate this, and that fighting this would be a no-win for them.  The fact that Troll/Plaintiff refused to examine the systems indicates a bully trying to force a settlement by increasing defense attorney fees.  The fact that the Defendant will incur fees is disgusting in my view.  Troll/Plaintiff did NO real investigation prior to naming/serving the Defendant.  The reckless naming/serving of the Defendant was based ONLY on the fact he was the ISP subscriber (my opinion) and that he did not agree to pay approximately $9,000 (My estimate based on 12 movies X $750) to make the law suit go away.

From this case you can see the Copyright Troll/Malibu Media/X-Art playbook.

Monitor Malibu Media/X-Art torrents – Collect minimal data showing the public IP shared Plaintiff’s works – File a law suit – Seek ISP subscriber information based off questionable companies and support personnel – Wait for ISP subscriber to initiate contact – Seek extensions from the court to serve a defendant – Name/serve a Defendant at the last moment – If summons is answered, work out a settlement (payment to Troll) – If summons is ignored, seek a default judgment – Depose ISP subscriber and other residents – Conduct forensic examinations of systems – Avoid depositions of Colette and Brigham Field – Avoid depositions of IPP personnel – Seek a settlement OR a walkaway deal.

Some people may wonder why a truly innocent Defendant would not take this to the bitter end.  Sounds simple, but until you (as a Defendant) find an attorney willing to work for free, you risk ending up with a HUGE legal bill!  Yes, the Copyright Law does allow for a prevailing side to motion for fees/costs, but that does not mean a court is going to grant it or the exact amount the attorney billed for.  Even after an award from the court, I would expect a hell of a time trying to collect from the idiots.  See this FightCopyrightTrolls article on trying to find the Prenda Law money.  We would all love to see these bozos get put through the legal wringer, but the costs and stress involved can be very high.  In the very recent case of Elf-Man LLC v. Defendant Lamberson, 2:13-cv-00395 (WA), the defense bill is up to approx. $200,000!!!  And this case never really made it into full discovery, much less a trial.  Right now we are waiting to see what Judge Rice does.   The Trolls understand the costs and use it to force defendants to settle simply out of economics – justice in no ways plays a part.  What is really disgusting is the courts in some jurisdictions (CO & IL) know what is going on and decide to do nothing.  The prevailing view is, “Well, that is our legal system, if you don’t like it, change it.”  The little people cannot change it and the courts themselves have the responsibility to police themselves and clean up their own messes or slap down those who would make a mess in it.

DieTrollDie :)  “You know how you get to Carnegie Hall, don’t ya? Practice.  {Lt. Aldo Raine – Inglourious Bastards}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Troll Hierl (Dallas Buyers Club LLC) Claims DC Appeals Court Was Wrong In AF Holdings Ruling (1:14-cv-02162)

In an ongoing Copyright Troll case (1:14-cv-02162) in ILND, Troll Michael Hierl tells the court that the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) “Blackjack” analogy that the DC Court of Appeals adopted in AF Holdings case (1:12-cv-00048 / 12-7135) was wrong.   Docket_15Aug14_02162(IL)   On 23 Jun 14, Troll/Plaintiff filed it’s memorandum on joinder and responded to Doe #17’s motion to quash.   Troll Response_02162(IL)   Troll Response_EXs_02162(IL)   It was refreshing to see an ILND court actually considering a motion to quash from a Pro Se Doe.   MTQ_Doe17_02162(IL)

Note: the court did inform Doe #17, that prior to accepting the motion, she would need to take part in a hearing scheduled for 9 Jun 14.  Doe #17 took part in the hearing via telephone and the judge accepted the motion.   During the hearing judge Gary Feinerman also raised the issue of the recent Appeals court ruling (AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 2178839 (D.C.Cir. 2014)), as well as how it may affect Doe #17’s Motion.

On 23 Jun 14, Doe #17 filed the following letter with the court.  In it, she informs the court she is 52 years old, denies downloading/sharing Dallas Buyers Club, and doesn’t know how this could have happened.  She states that for approx. 5 months they had continuing Internet issues/problems.  Once the problems were fixed, the WiFi Internet password was freely given to multiple friends and guests to use when visiting the residence.   Doc_29_Doe17_Ltter_02162(IL)

Subsequently the judge gave Doe #17 until 29 Aug 14, to make a reply to Troll/Plaintiff’s response, as well as setting status hearing for 11 Sep 14.   Doc_30_MinOrder_02162(IL)

Of course Troll Hierl does not care as to actually download/shared the movie, as that would mean doing a real investigation.  What is really interesting is I’ve been informed that during the hearing, the judge repeatedly asked Troll Hierl if he was going to dismiss Doe #17 based on what he was hearing.  Troll Hierl decided to ignore the request/suggestion from the court – probably not the smartest thing.

Troll Response To Doe #17’s Motion

In its response, Troll/Plaintiff claims that -

  1. The AF Holdings decision is not controlling upon the court.
  2. There are material errors in the legal analysis in AF Holdings.
  3. Additional technical arguments relating to how BitTorrent works support joinder.
  4. The AF Holdings ruling was intended to punish and corral an out-of-control litigant, and its should not be extended to Plaintiffs who follow the rules.  {This is the one I nearly choked on when I first read it.}
  5. Defendant’s remaining arguments do not merit quashing the subpoena.

I hope this judge gets wind of Daniel Macek, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), and the apparent fraud associated with the bogus “Shelf-Company.”  I hope Doe #17 files some sort of a reply, as the judge is clearly open to the possibility of quashing the subpoena and severing the Does.  For now I will talk about the ridiculous claim that the AF Holdings decision was flawed.

Blackjack Analogy – A Refresher (Quote from the DC Appeals Court Decision)

But AF Holdings has provided no reason to think that the Doe defendants it named in this lawsuit were ever participating in the same swarm at the same time. Instead, it has simply set forth snapshots of a precise moment in which each of these 1,058 Does allegedly shared the copyrighted work snapshots that span a period of nearly five months. Two individuals who downloaded the same file five months apart are exceedingly unlikely to have had any interaction with one another whatsoever. Their only relationship is that they used the same protocol to access the same work. To paraphrase an analogy offered by amicus counsel at oral argument, two BitTorrent users who download the same file months apart are like two individuals who play at the same blackjack table at different times. They may have won the same amount of money, employed the same strategy, and perhaps even played with the same dealer, but they have still engaged in entirely separate transactions. And “[s]imply committing the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purposes of joinder.” {My Emphsis}

In his response, Troll Hierl states that members of a BT swarm are more akin to a cooperating group of “card-counters” working together to gain an advantage against the Blackjack dealer.  He claims that joinder of ALL 36 Does in this case is proper because like the cooperation of the card-counters, the Does all took part downloading/sharing the same movie (torrent/SHA-1 hash file).  Where did Troll Hierl get this idea???  From our friendly German players – Daniel Macek.  If you remember, Daniel Macek is responsible for providing early discovery declarations to the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) and the local Troll counsels.   Daniel_Macek_Cardcounting_EX4_02162(IL)

What the Troll doesn’t tell the court is that even with this pretty “card-counting” analogy add-on and explanation of the “Distributed Hash Table” and “Peer Exchange,” there is still NO evidence to show that ANY of these 36 Does shared ANY part of the movie with EACH OTHER.  Where is the “Cooperation” that makes the card-counting analogy work???  If there is direct evidence showing cooperation, please disclose it – not a simplistic claim based on the protocol.  The problem the Troll has is that they have NO records to back this up – Period – their system does not and cannot record this information.

BT Discussion

The Troll BT clients appear to other swarm BT clients a new swarm member (a leecher with no data to share).  It then makes its request for data from a swarm member (seeder or leecher).  When the Troll BT client get a small piece of data from a swarm member, it records the public IP address, date/time, as well as packet capture (PCAP) data showing how it got the data.  Their system may record all the data they obtained from various “individual” swarm members, but they have NO insight into which BT clients shared data between themselves.  They would need to actually be inside the individual systems to see and record who shares with whom.  The only basis for their claims of proper joinder is the SHA-1 hash file.

Consider This Scenario

A Troll files a case in the ILND against 25 public IP addresses that resolve back to this district.  The time frame of the alleged infringement is 30 days.  At the beginning of the monitoring period, only 5 of the 25 ILND swarm members are seeders and not sharing data between other seeders (they already have a full copy of the data).  So we can accurately state that no data exchange would have occurred between the seeders – only seeders to leechers AND leechers to leechers.  BUT, the Trolls do NOT show anything like this.  WHY???  Because their system ONLY records the data they obtain from “individual” BT clients/IP addresses.   They claim that since the hash files match and the jurisdiction is correct, joinder is appropriate.  What the Troll actually has is 25 “individual” records that their BT client received a small amount of data from the 25 BT clients on a date/time.  Possibly sufficient to file 25 single Doe cases, but nothing to support joinder.

BT Monitoring By The Trolls

The Trolls monitor for infringing torrent files belonging to their clients.  As the BT protocol is used world-wide, the IP locations are all around the world.  Now the Trolls may record ALL the data world-wide for a particular torrent/hash file, but I suspect for economy sake, they limit their actual recording to IP addresses in jurisdictions they file suit in.  Note: You may notice that we don’t currently have Malibu Media/X-Art or Voltage Pictures copyright infringement law suits in California.  That isn’t because no one in CA uses BT to infringe upon these Plaintiffs.  It is only because the Trolls choose not to ply their business model in an environment that doesn’t trust them and will raise uncomfortable question. Here is a quote from the APMC presentation dealing with the declarations Daniel Macek is responsible for providing to local counsels.

- paragraph 1 is a serious declaration that’s stating everything is true & accurate.
– paragraph 2 in regards to software consultant (i.e., he can talk about software issues), & we’re hoping the judge won’t question his qualifications too much. {My Emphasis}

My point with mentioning Troll BT “filtering” is it actually removes the BT clients that were probably more likely to have shared data among the swarm members in these cases.

Troll Actions Show Why Joinder Is Improper

IID1 - CopyWhen the Trolls filter their BT monitoring results to fit a specific hash file, jurisdiction, and time period, they are actually hurting themselves.  Why so???  Isn’t it proper to only file suits against the IP addresses in the proper jurisdiction???  It is proper to file cases in the right jurisdiction and have a single hash file, but by “filtering” the IP addresses they significantly reduce the probability that these swarm members actually shared data among themselves.

Going back to the previous scenario swarm of 25 BT clients filtered down to the ILND jurisdiction.  If we were able to remove the Troll filter, we may find out that for the same 30 day time-frame, there were actually 500 other “World-Wide” BT swarm members for this hash file.  That means that the ILND IP addresses only made up 5% of the world wide swarm (single hash file) for that time period.  NOTE: Swarm participant numbers can and do vary, but the likelihood that a majority came from ILND (or any single district) is ridiculous.  That means it is much more probable that a leeching member of this BT swarm got its data from a swarm member residing outside of the ILND jurisdiction – approx. 95% likelihood.  Percentages vary, but not in favor of the Troll.

Adding to the unlikely chance that two IP address in the same jurisdiction actually shared is the uncertain nature of BT client member’s connection to the swarm and the Internet in general.  How many swarm members disconnected from BT or simply turned off their computers for various lengths of time – hours, days, weeks???  This also does not take into account that fact that people who run BT are known to stop sharing some content.  I.e. a BT user downloads a file and decides he doesn’t like it, so he deletes the torrent file and data file.  He is no longer sharing it with anyone else.

So the Troll card-counting “cooperation” theory is weak and inaccurate at best.  BT users come and go from swarms all the time, just like at the Blackjack analogy shows. There is NO Troll records to show ANY individual BT swarm members shared files among themselves.  Note: I know that sharing among BT members does occur – it is the nature of the BT protocol.  But it is ridiculous to allow the Trolls to make these claims of joinder simply for the economy of their abusive business model.  The Trolls do not “follow the rules,” they simply play them to their advantage and totally avoid the “spirit” of the law – to the courts and the Does detriment.

DieTrollDie    “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.’”  – a statement like that could cost you $11K!


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Where in the World is Darren M. Griffin? – Elf-Man v. Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)

26 Aug 14 Update

As of noon today, there has been ZERO response by Troll/Plaintiff concerning the claims by attorney Lynch that Darren M. Griffin and the Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) are simply shams in a BitTorrent Copyright Trolling operation designed to milk settlements (thousands of dollars a piece) from ISP subscribers accused of downloading/sharing a GARBAGE movie (my opinion).

So what does this TOTAL lack of response indicate???  To me it indicates that Troll/Plaintiff has nothing to say or provide to the court that wouldn’t be laughed at OR dig a hole even deeper for them.  They already know they have lost this case; it is just a matter of how much the court awards defendant Lamberson.  The Troll doesn’t want to pay out any of their ill-gotten gains, but it is better than being given a Prenda Law-Like order to explain their operation in detail and show why they should not be stomped on by the court.  Judge Rice is a former prosecutor, so we hope the slimy Troll/Plaintiff antics pushed his buttons in just the right way.  Anything that comes from this court that slams or even questions the validity of CBC will be used by Doe Defender in the various Dallas Buyers Club cases that are in multiple jurisdictions.  If that happens, I expect to see a rush to dismiss cases.  Til then we laugh at Mike Meiers for being such a turd (another one of my opinions).

DTD :)


Attorney Lynch has filed his reply to the Troll/Plaintiff response to his motions for fees/costs and sanctions.  The documents are at the bottom of this article.   I will not go into great detail as it would be very long, but attorney Lynch points out very clearly that fees and cost associated with this case are warranted and in no way excessive.  Troll/Plaintiff was given multiple chances to shut this down and simply pay Defendant Lamberson’s fees/costs. It appears that Troll VanderMay really screwed up and didn’t follow the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) Seven-step process for running these cases. Her grandiose mistake was naming people and serving them.

One “mistake” Ms. VanderMay made under the seven-step playbook was in filing a First Amended Complaint, naming defendants, and serving them – Step Six above. None of the other Elf-Man counsel did that. Indeed, each of the 14 other Elf-Man cases filed by counsel other than Ms. VanderMay follows the smooth seven-step pattern outlined above: (i) file, (ii) favor, (iii) serve, (iv) wait, (v) favor, (vi) repeat, (vii) withdraw.  {Doc #95, page 24}

Attorney Lynch makes a great case for sanctions based on recklessness, bad faith, and multiplying the matter needlessly. The more I read these documents, the more I have flashbacks of Prenda Law.

One area attorney Lynch covers in great detail is the fact that “Darren M. Griffin,” Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), does not appear to be a real person.  Document #94 explains this in detail.  Attorney Lynch tells the court that even in all their responses, only Troll VanderMay bothers to briefly mention Darren Griffin.  All the others players are completely silent of this matter – the silence is telling.

No one from Elf-Man LLC vouches for Mr. Griffin. No one from Crystal Bay Corporation vouches for him. No one from Vision Films (who also used Mr. Griffin on its Elf-Man declarations) vouches for him. No one from APMC, IPP, Excipio or GuardaLey vouches for him.

Ms. VanderMay does not vouch for Mr. Griffin. She claims at page 10 of her Declaration, ECF No. 84, that “To this day I have no information which would suggest that anyone by this name played any role in the subject investigation.” Mr. Lamberson was accused of being “observed infringing” at 04:39:20PM on December 2, 2012. “Darren M. Griffin” submitted a declaration to the Eastern District of Tennessee, that he was responsible for observing Doe # 40 infringing Elf-Man at 04:19:53PM on December 2, 2012. “Darren M. Griffin” submitted a declaration to the District of Colorado, that he was responsible for observing Doe # 82 infringing Elf-Man at 5:07:08PM on December 2, 2012. How could he not be the witness to the “observation” of Mr. Lamberson’s accused infringement, when it comes directly between two of his other observations within the same hour? Ms. VanderMay’s ignorance of this point is an example of multiplication – if she had only inquired in October 2013, and told us all the truth, the case would not have gone forward.   {Doc #94, pages 6-7}

Griffin_GhostHe also points out that Mr. Griffin provided declarations for early discovery in 195 cases during the period of June 2012 – November 2013.    Doc_95-4_GriffinCases_ExhibitD_00395(WA)   Many of the Plaintiff are TCYK, Lynn Peak Productions, Power of Few, BKGTH Productions, Killer Joe Nevada, The Thompsons, etc.  If it is shown that Mr. Griffin is a “Ghost,” that means there is multiple violation of Title 18 § 1001, False Statements (Criminal charge) – AND that is just a start of the possible criminal charges – mail/wire fraud, etc.  This screams US Attorney interest.

So What Does All This Mean?

Well based on fact that we have multiple cases (i.e. Dallas Buyers Club) open that are still using Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) declarations, via German Daniel Macek, this has the potential to explode on the Trolls.  This may also affect Malibu Media cases, as the BitTorrent monitoring company and related personnel used to support Malibu Media appear to be the same, just using different names.

I expect the Trolls (and their bosses) to be watching what the judge does here.  If he decides to demand further information on Darren Griffin, or even have him appear in court, I expect a mass exodus to kill any cases related to CBC.  More to come on this; now we wait on the court.

I leave you with this funny bit from attorney Lynch.

We do not request over 50 hours of legal intern and staff time in legal research and the continued investigation into the existence of Elf-Man LLC declarant “Darren M. Griffin,” including the many activities necessary to prove that a fictitious person is fictitious when the fictitious person fails to claim whether or not he is fictitious, even after being directly accused of being fictitious.  {Doc #92, page 8}

DieTrollDie :)   “May thy knife chip and shatter.”  {Fremen taunt, Dune}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Darren M. Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation: Doesn’t Pass the Duck Test – Possible FRAUD Upon The Courts

Time for a Duck Test again. If you are unfamiliar with this term, it simply means that if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

On 4 Aug 14, Michael Patzer, Excipio GmbH, disclosed that the “Forensic Investigative Service” provider, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), a South Dakota Shelf-Company, contracts its BitTorrent monitoring systems/servers from Excipio GmbH (Germany).  [Also see this article]   Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA)   Not a great shock, as we assumed that the German BT monitoring companies were behind this aspect. What has been a bit of a mystery is who is “Darren M. Griffin,” “software consultant,” that CBC uses to support various Copyright Troll cases.  Mr. Griffin is responsible for providing declarations that justified the early discovery of ISP subscriber’s information in multiple cases (with multiple different Plaintiffs) in the US.

Internet search are pretty sparse for Mr. Griffin.  The name is relatively common, but nothing matching a software consultant for a company (CBC) that provides forensic investigative services to copyright owners.  Couple that with the fact that CBC is a SD shelf-company run out of a mail-drop and it looks like Mr. Griffin doesn’t exists.  That or Mr. Griffin is another Alan Cooper (AKA: Fraud upon the court).  See the later part of this previous post for additional details on CBC.

Now I know some people are going to say that DTD is simply a pro-piracy lunatic and there is nothing suspicious about this.  Then I suggest the doubters (and judges!) need to look just a little deeper and not take what the Copyright Trolls have to say at face value.

Time For A Closer Look

I decided to take a small sampling of the declarations from Darren M. Griffin.  Note: I know there are plenty more out there, so please feel free to send me a copy of any Darren M. Griffen declarations you have.  Here are the five I used –   Decl_Griffin_01658(GA) Decl_Griffin_00603(TN) Decl_Griffin_00129(TN) Decl_DGriffin_02911(CO) Complaint_Decl_Griffin_00727(AZ)

I then took screen-shots of the signature portions of the declarations and grouped them together.  I guess signing your initials could be a signature – but it still seems very odd and suspicious IMO.  Take a look and tell me what YOU think.  I’m no hand-writing expert, but none of them look the same or even similar.  It looks like the stupid Trolls couldn’t even keep the signatures straight – How very Prenda of them.  I also want to point out that under two of the signatures is the number “60998770.1” – If anyone has an idea of what this means, please contact me.




So do you think Darren M. Griffin passes the Duck Test?  My opinion is it sure looks like a “FRAUD” and not a duck.

DieTrollDie :)   “Rule #2: Double Tap” {Zombieland}


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

RightsCorp – Plans Of ISP Control & Subpoenas For Subscriber Information

Sometimes people are a bit shocked that Copyright Trolls change tactics.  As most people do not like change or unfamiliar situations, I understand this feeling.  Well brothers and sisters, the fact of the matter is the BitTorent Copyright Trolling business model is not going away very easily.  This business was designed to make lots of money for a small group of people and the profits are just too damn addictive for them.  As any good business requires flexibility to survive, the Trolls are likely to try new things.  This is especially true when the status quo isn’t working as well as you like. Rightscorp_money1For this particular article, I’m talking about RightsCorp.  Please note that RightsCorp is more of a BT Copyright Monetization Troll, than a traditional BT Copyright Troll.  They sign up copyright holders and monitor BT for infringing content of these clients.  Identified US public IP addresses are then sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) formatted email via their ISP, informing them of the observed infringing activity and asking them to pay a fine to prevent any possible legal action against them.  Note: Some ISPs do not forward these settlement emails to their customers, as they obviously see this as a “legal” scam (my opinion).  BTW – if any rights holder or RightsCorp doesn’t agree with me or a specific point, please tell me and I will address it. There are two things from RightsCorp that I want to discuss –

  1. Their plans to force the various ISPs to “Play Ball.”  
  2. Subpoenas for ISP subscriber information IAW Title 17, § 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online.  

RightsCorp Plan

Here is a copy of a RightsCorp investor Presentation to the Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit.   Investor_Presentation_at_The_Anti-Piracy_&_Content_Protection_Summit   In this presentation, RightsCorp indicates they are going to try to hold the ISPs responsible for the activities of their subscribers.  As the  “Safe Harbor” provision of the DMCA basically prevents the ISPs from being sued because of ISP subscriber activities, RightsCorp has to show that an ISP is not upholding its requirements to maintain the Safe Harbor status.  RightsCorp knows the ISPs are not going to risk becoming liable and will likely take some type of actions to stop or at least slow copyright infringement from the subscribers. So what is required by the ISPs to maintain their Safe Harbor status?  RightsCorp tells the potential investors that IAW Title 17, § 512 an ISP is only protected if it –

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

Fair enough – that requirement is valid.  But what else does this subsection have to say??? Title17_512i Now many people will say I’m biased and maybe even Pro-Piracy (I’m not), but reading this seems to indicate to me that the technical measures employed by RightsCorp (and others) to identify and protect copyrighted works have additional requirements.

(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;

I see problems here – in NO way was the BT technical monitoring system developed in a broad consensus of copyright owners and ISPs.  Nor was the BT monitoring system developed “in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;”  The BT monitoring systems we know of are all proprietary systems in which the owners consider the inner workings to be a “trade-secret.”  We know nothing of the system RightsCorp uses and I’m willing to put forth an idea – that quite possibly RightsCorp have contracted/agreement with some well-established German BT monitoring firm to provide them with the information.  Please correct me if I’m wrong here.  We already know that Excipio GmbH sells its service to a Shelf-Company by the name of the Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) in relation to previously filed Copyright Infringement cases.  Find out more interesting information on CBC from Fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

What ISP Actions?

These actions could entail forwarding the DMCA-like settlement demands to subscribers, slowing down or killing an Internet connection, or even possibly requiring the subscriber to settle with RightsCorp prior to reconnection.  Now if the ISPs decide not to “play Ball,” RightsCorp has three options.

  1. Seek damages for Copyright Infringement due to Non-Safe Harbor compliance.
  2. Seek a court injunction IAW section (j) of Title 17, § 512.
  3. Drop the issue with the ISP.

Subpoenas For ISP Subscriber Information IAW Title 17, § 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online

Most of you know that I’m constantly telling to people that RightsCorp does NOT file Copyright Infringement law suits (AKA: sue people).  I even have a screenshot from their Web site where they state this.  Then imagine my surprise when I obtained a RightsCorp document telling an ISP subscriber that they obtained the person’s name/address via a subpoena.   RightsCorp_Subp_Notice   Also attached to the letter is multiple pages showing a large number of files belonging to a RightsCorp client that were infringed upon via the public IP address in question. I did some searches for RightsCorp on RFC Express and the results are spotty at best.  The following documents are from case 2:14-mc-00276-UA, Central District of CA, with the nature of the suit being “890 Other Statutory Actions.”   Docket_5Aug14_MC_00276(CA)   Decl_Subp_17USA_512_MC_00276(CA)-   Subpeona_Telescape_MC_00276(CA)-   Summary_and_DMCAs_MC_00276(CA)-   If you examine the docket, you will see that it is a civil misc. case (Not a Copyright Infringement case) and it was opened and closed on the same date.  The case was only opened so as to allow the court to issue a subpoena (IAW Title 17, § 512) that RightsCorp (via attorney Dennis Hawk, Business Law Group) could forward to the ISP.  NOTE: The above letter is NOT from this case – I picked the RightsCorp case at random.  Also note that the docket indicates NO demand for a jury. Now depending on the particular ISP, a subscriber may or may not be notified of the subpoena.  Please note that the subpoena in this example case does not have a provision to allow the ISP subscriber to challenge it – the case is CLOSED. Based on limited access to the various RightsCorp cases, I don’t see this being a standard procedure for them.  RightsCorp makes it money by using automatic emails to generate settlement quickly and cheaply.  Obtaining a subpoena requires the action of an attorney (and some filing fee I assume) and will likely only be used on IP addresses they see as serial infringers in which they have sent multiple DMCA-like settlement letters to and have yet to get a response. Now if you call RightsCorp, you will likely be told that you need to pay a large settlement to make this go away or they may take you to court.  They do have the option to file a Federal Copyright Infringement case in the PROPER jurisdiction, but that is not what they want (my opinion). Settlement generation is “King” here.

What To Do?

My standard non-lawyer advice still applies.

  1. Make sure the infringing BT activity stops on your public IP address – regardless of who is responsible.
  2. Resecure the WiFi Internet connection with a new password (and don’t give it out).
  3. Contact your ISP and advise them you have taken steps to address this issue and prevent any future activity.
  4. Don’t pay the settlement and use this as a learning experience.

As I said, I know of NO current Federal Copyright Infringement cases filed by RightsCorp or any of it clients.  Saying that, they are actively trying to increase settlements and you need to keep this in mind.

DieTrollDie :)  “…Nobody calls me Lebowski.  You got the wrong guy.  I’m the Dude, man.”  {The Big Lebowski}

Previous article on RightsCorp/CEG-TEK

Posted in Copyright Enforcement Group | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Copyright Troll Elf-Man Responds to Motion For Fees/Costs & Sanctions X2 – Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)

On 4 Aug 14, Elf-Man LLC (via Troll Lowe) filed its response to Defendant Lamberson’s Motion for attorney fees/costs and sanction IAW Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.  It will take me some time to wade through all the bull$h!T and pull out some Troll gems to highlight.  Previous Elf-Man article.

Make sure you also look at the various attached exhibits to these documents (below).

piss2I will not try to break down all the documents, as it would be exceedingly long.  Attorney Lynch is going to have a field-day replying to Troll/Plaintiff, as well as pointing out the aspects they did not even bother to respond to.  I don’t know much about the judge, but it does seem he opened the door for fees/costs and can clearly see how Troll/Plaintiff gamed the system.  Lets hope he decides to assign a “cost” to these Troll actions.  Attorney Lynch has until 11 Aug 14, to reply.

So what is Troll/Plaintiff claiming in all this digital dribble???

  1. Defendant’s has not met the burden of proof to justify any sanctions IAW FRCP 11 and 28 USC §1927.
  2. Defendant should not be granted attorney fees/costs, as Attorney Lynch unnecessarily ran up the attorney fees when there was no need to.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – Collette C. Leland is the attorney representing Troll VanderMay – “… limited representation of responding to Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions, …”   Doc_82_Legal_Rep_VM_00395(WA)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe tells the court that their case was run with the “proper due diligence research and credible evidence.” The Troll claims Attorney Lynch was not interested in the “…civil investigation of the facts and judicial resolution of the merits, but rather to threaten, intimate, harass and bully Plaintiff’s counsel and to obfuscate and churn away with unnecessary legal fees.”   Doc_83_TrollResponse_Rule11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF MAUREEN VANDERMAY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Standard Troll VanderMay long-winded statement – “Plaintiff proceeded in good faith, as did I, in seeking redress for this infringement. The fact that Plaintiff later decided to move for dismissal is not indicative of any lack of factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims.”   Doc_84_Decl_VanderMay_Rule 11_00395(WA)

What I find really funny is Troll VanderMay claims that since Lamberson didn’t respond to the settlement demand with a denial, which somehow indicates he is the offender. Correct me if I’m wrong, but by the complaint, it didn’t matter to Troll/Plaintiff if Lamberson (or other Does) were innocent, as they were also pursuing the “Negligence” claim (AKA: Indirect Infringement).  Note: this baseless claim was later killed by the court.

DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LOWE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe complains that Attorney Lynch hurt his feelings: “In the six weeks since that time I have been stunned and disappointed by the unbridled aggression, ad hominem attacks on prior counsel and me, personally, the admissions from Defendant’s counsel about the vexatious manner in which he has sought to run up fees in this litigation, and the dishonesty with which he has interacted with opposing counsel.”   Doc_86_Decl_Lowe_00395(WA)

I also loved this one: “Defendant endlessly pursued frivolous theories apparently based on Internet blogs by those interested in perpetuating illegal downloading using BitTorrent.

Are speaking about me Troll Lowe???  I do not “perpetuate” illegal downloading; in fact I tell people who doing it, that they need to stop it.  YES, I do fight against the Copyright Trolls.  It is my opinion you are nothing more than sleazy-greedy-douchebags which are abusing the Copyright Law to make some money.

DECLARATION OF KURT UEBERSAX IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Executive producer for Elf-Man. I will use a Prenda associated term of “Equine Excrement” to show my opinion on this declaration. “11. In the present case I have been assured that the infringement associated with the defendant has stopped and that the defendant is now aware of the seriousness of this issue. Further it appears that the only additional result we might obtain would be to force the defendant into bankruptcy as his attorney claims he is destitute.”   Doc_87_Decl_KurtUebersax_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF DANIEL MACEK IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – This one is a sad joke (more opinion) – Daniel Macek claims he is a consultant for the Shelf-Company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), in its technical department. Funny there is absolutely no mention of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC).   Doc_88_ Decl_DanielMacek_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PATZER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Claims he is an independent contractor predominantly for Excipio GmbH (German company). Excipio contracts with Crystal Bay Corporation to provide Crystal Bay with the data collection system (Crystal Bay licenses the use of Excipio’s system and servers).   Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF PATRICK PAIGE – 2013 Declaration for a Malibu Media LLC case in which Mr. Paige (Forensic Consultant) states that IPP software worked as claimed and identified the correct public IP address. So…. Is Troll/Plaintiff saying that Excipico/Crystal Bay Corp. is IPP and the software works???   Doc_90_Decl_PatrickPaige_00395(WA)

ATTORNEY VANDERMAY’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1927 – Troll VanderMay claims Attorney Lynch only worked this case in hopes of filing an eventual motion for fees/costs.  She offers the court the simplistic opinion that Plaintiff and Defendant merely had “different views of this case and how it should be conducted.” Troll VanderMay claims Defendant failed to meet the burden of to justify any sanctions.   Doc_91_VanderMay_Opp_Rule 11_00395(WA)

So please take a read and give me your thoughts.

DieTrollDie :)  So many assholesSo few bullets.”  - {Ford Fairlane – The Adventure of Ford Fairlane}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Stupidity In OR – Copyright Troll Voltage Pictures Claims Negligence & Trademark Infringement – 3:14-cv-01191 (OR)

While monitoring the new Copyright Troll cases, I’m sometimes surprised by what greed motivates Trolls to do.  Then again… Not really.  I recently noticed what appeared to be two single Doe “Voltage Pictures LLC” cases filed in Oregon on 25 Jul 14 (3:14-cv-01191 & 6:14-cv-01193), by Troll Carl D. Crowell, Crowell Law.  Troll Crowell is well-known as a local Troll counsel for Voltage Pictures (Previous Article).

Complaint_01191(OR)   Complaint_Ex1_01191(OR)   Docket_28Jul14_01191(OR)

Looking a bit closer also disclosed a second Plaintiff for this case – TCYK LLC (The Company You Keep – movie).  Seems odd, as they are the same Trolling organization. Note: I only looked at 3:14-cv-01191, but I expect they are basically the same.  The reason there are two Plaintiffs becomes clear when you look at the complaint.  Here are the claims in this case.


So the Troll is AGAIN trying to use the Indirect Infringement (AKA: “Negligence” claim) AND Trademark claims.  The only thing that is different from the previous failed attempts to do so is that the claim is only against a single Doe (IP address

Here is one previous case where Troll Crowell and Voltage Pictures tried to file a Oregon State Court Trademark Infringement law suit against 50 Does.   StateCourtFiling_00816(OR)   Docket_29Jul14_00816(OR)   Doc8_00816(OR)    The case was removed back to the Federal Courts, as it was CLEARLY a BitTorrent Copyright Infringement case, and thus it can only by handle by a Federal court.  This case turned out to be a bust, as the Federal court also decided to sever all the Does except for Doe #1. FAILURE   The Trademark in this case is for “Voltage Pictures,” which they claimed was infringed upon when the Defendants shared the movie via BitTorrent.  Still by reading this complaint, the only issue is alleged BT copyright infringement, not trademark infringement.

Unicorn1The Indirect Infringement (Negligence) claim is just as stupid in my opinion.  We call this tired old failed claim the “Unicorn Tugboat Theory” in honor of Attorney Mark Randazza.  There have been multiple cases across the US in which the courts have not accepted the view that an ISP subscriber is responsible for the activities that occur on his network, regardless of whether he/she knew of the activity.  Most recently this claim was killed by the WAED court when Elf-Man LLC, tried to use it in case 2:13-cv-00115Order_Doc106_00115(WA)

Now what is interesting in this case is that the Troll requested a hearing to authorize early discovery, but does not provided any additional supporting documents to justify early discovery (ISP subscriber information).   Discovery_Motion_01191(OR)   So what is missing???   I don’t see any mention of the BT technical monitoring personnel/organization. It looks like the Troll is trying to distant themselves from the German BT monitoring firms of IPP/Guardaley/Excipio, Crystal Bay Corporation, Daniel Macek, Darren Griffin, etc.

I also found it interesting that the Troll actually added eight pages of exhibits to show the Non-Voltage Pictures/Non-TCYK files that were being shared by this public IP address via BitTorrent (9 May 14 – 25 Jul 14).   Complaint_Ex1_01191(OR)   I didn’t see any porn titles in the list; only TV series, Movies, Software, eBooks, and audio files.  I assume the Troll will use this list as proof that the Doe is a serial infringer of the “greatest magnitude.”  These titles would also be of value to any forensic examination (doubtful it will occur), as finding these would give weight to the allegation that the ISP subscriber’s system was used to download/share Plaintiff’s movie.

I not sure if this is a Troll testing the courts with the Trademark Infringement and Negligence claims OR they are simply trying to force a settlement from a Doe with an extensive BT downloading/sharing record.  I do assume that because of various setbacks, the Trolls are having to fine tune their efforts to keep the settlement generation business afloat.   Malibu Media went this route; maybe Voltage Pictures will do the same.

DieTrollDie :)     “You see, this profession is filled to the brim with unrealistic motherfuckers.  Motherfuckers who thought their ass would age like wine.” -Marsellus Wallace {Pulp Fiction}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defendant Butler Answers Malibu Media LLC, 1:13-cv-02707 (CO)

Time for an update on a Colorado Malibu Media LLC case with the potential to become interesting.  The case is Malibu Media LLC v. John Butler, 1:13-cv-02707.  Previous article on this case.

Since may last article, we had the following activity.

They are all worth a read, but I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to Defendant Butler’s Answer.  I have even added this document to my “Defendant Answers” page, as it is straight forward and clear in the denial, as well as using some new “Affirmative Defenses.”


Right now we have another CO cases that is testing out the “Failure to State a Claim” issue – Motion To Dismiss Copyright Troll Malibu Media Case – AKA: “Necessary Volition” – 1:14-cv-00262 (CO)

I like the “Assumption of Risk” defense, but I doubt Judge Hegarty will buy it.

The “Estoppel” and “Copyright Misuse” defenses are good, but I think they will need additional support to be effective.  Such information may become available as the judge in the Elf-Man LLV v. Lambersen case (2:13-cv-00395, WA) addresses the sanctions issue -the German BitTorrent monitoring firm/investigators (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio) and the Anti Piracy Monitoring Company, LLC (APMC).  As well as what eventually comes out of the MD Malibu Media cases that attorney Morgan Pietz is working.

The “Intervening Cause” defense is another good, especially if the WiFi Internet connection was run “Open,” or there were network guests who did this without the knowledge or consent of Defendant Butler.

So now the ball is in Troll Lipscomb/Kotzker’s court.  The best they can hope for is that a background investigation and deposition comes back with some information they can use to force a settlement.  Following this, computer forensics would be needed.  It would be really nice if the CO courts would take a similar forensics analysis stance as in Malibu Media v Gerald Shekoski (MIED 13-cv-12217).  If nothing is found, Troll/Plaintiff is not sitting pretty.  Attorney Richard Hanes could then motion the court for a summary judgement or get Troll/Plaintiff to agree to dismiss Mr. Butler WITH prejudice.  More to come on this case.

DieTrollDie :)    “You know how you get to Carnegie Hall, don’t ya? Practice.  {Lt. Aldo Raine – Inglourious Bastards}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments