Another Three Troll Post – More Idiots (8 Mar 2017)

Wow! So much going on I don’t have all the time in the world to talk about it. I will try though. 😉  Here are the down-and-dirty highlights.

  • FIRST, John Steele pleads GUILTY. Not too much of a surprise, except for maybe Paul Hansmeier
  • SECOND, we have had ANOTHER voluntary dismissal of a Doe by BT Copyright Troll Lowe based on a letter sent by attorney Lynch. That is 9 for 9 dismissals!
  • THIRD, Malibu Media LLC appears to settle a CA case on the eve of a trial. More questionable actions/statements from their “Never Convicted” expert, Patrick Paige. Yes, settlement (Cut & Run) was the smart thing to do.     

John Steele Pleads GUILTY

On 6 March, John Steele (Steele|Hansmeier, Prenda Law, etc.) accepted a plea-deal/stipulated sentencing for his criminal activities.   John-Steele-Plea_00334(MN)  Here are some of the write-ups following the plea.

Arstechnica     Techdirt     Torrentfreak     Fightcopyrighttrolls

It was really a no-brainer for Johnny Boy. The sheer number of mail/wire fraud and false statement violations could have sent him away for life. I would love to know what agreements Peter Hansmeier and Mark Lutz made. This leaves the other idiot, Paul Hansmeier out to dry. I’m sure Paul will make a deal, but as he is the last one, the offerings from the Attorney General may be slim.

Now I know that the other Trolls out there will claim that they (and their clients) are NOT Prenda. Still, we continue to see Prenda-like behavior when confronted by determined Pro Se Defendants and knowledgeable attorneys.  Yes, they are different from Prenda – but they are cut from the same cloth.  Note: There is a “Restitution” paragraph (page 23) in the plea, but I seriously doubt there will be any money left.

Ninth Voluntary Dismissal – Troll Lowe Two-Step

Troll Lowe just can’t get a break from the fun of trying to shake-down people and then having to dismiss them under threat of having the entire dirty operation (my opinion) exposed in court and imploding. Here is the NINTH letter attorney Christopher Lynch has written to Troll Lowe, dated 27 Feb 17.     9th_Lynch-Ltr-Dismiss

Will you go to trial against Ms. Conley? How? Why? You spend the money to take her deposition where she looks you and the camera in the eye and truthfully explains she has no idea what you are talking about. What does that achieve? You spend the money to inspect her computers and are left with what – a declaration of Mr. Paige having to acknowledge there is no evidence of Bittorrent use or London has Fallen? Then what, go to trial?

AND

We doubt Chief Judge Martinez will tolerate any of these witnesses (or the story about 70+ fictitious “Darren M. Griffin” declarations being filed in WD WA.) Chief Judge Martinez’ identical $750 “joint and several” default judgments, and his direct challenges to your firm’s accuracy in billing, are clues as to how he might react when he finds out the truth about the Guardaley witnesses and practices.

Well, as expected, Troll Lowe dismissed the case against this Defendant.   Conley-Dismissed   NOT because she was wholly innocent. Troll Lowe/Plaintiff would have gladly taken a settlement from a 65-year-old woman with NO evidence – ONLY that she was the name on the ISP account. Even if she couldn’t pay, these shameless turds would have likely sought after and obtained a default judgement against her. Tell me again how these jerks are NOT like John Steele/Paul Hansmeier.

Malibu Media Agrees To Settle CA Case – I Wonder WHY?

Well what about Malibu Media/X-Art??? Yes, Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb (previously) did run a very aggressive operation. With the break-up of the Malibu Media/X-Art AND Troll Lipscomb, the standard aggressive nature has waned a bit. One older Malibu Media case was, 3:15-cv-04441, Northern District of CA. This case against a single public IP address/John Doe was originally filed on 27 Sep 2015. The Defendant has been fighting back and even had a jury trial date of 20 Mar 2017. It appears that on the eve of trial, both sides have agreed upon a settlement (still waiting for docket entry); Judge Alsup mentioned that both sides had agreed to settlement and continued the pretrial hearing.   Settle-Continued_04441(CA)

The exact details of the agreed upon dismiss will very likely be unknown. Malibu Media claimed the Defendant destroyed and hide evidence from them. The Defense recently brought forth some documents to show that one of Plaintiff’s star expert might have a little problem. The expert was none other than Mr. “Never Convicted” Patrick Paige, of Computer Forensic (CF), LLC.

Take a read of the following documents and you will understand why Malibu Media/X-Art and the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) would eagerly agree to a dismissal. I will also note that attorney Christopher Lynch mentioned this issue to Troll Lowe in his letter (see story above).

The documents of interest are of course the details of Mr. Paige’s criminal activity that resulted in his termination from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBCSO) in September 2011. I will make it clear that he was never prosecuted for his actions. Mr. Paige was given a sweet deal and only fired from the PBCSO. This was likely swept under-the-rug as fast as possible to prevent embarrassment, as well as call into question Mr. Paige’s work and the convictions that were a result of it – can you say potential appeal nightmare.  If HE had been a normal citizen, I’m sure there would have been a prosecution, conviction, and jail time.

I was not surprised to see a letter written by Mr. Paige following his arrest in December 2010.  I will only note that for a one-page letter, Mr. Paige only devotes one sentence to saying he is sorry for his actions. The rest is devoted to rationalizing his actions and pleading for his job (so his family does not pay for his mistakes). Some will say I’m not sympathetic, but I truly wonder how much sympathy Malibu Media/Troll Lipscomb/Patrick Paige would have given to a Defendant making a similar plea. In my opinion, Mr. Paige’s willingness to sign-on with Troll Lipscomb and the APMC shows his true character. The fact that he stayed with them after discovering how the APMC settlement generation operation worked is just as telling.

Next is a civil law suit filed against Mr. Paige, Carter Conrad (his partner), and CF LLC. Though not directly related to the BT Copyright Troll cases, this law suit claims Paige and Conrad are trying to remove any reference to David Kleiman (deceased) being a founding partner in CF.  The sole heir to the David Kleiman estate (Ira Kleiman, David’s brother) believes Paige and Conrad are attempting to cut him out of his portion of CF. If the claims are true, this again shows the character of Mr. Paige and calls into question his ethics, as well as the quality and truthfulness of his work.

Last is something that goes to the heart of Mr. Paige’s ability to be trusted in deed and in word. It appears Mr. Paige stated in a report that HE tested the IPP/Excipio infringement detection system and concluded the system worked.

The Defense expert (Bradley Witteman), found some interesting information that calls this into question:

It is my opinion, from the test results files I was provided, that the deceased principal of Computer Forensics LLC, Dave Kleiman, was the person who conducted the NARS system test that produced the provided test results files, and not Patrick Paige. I describe why this is my belief below in Exhibit B.

The testing dates are inconsistent with the file creation dates of the provided test results files. I describe my findings in Exhibit C.

The Dave Kleiman system test in 2013 was not performed on the version of the NARS system that was active during the complaint in 2015. My findings are below in Exhibit D.

False statements by Mr. Paige???  So you can see why Malibu Media would be very happy to close this case out. Too bad this information is going to cause further headaches and questions to be raised in other cases. One last note, in the emails from David Kleiman concerning the testing of IPP/Excipio system, he is messaged by “Ben” at Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) LLC. It appears that Ben P at the APMC has direct access to the PCAP data recorded by IPP/Excipio. Just more information to show that “interested parties” to these BT Copyright Troll law suits are not disclosed to the court and the Defendants as required. Funny, Prenda (Steele|Hanmeier) did lots of hiding   APMC presentation   Text Transcript of Presentation

AGAIN, Please tell me how the “Other” Troll attorneys and Plaintiffs are NOT like Prenda Law.

DieTrollDie 🙂 

  • Hello everyone!!
  • Just sitting here with a nice pale ale, enjoying the various blog posts and thinking of how to better fight piracy. Feeling pretty good about this issue and enjoy exploring the finer points of this litigation with the very distinguished jurists in DC, with whom I have the utmost respect.
  • I think you guys should just stick to picking on the Hashmis and Stones of the world.  After all, not many articles out there about how a certain Miami firm is having any problems with the courts. I guess we will see.
  • BTW, what firm are you going to call DTD? After all, we have seen your legal mind in all its glory Next time, don’t embarrass yourself, at least ask a law student for help.
  • “DAMN THE TORPEDOS, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!”
  • [John Steele via IP address 94.75.220.77, DTD Web Site, 20 Feb 2012]

– Suggested reading – Troll PokerTalking To The TrollsRichard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

Posted in queen of the desert | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

BT Copyright Troll David Lowe Gets the “Slap of Love” – Pro Se Motion To Dismiss Granted (2:16-cv-01273)

Well BT Copyright Troll David Lowe is on a roll – rolling down the stairs in the Western District of Washington. In the continuing saga that is this sad state of affairs, Troll Lowe even went so far as to claim that Raul and myself  are “BitTorrent advocates,” and I was belittling the courts award of the $750 minimum statutory damage award in a 9 Aug 16 Tweet.   Fightcopyrighttrolls Article

stupid-lowe_01273waHe also claims I have been encouraging Defendants to take default judgements rather than fight or resolve the issue (this means pay a settlement). More “alternative facts” from this turd attorney who has exchanged whatever ethics he originally had for the dirty money of these cases (my opinion). His statement to the court is a bold face LIE. I simply stated the total amount was probably less than a voluntary settlement and attorney fees. I will make this extremely clear – I’m not a BT advocate, I don’t advocate copyright infringement, and I don’t suggest people simply ignore valid legal documents from the court. The fact that people use BT to illegally share copyright protected works does NOT justify the slimy actions of the Troll attorneys and the Plaintiffs who employ them.

lowe_sucks1_01273waTo be perfectly clear to an otherwise simpleton idiot (my opinion of Troll Lowe), I was belittling HIM (Troll Lowe) and NOT the court. I was extremely happy the court (Judge Martinez) gave the minimum damage award in that case. I would of course like to see the court give Troll/Plaintiff nothing, but that was not realistic.

Encore???

So after the recent slap down in the WDWA, I bet Troll Lowe was expecting things to get better. Wrong. On 28 Feb 17, Judge Martinez AGAIN slapped Troll Lowe down. Here is the background on this case – LHF Productions, Inc., v. Doe 1 et al (14 total Does), 2:16-cv-01273 (WDWA).

On 11 Nov 16, Troll/Plaintiff (London Has Fallen (LHF)) filed an Amended Complaint identifying Mr. Sosa as one of the Defendants, claiming him (along with thirteen others) unlawfully infringed Plaintiff’s movie via BT.  Mr. Sosa was named as a Defendant ONLY because he was the ISP subscriber (he paid the bill) and thus his name was associated to the public IP address Troll/Plaintiff claimed committed the infringement. Mr. Sosa disputed LHF’s allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case against him.   sosa_mot-dismiss_01273wa   Mr. Sosa told the court an IP address is not a reliable or legitimate form of identification of a person.” Mr. Sosa also said LHF has not presented any proof that Mr. Sosa either owned or used the IP address in question, and that LHF “is without a verified infringer.” Additionally, Mr. Sosa told the court he has complied with LHF’s request for voluntary cooperation by reviewing the computers in his home, speaking with his children, and by changing his computer and internet passwords. Mr. Sosa stated the Troll failed to state a “plausible” ground for relief. The court initially said Troll Lowe failed to respond to Mr. Sosa’s motion to dismiss (this was a mistake as Troll Lowe did respond.) and thus was not contesting the claims.  Even when Troll Lowe’s response was taken into account, the court was NOT impressed.   granted_mot-dismiss_01273wa

The Court Dismissed The Case Against Mr. Sosa.

LHF has not alleged any facts that link Mr. Sosa to the infringing conduct alleged, and while it is possible that Mr. Sosa participated in the BitTorrent “swarm,” it is also possible that someone else with access to Mr. Sosa’s IP address is the actual infringer. As noted by the Ninth Circuit in In re Century Aluminum Co. Securities Litigation, parties must allege something more, “such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative explanation is true,” when “faced with two possible explanations, only one of which can be true and only one of which results in liability.” 729 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2013). Because LHF has not plead sufficient facts to support its allegations, its claim against Mr. Sosa warrants dismissal. Accordingly, Mr. Sosa’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Well, Troll Lowe was not too happy and filed a motion showing that he did respond to Mr. Sosa’s motion and asked the court to reconsider the dismissal.   lowe_mot-reconsider_01273wa   This is really starts to get funny (laughing at Troll Lowe and not the court). The court responded by telling Troll Lowe NO in a short two-page order.   denied_mot-reconsider_01273wa

The Court apologizes for this oversight. However, consideration of Plaintiff’s response does not alter the outcome of this matter.

And

Because Plaintiff did not plead “facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative explanation is true,” its claim against Mr. Sosa warrants dismissal.

I think this clearly show that this judge (and maybe the WDWA) is getting tired of being used & abused as a money-making tool in their operation. Greed makes people do otherwise stupid things and rationalize their efforts when logic would tell them to stop. So I don’t expect Troll Lowe to stop plying his otherwise dirty trade anytime some. What will likely happen is the Troll master-minds will either stop filing cases in WAWD OR they will try to avoid the name and serve route. Either way the amount of money they generate is going to be less.  Time to move onto a new jurisdiction???

One last thing…  Troll Lowe, Kiss my @SS!

– Suggested reading – Troll PokerTalking To The TrollsRichard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the  neighbors think, never mind the un-guessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!{Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein}

Posted in Christopher Lynch, David Lowe | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Doe Defender “Letter” Is “8 for 8” Troll Dismissals & Update to CO Copyright Troll Case – Mechanic: Resurrection (1:16-cv-02580)

*** 2 Mar 2017 UPDATE – CO ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) ***

I checked the docket for the Colorado ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) and the last action (Doc #33 – 15 Feb 17) was the court giving Troll Stephenson until 16 March to name and serve the remaining Defendants. Has anyone received any calls, letters, or emails from him? If so, please email me at dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.

*** 15 Feb 2017 UPDATE – CO ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) ***

*** Well that was quick. The court granted the request for more time – out to 16 Mar 17.   more-time-granted_02580co  It does sadden me – but I’m certainly not surprised.  ***  Now the Troll could still name and serve the ISP subscribers, so best to monitor the docket in PACER. I expect another round of scare letters to go out – please email a copy if possible (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com).

————————————————

Well, I was at least correct in saying that the Troll Stephenson  would “file” at the last possible minute – 14 Feb 17.  He filed a motion for more time to serve the Defendants.   moretimeplease_02580co   moretimeplease_ex1_02580co

Troll Stephenson wants up to 16 Mar 17, citing that COMCAST did not even get him the names of ISP subscribers until 9 Jan 17. He even tries to make the case that he is only asking for a total of 60 days (Not the 90 days FRCP 4(m) allow)– 90 days from ISP release is 14 Apr 17. He of course makes the claim of “Good Cause” for NOT having served ANY of the ISP subscribers.

What I find extremely funny is IF Troll/Plaintiff truly had the intention to amend the complaint and serve Defendants; something would have been accomplished against the remaining 16 Does. So what Troll Stephenson is telling the court is:

  • I haven’t bothered to do ANY investigative work to determine if the ISP subscribers are in fact the offender
  • I have simply sent out a settlement demand letter stating that this court would most likely consider YOU the infringer (YOU being the ISP subscriber)
  • I didn’t bother to amend the complaint with ANY true names of the 16 ISP subscribers
  • I didn’t bother to ask the court to issue summons for ANY of the 16 ISP subscribers
  • I didn’t have ANY of the issued summonses served on the named ISP subscribers
  • I filed the last-minute request for more time with ZERO evidence to show I have even begun to try to comply with the court’s order.

You couldn’t even be bothered to name and serve one person???

Now FRCP 4(m) is clear on the 90 days service requirement, but the court can still allow more time – and it has often done this.  I think the Colorado courts may be a tad bit tired of these clowns and their abuse of the court. This swings both ways and the court can see that this Troll has no intention of actually serving people.  Be careful Troll Stephenson… The court seems to be watching your actions. It may be time to leave this line of “ambulance chasing” work and focus on something better.

Even if the court does allow more time, I don’t expect any service to occur. I may be wrong, but going down the “Name & Serve” route is also going to open up Troll/Plaintiff to possible pitfalls and the need for more time and money – this means less profit on their side.

For now, I suggest (in a non-attorney way) those affected wait and see what the court does. As I said before, If you are innocent, please tell the Troll this – Richard Pryor Response

DTD 😉

Troll Lowe Runs Away AGAIN

run-away1I previously reported (19 Jan 17) that BitTorrent Copyright Troll attorney David Lowe (and the German BT monitoring apparatus) were running scared when faced with Doe Defender Christopher Lynch’s efforts to expose their slimy operation. At that time, attorney Lynch had obtained 5 voluntary dismissals of his clients by sending Troll Lowe a letter telling him he would expose their dirty secrets and also seek attorney fees and costs.

Well, attorney Lynch is still at it – he is now 8 dismissal for 8 attempts.  Here are the most recent letters sent to Troll Lowe – and the voluntary dismissals that resulted.    2feb17_ltr_jcltolowe   12jan17_ltr_jcltolowe   25jan17_ltr_jcltolowe   dismiss3-pdf dismiss1-pdf dismiss2

The bottom line is that your client’s foreign representatives have made some mistakes. Their system is not foolproof and it needlessly ensnares innocent people, disrupting their lives for no good reason. Their bigger mistake is the use of a string of sworn declarations filed in our revered federal courts that lack the legitimacy the law requires.

And I love this paragraph:

Is it proper to trick a court into issuing a subpoena with allegations that an “IP address was observed infringing Plaintiff’s motion picture?” Dkt. # 15. Maybe the Ninth Circuit will rule shortly in Naruto v. Slater, Case No. 16-15469, that a monkey can own a copyright, but we are unaware of any pending cases where an arbitrary number can infringe one.

I wonder how many dismissals Troll Lowe is going to have to eventually do. I’m sure he has already added a “Dismissal” letter template to his common use files. I assume Troll Lowe/Plaintiff thinks that this will eventually stop OR the dismissals are just a minor annoyance and the “cost of doing business.”

Here is an interesting idea. What if a Pro Se Defendant in one of Troll Lowe’s cases files an “Answer” and attaches some (or all) of these letters as exhibits. Now Troll Lowe may be able to get them stricken, but for that to even occur, the court is going to read them and make a determination. Things are bound to go bad for the Troll. It was only a matter of Time for Prenda Law… Time is on our side.

Update To CO BT Copyright Troll Case (Mechanic: Resurrection), 1:16-cv-02580, Against 20 Does

Since my initial 14 Dec 16, article, the case against the 20 CO Does has progressed as expected.   docket_8feb17_02580co

The Motion to Quash filed by Doe 11’s attorney, Louise Aron, was denied by the court on 4 Jan 17. On 6 Jan 17, Troll David John Stephenson, Jr., Rocky Mountain Thunder Law Firm, requested more time to “Serve” Defendants. Specifically he asked to be given until 14 Apr 17 (over 90 additional days) to effect service (AKA: trying to get more settlement). FYI: FRCP 4(m) requires that Defendants be served NLT than 90 after the initial filing.  Most courts understand the delay in even getting the ISP subscribers information and will adjust the deadline accordingly. The Troll claimed COMCAST said it will not be able to provide ISP subscriber information until 13 Jan 17.

On 9 Jan 17, judge Hegarty, issued a very short minute order concerning Troll Stephenson’s request for more time.   mustserve_by-14feb17_02580co

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants [filed January 6, 2017; ECF No. 22] is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff shall serve the remaining Defendants on or before February 14, 2017.

So the court essentially gave the Troll a little over 30 days to effect service on each Defendant. It was then that the settlement demand letters started to arrive at the ISP subscriber’s residence.   me2_settlementdemand-ltr_02580co

What caught my eye on this letter is the wording that seems to claim that the CO court “would most likely” consider the ISP subscriber (“YOU”) to be the infringer. The Troll cites a CO case in support of this claim. Upon closer examination the opinion was for a case where the Defendant defaulted – very weak. This shows the desperation the Troll feels with only having approx. 30 days to effect service on most of the Does.

you-infringer_02589coAs this article goes to press (8 Feb 17), Troll Stephenson has yet to amended the complaint with the names of the ISP subscribers (as Defendants). This is even after the expiration of the 10-day deadline he mentions in settlement demand letter. This show you what the Trolls think about their evidence (public IP address) and how strong it is.

So How Is The Troll Doing?

The docket (as of 8 Feb 17) shows 3 With Prejudice dismissals (likely settlements) and 1 Without Prejudice (no settlement). The Without Prejudice dismissal was for Doe 11 (the Doe who filed the motion to quash). The Troll probably decided he should avoid any Defendant who was obviously going to fight back. So even if the Troll was only able to get $4,000 from each of the 3 Does, he has still made a small profit ($12,000 – $400 filing fee).

ticktock2Troll Stephenson now has less than one week to – 1) Amend the complaint to name the ISP subscribers as Defendants, 2) Request the court issue summons, and 3) Get the remaining 16 Defendants properly served.   Tick Tock Tick Tock…

I will be in Las Vegas soon, maybe I can get some good odds that the Troll will not serve anyone. Now stranger thing have happened, but based on the history of the CO Troll attorneys (Non-Malibu Media/X-Art), and the weakness of this particular case, I believe the chances are pretty slim.

Hopefully this is going to be the standard for CO BT Copyright Troll cases. If so, then CO Does only need to ignore the Troll or send him a Richard Pryor Response. Even if a few Defendants are named/serve, answering the summons/complaint (denial) will likely lead to a dismissal also.   Article on Answering Summons/Complaint

– Suggested reading – Troll PokerTalking To The TrollsRichard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   Do not pity the dead Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love.{Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows}

Posted in Christopher Lynch, David John Stephenson, David Lowe, Mechanic Resurrection | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Richard Pryor Response For 2017 – Have A Coke & A Smile And…

For those of you that haven’t followed the antics of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolls since 2010, I will recount one of my early posts and something I coined as the “Richard Pryor Response” (RPR). I will preface this article by saying I’m NOT practicing law and I’m certainly NOT trying get people to lie (AKA: using alternative facts). Bottom line is do not lie and if you need an attorney, hire one (Note: you often get what you pay for).   RPR Article From 2013

rpr_cokesmile1The RPR was designed to show people how to respond when called by Mark Lutz, who was a Steele|Hansmeier/Prenda Law stooge. Right now Mark Lutz is likely assisting the FBI with its investigation into Prenda Law.  Prenda/Lutz Voicemail   Also don’t forget the pizza order message Lutz and crew emailed me.

Based on what I have recently seen, I think a 2017 update to the RPR is warranted. I haven’t heard of the Trolls actually calling people anymore – so the 2017 RPR is going to be a written one (letter or email).

So Why Even Bother To Respond To The Troll?

My previous advice was not to respond to the Trolls unless you were actually named and served or received a deposition summons. I still believe it is good advice, but “some” of the Troll attorneys have adapted to the sound of silence by naming and serving ISP subscribers in hopes of driving some people to settle.

For some of these local Troll attorneys, there is ZERO reservation on amending the complaint to the name of the ISP subscriber as a Defendant and then serving a summons/complaint to effect a settlement. Notice I say the ISP subscriber and NOT the infringer. That is because their evidence (16 kb snippet) ONLY comes from a public IP address. The IP address is tied back to the account holder and has NOTHING to do with who the actual infringer is. Now the ISP subscriber could be the infringer, but as far as real “evidence” goes, an IP subscriber does not make an infringer. A public IP address does NOT indicate guilt OR liability based on what may have been done without your approval/authorization. This was recently reiterated by a judge in the otherwise Troll friendly jurisdiction of the Northern District of IL, when he issue an order stating this – and thus dismissed 3 Defendants; 2 of which had already defaulted.   3does-dismissed_order_01621il

Where I have seen a reluctance to serve an ISP subscriber is when the ISP subscriber makes a denial and tells the Troll they will fight back. In general, the Trolls do not want to actually fight these cases in court. The costs they incur when they have respond to motions or fight back reduces their profit margin. Their business model is to generate as many settlements with as little work as possible. As I said, some local Trolls will not go the name and serve route. So the best thing a Doe/ISP subscriber can do is research the local Troll attorney to see what their past actions have been.

For the more aggressive Trolls, here is the general play book for multiple-Doe cases:

  • Obtain ISP subscriber information
  • Send settlement demand letter
  • Obtain settlements from some ISP subscribers
  • Send out a second settlement letter
  • Obtain settlements
  • Amend the complaint with names of ISP subscribers who will not settle
  • Serve a summons on the non-settling Defendants
  • Motion for default judgements against the Defendants who do not file an answer
  • Dismiss the case (and refile a new one)

So for this type of aggressive Troll, my personal view is to respond to them with the written RPR.

  • I didn’t infringe your client’s copyright for the movie in question
  • I don’t know who allegedly infringed upon Plaintiff’s movie
  • I didn’t authorize anyone to use my Internet connection to infringe upon Plaintiff’s movie
  • I will not pay a settlement (under threat of a law suit) to make this threat go away.
  • There is NO reasonable evidence to suggest I’m the offender; only that the ISP subscription is in my name
  • I’m prepared to fight back (with or without an attorney) if necessary

Now I certainly don’t think this will get the Troll to simply drop you from the case. What it will do is make them think twice about actually serving you will a summons/complaint. The Trolls do not want a Defendant to answer the complaint. Once an answer is filed (Denial), it is generally harder for the Troll to dismiss the case (cut & run). Following an answer, most courts are going to require the Troll to “ask” the Defendant to agree to a dismissal (Stipulated Dismissal). This is where the Defendant has the advantage and tells the Troll that only a WITH PREJUDICE dismissal will be agreed upon. Most Trolls (my opinion) will easily agree to this to drop a case.

Here is a simple template you can use to tell the Troll to leave you alone. I would not recommend putting in much detail. It is a straightforward denial and a warning to the Troll. Don’t waste your time trying to convince the Troll that you are innocent. He really doesn’t care. If you decide to use this template, also make sure you change it to fit your situation. If you ran an Open WiFi (no password), tell them. If your WiFi was used by multiple people (guests, friends, neighbor, etc.) over the past months or years, tell them. Just keep it limited.

—————————————————

{Month} XX, 2017

{Troll Attorney Name}

{Troll Firm Name} (i.e. Fiore & Barber LLC)

{Street Address}

{City, State, Zip}

Dear {Troll Name}, I received your letter of Month XX, 2017, alleging my public IP address was detected infringing upon a copyright protected movie belonging to your client, {Client Name – Malibu Media LLC}. I hope by bringing a few facts to your attention we can resolve this matter quickly.

I did not illegally download or share any of your client’s movie. – The public IP address your agents allegedly detected in no way indicates I’m the offending party. The fact I’m the ISP subscriber in no way means I’m guilty or responsible for this alleged infringement. – I don’t use BitTorrent or have it installed on my computer.  I don’t know who allegedly used my Internet connection without my consent to do this.  I will not pay thousands of dollars to make the threat of a law suit go away and I’m prepared to fight this in court. Thank you

{Signature}

Printed Name

Address

Email/Telephone (optional)

—————————————————

Make sure you keep a copy of what you mail or email the Troll. Now I will say that this in NO way guarantees the Troll will drop you. But I believe for these types of aggressive Troll attorneys, there is a greater chance of getting named and served as a result of simply ignoring them. They are not looking to fight you in court. This is just their business – To take you for as much “settlement” money as they can. Default judgements do not get them money, so most are very willing work out a deal (to at least get something out of you). The best thing a default judgement does for the Troll is scare future Defendants into settling. I even saw one Troll attorney change his settlement demand letter to a starting amount of $7.5K based on a default entry.

greedy-troll

Even if giving the Troll the RPR does not work and you are named and served, you still can file an answer and possibly get the Troll to dismiss you. Here is an article on filing an answer. Bottom line is the Troll’s evidence is very weak and fighting this out in court goes against their business modelThis gives you an advantage.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker   Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   “A lie is profanity. A lie is the worst thing in the world. Art is the ability to tell the truth, especially about oneself.”  {Richard Pryor}

Posted in Richard Pryor Respoinse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Three Troll Post – Not Prenda, But Still All Idiots (19 Jan 2017)

Well I have three topics to talk about – so I will try to keep each one reasonably short.

  • FIRST, we have had ANOTHER voluntary dismissal of a Doe by BT Copyright Troll Lowe based on the “Source of the Nile,” letter sent by attorney Lynch. That is 5 for 5 dismissals!
  • SECOND, NV BT Copyright Troll, Charles “Chaz” Rainey was told by the court to show that service was accomplished OR Defendants would be dismissed – he then dismissed 3 Defendants. *** UPDATE – ONLY one Defendant left – Filed an answer 25 Aug 16 – no case activity since 11 Jan 17. ***
  • THIRD, Copyright-Trolls.com has come under attack of a vicious smear campaign trying to shut down the site.  *** Update – Looks like the Jessica Langston Facebook persona was deleted ***

5 for 5 Voluntary Dismissals

In the continuing story of a BT Copyright Troll running scared we have Troll attorney David Lowe. The BT Copyright Trolls/Plaintiffs and the German BT monitoring apparatus are the subject of Doe Defender Christopher Lynch’s efforts to expose the slimy and illegal efforts to generate settlement based on threats, lies, and fraudulent statements (My Opinion).

His most recent letter to Troll Lowe advised him to dismiss his client or face the possibility that their operation will be exposed. The letter makes it very clear that Troll/Plaintiff will lose this fight and the exposure of so many dirty little secrets will cost them in the form of Defense attorney’s fees and costs, as well as the possibility of future cases.   12jan17_letter-to-troll-lowe_01273wa

The letter was sent out on 12 Jan 17, and on 17 Jan 17, the Troll voluntarily dismissed 3 Defendants.   dismissal_01273wa

We respectfully request that LHF voluntarily dismiss Ms. Teodoro from the case. If she is dismissed by Noon on Tuesday January 17, 2017, we will not Answer the Amended Complaint, and we will not seek defense attorneys’ fees or costs. If the case is not dismissed by Noon Tuesday January 17, 2017, we will Answer during the afternoon of January 17, 2017 and we will seek defense attorneys’ fees when Ms. Teodoro wins, which is a certainty given her innocence.

Each innocent person we speak with leaves us dismayed that your client’s foreign representatives continue to pursue these cases in the manner they have selected. As a respected intellectual property firm like yours, my firm understands the need to protect and enforce legitimate rights. But the methods employed in these cases sacrifices investigatory precision and entangles too many innocent people.

AND

The bottom line is that your client’s foreign representatives have made some mistakes. Their system is not foolproof and it needlessly ensnares innocent people, disrupting their lives for no good reason. Their bigger mistake is the use of a string of sworn declarations filed in our revered federal courts that lack the legitimacy the law requires.

I’m very happy the Troll dismissed the Defendant. I just wish the courts would start to look into this obvious fraud and do something besides allow the operation to continue. It is really a sad state of affairs when our courts can clearly see they are being used to generate settlements. I can only assume there is some rationalization going on – “Most of the Defendants are guilty, so nothing is wrong,” or “An innocent person would fight back,” etc.  The FBI needs to start a “Prenda-Like” investigation on Troll Lowe and the German BT monitoring apparatus. Until then, we will see how many dismissals Troll Lowe/Plaintiff is willing make. So if you are a Doe/Defendant affected by Troll Lowe, please consider consulting with Attorney Lynch. Also, other Defense attorneys will benefit from the information Attorney Lynch has on the Trolls. I’m sure there will be more letters and dismissals in the future.  🙂

NV Court Threatens to Dismiss Defendants – Troll Rainey Voluntarily Dismisses 3 Defendants

On 24 Jun 16, I published an article concerning Troll case 2:16-cv-00928 (NV), “Queen of the Desert,” filed by Troll attorney Charles “Chaz” Rainey.    The case was initially filed on 24 Apr 2016, and had 30 Does/ISP subscribers tied to it. On 23 Jul 2016, Troll Rainey amended the complaint to name the non-settling ISP subscribers as Defendants.

I did note that one ISP subscriber sent Troll Rainey an email denying any wrongdoing and even told them he would fight them if it came down to it.  The Doe told Troll Rainey that until recently they had an Open WiFi. Troll Rainey of course told the Doe was he was still responsible and unless he paid the $6K, Troll/Plaintiff would seek the maximum damages. Troll Rainey claimed the ISP agreement was a “contract” and “contributory and vicarious” copyright law would make the Doe responsible. What a load of crap.   emails_Redacted

Troll Rainey eventually had summons issued (BUT not for the Defendant who emailed him) and some of the Defendants were served. The service had the effect of getting some Defendants to settle. Nine other Defendants decided to ignore the summons and a default entry was made against them. One Defendant actually sent the court an “answer,” denying any responsibility to the alleged infringement.   def_ltr_answer_doc11_00928nv

On 10 Jan 17, the court finally tired of Troll Rainey dragging this case out and told him to show proof that the three remaining Defendants had been served prior to 90 days (21 Oct 16) time limit (FRCP 4(m)) after the first amended complaint was filed (23 Jul 16).   intenet-to-dismiss_00928nv

One day after the court made their displeasure clear; Troll Rainey voluntarily dismissed the three unserved Defendants.   vol_dismiss_00928nv   One of the dismissed was the person who emailed Troll Rainey. The other two Defendants were apparently not served for unknown reasons.

That leaves just the one Defendant who answered the summons/complaint. As Troll/Plaintiff does not want to actually move forward, I expect they are trying to get the Defendant to stipulate to a dismissal where both sides “walk-away” and no settlement or attorney fees/costs are paid by either side. I will suggest to this Defendant that he ONLY accept a WITH PREJUDICE dismissal from Troll Rainey.

This case is the poster board for how the BT Copyright Troll operation works. Seeing this gives future Defendants the insight on how to respond. For many of these cases, the Troll attorney is now willing to name and serve the ISP subscribers that don’t settle. In this case the ONLY person who was NOT served was the one who emailed the Troll denying the infringement and said he would fight back. All the other non-settling Does were named and summons issued. Only one person filed an answer denying the infringement; it is likely that Troll/Plaintiff will soon move to dismiss this Defendant.

Bottom Line (non-legal advice/suggestion) – If you didn’t do it, DENY IT; say you will fight them. If The Troll still moves forward to name and served you with a summons, file an answer to DENY IT. If you have the means, hiring an attorney (or at least get a consult) is also a great idea.

Copyright-Trolls.com Under Attack – Smear Campaign

Robert Krausankas of Copyright-Trolls.com has come under attack of a vicious smear campaign trying to shut down his site.  It all started when he reported on a new Copyright Troll: Joel Albrizio of Adlife Marketing.

joel-albrizio1Allegedly Mr. Albrizio has removed his images from iStock.com. The removal of the images THEN caused iStock to remove the purchase receipts from the customer’s iStock.com account page. It appears that Mr. Albrizio may have known this AND then decided to send out $8K settlement demand letters to people/sites who allegedly used the images. Note: some of these people had purchased valid image licenses. Mr. Albrizio has also allegedly even filed suits against some of these people to try to force them to pay a settlement. For the people who purchased image licenses, they have call iStock support and ask for a copy of the license/purchase receipt.

jlstock-photo-the-charming-mother-with-present-sit-on-the-chair-517009117Troll Albrizio called Mr. Krausankas and tried to get him to remove the posts about him and Adlife. Mr. Krausankas refused and Mr. Albrizio allegedly threatened him – stating he would destroy him, ruin his life, and that he has no idea what is coming.  Approximately one month later (all on the same day) a new anonymous blog was started called “VoicesOfJupiterFlorida.com” (VOJF). VOJF is dedicated solely as a smear campaign/site with the goal of having Copyright-Trolls.com shut down. Note: In addition, a fraudulent Facebook account (FB ID # 100014690467770) was created (“Jessica LangstonLooks like it was deleted – I get this page) AND Mr. Krausankas name was registered as a domain. The Jessica Langston persona has also emailed Mr. Krausankas’s clients, his wife’s board of directors & business associates, and his daughter’s volleyball leagues coaches. The emails are a sad attempt to get Mr. Krausankas clients leave him, his wife to lose her job, and to get him barred from participating in his daughter’s sports league.

Take a look at the VOJF web site and decide for yourself. Somebody doesn’t like Mr. Krausankas. Also the Facebook account for Jessica Langston does looks like a fraud. Note: The profile picture for Mrs. Langston is a cut/edit from Shutterstock image file #517009117, taken from the photographer portfolio of Pyrozhenka.

Here are some links for additional information on the antics of this Troll.  I would also put it out to Mr. Albrizio, that if you feel any of this in error, please feel free to contact me.

Shame Attempt  –  War of Words  –  Extortion Letters Info blog entry – Get Nutty

DieTrollDie 🙂   “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”  [Jules Winnfield (Ezekiel 25:17), Pulp Fiction (1994)]

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

Posted in queen of the desert | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

GA Court Servers BT Copyright Troll Case Sua Sponte – 1:16-cv-04055 (NDGA) – “Royal Flush Odds”

The New Year is off to a fast start and I hope everyone is doing well. My apologies if I have missed responding to anyone. Please send me a reminder and I will get back to you (E-mail & Twitter).

Recently a kind person (Thank you!) informed me of a multiple Doe BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll case in GA, where the judge Sua Sponte (on his own) severed all of the ISP subscribers except for Doe #1. While we do see this from time to time, it is usually the exception to the rule as far as BT Copyright Troll cases go.

kathleen_lynch2_trollThe case is 1:16-cv-04055-WSD (Northern District of GA), ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-14, filed on 31 Oct 16, by local Troll attorney Kathleen Maher Lynch, Law Office of Kathleen Lynch, PLLC. The case is the same old template claiming that on 29 Sep 16, someone using a BT client (on the 14 listed public IP address) download/shared the movie “Mechanic: Resurrection.” All of the public IP addresses were recorded sharing out a small portion (to the German BT monitoring apparatus) of the movie during a period of little more than 13 hours.   complaint_04055ga   complaint_ex-2_ip-list_04055ga   docket_9-jan17_04055ga

On 21 Nov 16, Troll Kathleen Maher Lynch (No relation to Doe Defender Christopher Lynch) filed her motion to take early discovery of the ISP subscriber information. I find it a bit odd that the local Troll attorneys do not simply file all their documents for early discovery the same time the case is filed. They have had this information since prior to the case filing.

I did a simply review of BT Copyright Troll cases in GA and only came up with seven multi-Doe cases (19 Oct – 10 Nov 2016), with 81 ISP subscribers.

me2-cases_ga_04055ga

On 28 Nov 16, Judge William S. Duffey Jr., Sua Sponte issued an Opinion and Order on the early discovery request.   opinion-order_04055ga   Judge Duffey dismissed all the Does/ISP subscribers (#2-14) except for Doe #1 – for the “practical reasons” of efficiency and fairness.

[T]he majority of district courts—including courts in this district—that have considered the swarm joinder theory have rejected it.” Breaking Glass, 2013 WL 8336085, at *4; see Kill Joe Nevada, 2013 WL 3381260, at *4. Because joinder in this case would not result in judicial economy, the Court exercises its discretion to sever the claims against each Defendant. John Does 2-14 are dismissed without prejudice.

I haven’t taken the time to check to see if all the cases are under judge Duffey and/or if the Opinion and Order has been applied across the board. While I’m extremely happy the court dismissed most of the ISP subscribers, I wish the courts would actually look into the technical aspects of these cases and see that there is ZERO evidence to show (In ANY of these cases) that ANY of the joined IP addresses actually shared parts of the movie with any other IP addresses in the case(s).

The ONLY record the Trolls have is that a public IP address on specific date/time (for this case 29 Sep 16), shared an extremely small portion of Plaintiff’s movie with the German BT monitoring apparatus. The Trolls know this and their claims are straightforward misrepresentation (AKA: Lies – my opinion) to the various courts. Their misrepresentation centers on the claim the Does/IP addresses are rightly joined because the file name and file hash are the same for all the IP addresses (For this case – Mechanic Resurrection.2016.HC.HDRip.XViD.AC3-ETRG & B5201111ACEC1E5025DE3087B15DF84612C02579 (SHA1)). WRONG!!!

There is ZERO evidence (and I challenge the Trolls to show otherwise) to support joinder regardless of what previous courts have ruled. NO court has yet taken the effort to seriously review the technical aspects of BT in relation to joinder.

Now I will say there is a possibility that some of the 14 IP addresses could have shared between some of the other IP address in the case.  BUT to claim ALL of them did is highly unlikely in my opinion. The nature of BT is it looks for other BT clients that are sharing the same torrent file. It doesn’t care if the other BT client is your next door neighbor or is located on the other side of the world. So, it is actually more likely that the seeder (has a full copy of the movie) or leecher (has less than a full copy) a BT client is downloading from is located somewhere other than in the same jurisdiction. The Trolls also fail to tell the court that if one (or more) of the IP addresses were “seeding” (already had a full copy of Plaintiff’s movie), they would not be sharing any data with the other “seeder” IP address.

Another fact not reported to the court is that BT clients often do NOT run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, non-stop. Thus, it makes it even more unlikely that ALL 14 IP addresses could be downloading/sharing Plaintiff’s movie during the entire period claimed by the Trolls (approx. 13 hours). The ONLY evidence the Troll show is on 29 Sep 16, between 10:43 – 23:49 UTC, each one of the 14 IP addresses spent ONE SECOND to share an extremely small portion of Plaintiff’s movie with the German BT monitor apparatus at 14 different times. Nothing shows that ANY of the IP addresses shared Plaintiff’s movie between themselves.

Now I don’t claim to be an expert on BT, but I know of one person who is. Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC. He is the owner of Amaragh Associates, a digital forensics company specializing in BT investigations. Mr. Neville is an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE) as well as the author of a BT monitoring suite, EUPSC2k. The following articles and his declarations explain that the likelihood of proper joinder of multiple Does in these cases is very unlikely.  Declaration1   Declaration2   Declaration3

Associated DTD Articles – Why Mass Joinder is WrongOne in 10 DuodecillionDBC v. Gaslight Coffee – DBC Joinder of Does Is Unjustified

What are the odds for this case?

joinder1So if you read the Neville declarations, you will see his opinion is based on two different “soaks” he did concerning BT “swarms.” Mr. Neville is of the belief that BitTorrent joinder litigation is not based upon any real likelihood that the joined peers engaged in any series of transactions with each other.

Note: For this GA case, the Troll limited the Does/ISP subscribers to those that were recorded over an approx. 13 hour period. This will of course affect the likelihood that ALL 14 Does/IP addresses exchanged data with ONE or more of the Does in this case.

I thought I might try to run the numbers from this case based off of Mr. Neville’s declarations. I got close, but still hand to seek assistance from a very intelligent and knowledgeable person (Thank you!).  Note: It was determined that the swarm numbers for this hash file was still heathy and ongoing (B5201111ACEC1E5025DE3087B15DF84612C02579). So based on the case specifics of the 14 Does/IP addresses record during a 13-hour period, it was determined that the likelihood at least one Doe-to-Doe link for every Doe is 0.0001%. To give you an idea of the odds, know that the chance of getting a royal flush dealt to you in poker – 0.000154%, it only slightly higher.

NOTE: In the declarations, Mr. Neville states that his calculations were based on the assumption that the IP addresses involved were at the top end of the top 5% as far as connectivity to other peers in the swarm. If you recalculate using the average connectivity for peers in the given time period (more realistic – no bias towards Troll or Doe) rather than the top 5% (highly-connected outlier peers), we come out with a 0.0000000000003% chance that all 14 Does connected to at least one other Doe in the case.

Take you pick – 1 in 10,000 or 3 in 10,000,000,000,000 

So the best odds for Troll/Plaintiff is there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that all 14 Doe are properly joined. Worst odd (most realistic) are 3 in Ten Trillion. As I said before, the Trolls actually have NO idea of what IP address the various BT clients are connecting to. The only way they could obtain such information is to somehow be connected to each Doe and actually see what IP addresses they download/share with. As the Trolls only claim proper joinder based on the same file hash number, they are technically in violation of FRCP 11 (Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions), as their pleading are based on the improper purpose of justifying joinder when they know there is NO evidentiary support for it; AND that further investigation/discovery is unlikely to provide it (Their best odds are 0.0001).

So why doesn’t the various courts start dismissing multi-Doe cases outright???

Well, it usually takes a Doe to first hire a defense attorney who then decides to employ an expert (like Mr. Neville). Also remember that hiring an expert will cost you money. For many of these cases, a Defense attorney is not hired, or one is hired only to negotiate a settlement. For those Does who actually put up a fight, the Trolls will eventually try to cut and run instead of trying to refute Mr. Neville’s declarations. Why bother to fight when all it takes is to get a different judge and/or jurisdiction; and then you are back in business. I do suggest for those defense attorneys looking to attack “joinder,” that they contact Mr. Neville.

DieTrollDie 🙂  “The point is that you can’t be too greedy.” {Trump, The Art of the Deal, page 48 (1987)}

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BT Copyright Troll Calls Magistrate Judge “Erratic” – Objection To Findings & Recommendations (3:15-cv-00866)

30 Dec 16 UPDATE – Yesterday attorney Madden filed his response to Troll/Plaintiff’s object to the magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations.   def_responsetoobjections_00866or   This response could be titled, “Plaintiff is Wrong.” It is  simple and straightforward document, in which attorney Madden tries to educate Troll Crowell on his lack of understanding of Res judicata, Estoppel, PrecedentDiscretion, and claims that are/were “objectively unreasonable” from the start.

… Apart from Plaintiff’s incorrect understanding of “precedent” and “discretion,” its only dispute with the Recommendation appears to be that the magistrate’s equally careful exercise of discretion in a different case came out against a different plaintiff (which happened to be represented by the same counsel, Mr. Crowell). But that is not an example of treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently, as Plaintiff would have it; it is merely treating a misbehaving party consistently, whether the misbehavior is the unreasonable pursuit of invalid claims (in the present case), or the unreasonable inflation of costs and fees to coerce an overreaching settlement (in the earlier case, now on appeal as Glacier Films (USA) Inc. et al. v. Turchin, 16-35688 (3:15-cv-1817-SB)). 

So now we wait for the judge to take all of this under advisement and make the final determination. I expect the court will accept the magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. The amount is small in comparison with what Troll/Plaintiff has obtained overall, but it is a start.  Happy New Years everyone.

DTD 🙂

———————————————————————————-

e_stupid1It is probably not the best idea for a Troll attorney to tell a magistrate judge they are acting “erratic”; especially after the judge issued a Findings & Recommendations against your client. objections-to-findings_00866or   As this Objection is from well-known BT Copyright Troll attorney Carl D. Crowell, I’m not surprised.   Previous Troll Crowell Article   findingsrecom_00866or

Both prior to and subsequent to the findings and recommendation in this action, and even in the instances of admitted willful and persistent infringing activity by an unrepentant defendant, it has been established that before the Magistrate: a) prevailing plaintiffs and defendants are to be treated alike; b) and fee shifting for bittorrent litigation is inappropriate. That is except now in this one case the Magistrate discards her established doctrine and elects erratic discretion over consistency.  {PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE}

Now I understand Troll Crowell had to make some sort of objection; If ONLY to bill Plaintiff for more money. I stand corrected – I missed the part that stated the Response had to filed NLT 19 Dec 16.  What makes this objection even more humorous is that Troll Crowell couldn’t even meet the court suspense for filing it. The court required any objection to be filed 14 days after service (2 Dec 16); so that means it should have been filed no later than 16 Dec 16. It was filed on 19 Dec 16.   docket_28dec16_00866or

docket-late_00866orThe court did not say 14 business days – but I could be wrong. Still, as the objection is only 5 pages long and NOT very impressive. I can not see why it would have taken him so long to accomplish.

Troll Crowell Objections Because –

  • The Magistrate’s Findings fail to follow established precedent – Basically both sides should be treated equal and that awarding fees/costs to Defendants goes against previous decisions not to. Maybe the court is starting to tire of being used in money-making business model??? How about the court saying the claims against the Defendant were “Unreasonable?”
  • The Findings are not supported by the clear facts of this case – Somehow the court got it wrong and that Mr. Gonzales was responsible because the infringing activity stopped after the law suit was filed. Troll/Plaintiff even has the gall to say that NO economic relief was ever sought from them. So NO settlement demands were ever made (or received) by Troll/Plaintiff against any of the Doe Defendants???
  • Plaintiff is not precluded from filing another claim against Gonzales, including an indirect infringement claim – The ridiculous statement is that Plaintiff can still re-file against Mr. Gonzales via a “vicarious infringement” claim. The problem with that “theory” is the Defendant would have had to have had the “Right” and “Ability” to control the infringing activity, as well as a “Direct” financial interest in it.
    • As the Defendant was the ISP subscriber, there was arguably the ability to control the activity (or attempt to).
    • Where the Troll will have an uphill battle is in getting the court to believe that ANY “Right” was established AND that the Defendant benefited financially from the infringement. There was NEVER any agreement/contract between Plaintiff and Defendant as to being responsible for protecting Plaintiff’s movie. The best the Troll will be able to do is claim that the agreement between the ISP and the Defendant somehow extends to protecting Plaintiff’s movie. Good luck on that claim!
    • As to showing the Defendant had a direct financial benefit from the infringement, the Troll is going to have to cook up some really good rationalization. Maybe they can claim that the adult group care home residents and the employees ONLY lived and worked there (Rent & Services benefits) because they could use BT freely and without the Defendant stopping them.

I think filing this “late” objection was only Troll Crowell going through the motions. I look forward to attorney Madden’s response. The good thing is the cost to respond to the objection is going to be added to the attorney fees claim. So attorney Madden has until close of business on 10 Jan 17 (Two Federal holidays during this period). What would be extremely funny is if the court decided not to accept the Plaintiff’s objection based on the late filing and no reasonable explanation as to why. I doubt that will happen, but I can hope.

I hope everyone has a wonderful New Year’s Eve and that 2017 brings you something you need, want, and especially deserve.

DieTrollDie 🙂

“And there’s a hand, my trusty friend!
And give us a hand of yours!
And we’ll take a deep draught of good-will
For long, long ago.” {Auld Lang Syne, Robert Burns}

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

 

Posted in Carl Crowell, Cobbler NV LLC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

John Steele & Paul Hansmeier (Steele|Hansmeier, AKA: Prenda Law) Arrested – December 2016

Merry X-mas All!

prenda_idiots2From the Star Tribune, 16 Dec 2016 “Authorities arrested Paul Hansmeier, of Woodbury, and John L. Steele, an attorney in Illinois who was a former classmate of Hansmeier’s at the University of Minnesota, shortly before U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger announced charges Friday morning. Hansmeier was arrested in the Twin Cities; Steele, who has lived off and on in Florida, was arrested in Ft. Lauderdale.”

More to come on this.  😉  Enjoy the read – Grand Jury Indictment, 0:16-cv-00334 (MN), 14 Dec 16

prenda_indictment3From a quick read of the indictment, it appears the Feds were able to ‘turn’ Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier and obtain additional evidence (1 & 2) that made it very easy to get a grand jury to indict Steele and Hansmeier with multiple charges of fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1341, 1343, &1349), racketeering/money laundering (18 U.S. Code § 1956), conspiracy (18 U.S. Code § 371), and principles (18 U.S. Code § 2). I can see both of these dirt bags  (my opinion) going to prison for a few years at least, as well as forfeiting any/all assets. Allegedly John Steele plans to fight this – well, talk is cheap. I expect that eventually a plea barging will be reached with both Defendants. As much as I would love to see the trial of these jerks, even John Steele’s super ego is going to come to the realization that he is just plain “fucked.” Too much evidence (direct and circumstantial) is out there. John Steele wasn’t as smart as he thought he was. Plus John Steele also knows that if he tries to fight this, Paul Hansmeier may just turn on him for a lighter sentence. Not that I think the Feds will need Paul Hansmeier to cooperate; BUT if John Steele starts to act like a turd, they may have to make an example of him. “Now this is the Big Leagues.”

Popehat coverage of Prenda is HERE.  For a good list of articles and sites talking about this, please visit Fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂

TrollECard1

Posted in Prenda Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Colorado Postings – Motion To Quash (Mechanic: Resurrection) & Jason “Jay” Kotzker – Life After BT Copyright Trolling

Motion To Quash ISP Subpoena – Colorado

me2_trolling1I’m often asked by Does to look into a BT copyright infringement case and give them my thoughts (non-attorney).  For most of the time, these cases are template-based with little changes here and there. If there is anything interesting, it usually comes from a Doe or Defense attorney. I recently took a look at a Colorado multi-Doe case and noticed an attorney filed a Motion to Quash (MTQ) the ISP subpoena (early discovery). The case is ME2 Productions (movie: Mechanic: Resurrection), Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (20 Does), 1:16-cv-02580, filed on 17 Oct 16, by troll attorney David John Stephenson, Jr., Rocky Mountain Thunder Law Firm.   complaint_02580co   complaint_ips_02580co   complaint_cpyreg_02580co   docket_14dec16_02580co

I thought this was interesting, as for the most part in CO (and all other jurisdictions), it is waste of time and money for a Doe/Defendant to file a MTQ (my opinion). The money it costs is often better spent on either negotiating a settlement or fighting in some other way. The CO courts (AKA: Judges Wiley Y. Daniel & Michael E. Hegarty) are well versed in these cases and generally are going to allow early discovery of ISP subscriber information. As much as I would love for the courts to kill these cases at this point, there is NO other way for the Plaintiff to even begin (NOT that they actually would.  LOL!) to find the offender without getting this information. I believe the CO court (as well as most others) know this and also understand that these Trolls/Plaintiffs are just using the courts to advance their business model (settlement generation) under the guise of “stopping copyright infringement” – total BS in my opinion.

So here is the MTQ filed by Doe 11’s attorney, Louise Aron, on 28 Nov 16.   mtq_doe11_02580co

The first thing that struck me was that it wasn’t the “normal” format we see for MTQ’s.  The court also noted this and advised Mrs. Aron to comply with rules/procedures (docket entry #14). Now the court could have told Mrs. Aron to refile it in the correct format, but it didn’t. I read this as a good sign and maybe the court would like to have deeper discussion on the issue. The CO courts are generally considered a “Troll Friendly” environment, allowing multi-doe cases (most profitable type) and early discovery with little to no issues. The CO courts required monthly status updates and will regularly tell the Troll attorney (Troll Scott Kannady (Brown & Kannady, LLC) & Troll Stephenson) to advance the cases or close it down. So for the most part, naming and serving a Defendant in these CO cases is not the norm. The Trolls usually get as many settlements as possible and then close it down in a couple of months. Repeat the procedure over and over again – money continues to flow.

Because of this, I generally suggest that CO Does do not talk to the Trolls and only hire an attorney if they receive a summons/complaint or a deposition subpoena. I do also suggest they contact a defense attorney and at least get a consult.

In looking over the MTQ, I liked the straightforwardness of it and it shows a bit of passion in its contempt for the Troll/Plaintiff. I think the court may have also liked it and welcomes the disruption it may bring to these BT copyright troll cases. Attorney Aron makes it clear that what Troll/Plaintiff is doing is wrong.

Plaintiff set this up. Plaintiff isn’t really interested in preventing copyright infringement. Instead, Plaintiff wants infringement so it can collect money from individuals. Plaintiff is fostering violations of copyright in order to obtain settlements. Implicit in copyright law is the requirement that copyright owners themselves are responsible for making sure that they prevent infringement. Plaintiff did the opposite. Plaintiff is associated with activities online at https://myspace.com/me2productions and elsewhere which created an endless supply of Mechanic: Resurrection to be made available for download.

AND this was funny:

De Minimis. Even if 11 had infringed, there would be de minimis damages. As a conciliatory gesture, I have set aside $15.00 from my own funds to cover whatever a viewing of “Mechanic: Resurrection” is worth.

Note: Rotten Tomatoes gave “Mechanic: Resurrection” a 26% score.  So I think the $15 she set aside may be a bit excessive.

Take a read of the MTQ and tell me what you think. I have no doubt that Troll Stephenson has been in contact with Mrs. Aron and trying to see if Doe #11 will accept a lower settlement.

My non-attorney suggestion to Doe #11 is to NOT accept a lower settlement. The chance that Troll/Plaintiff will actually name/serve her is very low (my non-attorney opinion). Doing so would be ridiculous and a bit risky. I’m sure attorney Aron/Doe #11 have their “Answer” ready to go. As I have said before, once an “Answer” is filed, it is a bit harder for the Troll to cut and run. It becomes even harder if counter claims are made against Troll/Plaintiff – AND I would expect this from Mrs. Aron. For now we wait for the response from the Troll – Without it, the court could quash the ISP subpoena.

I don’t think the CO court will kill the ISP subpoena, BUT I do think they will make the Troll spend some time/money in defending their position. Once the ISPs release the subscriber information, Troll Stephenson will milk all the settlements he can (18 other Does – Doe #4 settled on 13 Dec 16, doe4_settlewp_02589co) before dismissing the case without conducting ANY other investigative steps or naming/serving a defendant. These case are about money and playing the odds – If only 10 of the Does settle for $4K, Troll/Plaintiff will take in $40K. Fighting Doe #11 is a waste of their time and money. Too bad the courts cannot do anything to stop the waste on our court system.

Life After BT Copyright Trolling – Jason “Jay” Kotzker

Now since I’m talking about a CO BT copyright troll case, let’s see what a previous CO Troll attorney is up to – Jason Kotzker. Troll Kotzker previously worked as the local CO attorney for Malibu Media (X-Art), filing over 450 BT copyright troll law suits. At the end of 2014, Troll Kotzker, stopped filing Malibu Media cases in CO.

We later learned why Troll Jason Kotzker was leaving CO BT Copyright Trolling:

Defendant Jason A. Kotzker is an owner, member, and/or manager of Sequoia One, and a manager of Gen X, and is an authorized signatory for many of those entities’ bank accounts. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint, including the Defendants’ sale of consumer payday loan applications containing consumers’ Social Security and financial account numbers, as well as other sensitive information, without the consumers’ knowledge or consent, to third parties that used the information to commit fraud. In addition, Kotzker knew about the business practices set forth in this Complaint, was recklessly indifferent to them, or was aware of a high probability of the fraud and intentionally avoided the truth. In connection with the matters alleged herein, Kotzker transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. {my emphasis, Section 8., Doc#1, Case 2:15-cv-01512-JCM-CWH, FTC Link}   complaint_sequoiaone_kotzker_01512nv

Kotzker eventually agreed to pay the FTC $45,000 (of a $7,135,992 judgement against him and the others defendants).   final-order_kotzker_01512nv  So what has Kotzker been up to since?

strainwiseconsult_1According to the “Strainwise Consulting” web site, he is their “General Counsel.” What makes this a bit interesting is the name on the “Management Team” Web page, “Jay Kotzker,” NOT Jason. I don’t know why it is not “Jason,” but according to the stipulated order, he must –

…report any change in: (a) name, including aliases or fictitious name, or residence address; or (b) title or role in any business activity, including any business for which the Stipulating Defendant performs services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in which the Stipulating Defendant has any ownership interest, and identify the name, physical address, and any Internet address of the business or entity.” {Section B.1., Doc#56, Case 2:15-cv-01512-JCM-CWH – final-order_kotzker_01512nv}

So maybe this is just a simple mistake.  Maybe…  But based on what Jason Kotzker did (according to the complaint and stipulated order) and his questionable ethics in working BT copyright troll law suits for Malibu Media/X-Art (my opinion), it does make you wonder. I also wonder if Strainwise Consulting knew of Jason Kotzker’s history. I’m sure the FTC will look into this in some fashion – I just hope they get to the bottom of it. For now, we will keep an eye of this and make sure to update my article tagging to include “Jay Kotzker.”

Other Kotzker Articles Of Interest

Malibu Media (X-Art) Cases In Colorado (Little Bo-Peep Has Lost Her Sheep)

Feds accuse X-Art/Malibu Media’s attorney Jason Aaron Kotzker of a $7,000,000 payday loan fraud

Malibu Media attorney Jason Kotzker moves to stay FTC civil case pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against him

FTC Puts An End to Data Broker Operation that Helped Scam More Than $7 Million from Consumers’ Accounts

These data brokers cost consumers millions by illegally selling off their financial information, says FTC

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   “I have spent my whole life scared, frightened of things that could happen, might happen, might not happen, 50-years I spent like that. Finding myself awake at three in the morning. But you know what? Ever since my diagnosis, I sleep just fine. What I came to realize is that fear, that’s the worst of it. That’s the real enemy. So, get up, get out in the real world and you kick that bastard as hard you can right in the teeth.” {Walter White, Breaking Bad}

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

OR Court – BT Copyright Troll Tactics Overly Aggressive – Awards Defendant $17K In Fees (3:15-cv-00866)

5 Dec 2016 Update – Cobbler Nevada Case (3:15-cv-00866(OR)):  On 2 Dec 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, issued her ‘Findings and Recommendations’ (Doc #51) on Cobbler NV, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales.   findingsrecom_00866or

fr_screen2_00866or

Based the previous case activity (see DTD articles: Cut & Run  &  How NOT To Run A Case) it was assumed the court was going to award Defendant attorney fees and costs.

PREVAILING PARTY.  The court found that the Defendant was clearly the prevailing party under “any” analysis of the case.

The Court’s finding that Gonzales prevailed on the contributory infringement claim should end the analysis, as Gonzales is seeking attorney’s fees only in connection with his defense of that claim. However, even if the Court must adjudge the prevailing party based on the relative success of both the direct and contributory infringement claims, the Court finds that Gonzales is the prevailing party under any analysis.

REASONABLENESS.  As to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s claim, the court found the initially “reasonableness”, did not extend very far once the case details became clear.

The Court finds that once Plaintiff learned that the alleged infringement was taking place at an adult group care home at which Gonzales did not reside, Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of Gonzales for copyright infringement was objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff’s discovery that Gonzales was not the infringer came before Gonzales accrued the fees submitted for approval, and therefore the requested fees relate to a time period during which Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of Gonzales was objectively unreasonable.

MONEY.  As to Plaintiff’s motivation for filing these cases, the court clearly had concerns that this was a business model based on greed and lacked any “meaningful” investigation.

Although Plaintiff urges the Court to believe that “money has never been the goal” of this action, this Plaintiff and similarly-situated plaintiffs continue to demand large sums of money from individuals to settle these BitTorrent copyright claims. Many individuals agree to pay these large sums without the benefit of legal counsel. See Anonymous Users of Popcorn Time, 2016 WL 4238639, at *4. The Court shares Gonzales’ concern that Plaintiff is motivated, at least in large part, by extracting large settlements from individual consumers prior to any meaningful litigation. On balance, the Court has concerns about the motivation behind Plaintiff’s overaggressive litigation of this case and other cases, and that factor weighs in favor of fee shifting.

OVERLY AGGRESSIVE LITIGATION TACTICS.  Based on these findings, the court concluded:

Plaintiff’s claims against Gonzales were objectively unreasonable, and the Court has concerns about Plaintiff’s motivation in continuing to pursue those claims when it became clear that Gonzales was not responsible for the alleged infringement. To incent similarly-situated defendants to protect their rights under the Copyright Act, and to deter Plaintiff from overaggressive litigation tactics, the Court concludes that a fee award to Gonzales is appropriate.

And AWARD:

For the reasons stated above, the district judge should enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Gonzales with prejudice, GRANT Gonzales’ request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,222.40, and GRANT Gonzales’ request for costs in the amount of $252.20.

JustStupid1Now Troll/Plaintiff has 14 days from this recommendation to object to this. If they are stupid enough to do this, it simply means the fee award against them is likely to go up when attorney David Madden has to respond to whatever laugable analysis/objections they file. Congratulations to Defendant Gonzales and attorney Madden – well done.

I certainly would have liked a larger fee award, but I’m happy for the analysis and the clear statement from the court that the Trolls are pursuing these weak-ass copyright infringement claims beyond the reasonableness level based on overly aggressive tactics.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂  If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against.”  {The Notebook of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein}   

Posted in Carl Crowell, Cobbler NV LLC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments