Support Document for Motion to Quash, Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-58, 3:11-CV-00531-JAG

I was looking for any last minutes filing for the high-profile VA cases and came across this document in support of a John Does’ Motion to Quash that was filed earlier (19 Sep 11).    I haven’t had a chance to digest this support document, but it is from the Computer Science depart of the University of Washington.  Should be an interesting read.  I’m sure D. Wayne O’Bryan is wondering why he was sooooo stupid to take on this case. :0  It probably isn’t over yet by a long-shot (wink wink).  I’m sure John Steel and his band of bozos will claim the University of Washington is “Pro-Piarcy” and should be ignored. 

Support Documents for Motion to Quash 3:11-CV-00531-JAG – MotionQ_Support1

Have fun Trolls!  🙂

DieTrollDie  🙂

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in 3:11-cv-00531-JAG, bitTorrent, copyright, copyright Troll, D. Wayne O'Bryan, dietrolldie, eff, john steele, Motion to dismis, Motion to Quash, p2p, Patrick Collins and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Support Document for Motion to Quash, Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-58, 3:11-CV-00531-JAG

  1. +1!

    It would be nice to make the judge aware of Nick Ranallo’s TF article, but this filing is great. I’m aware of that study, but it not sure the judge is. I have a feeling that judge Gibney will sponge any information that supports his opinion and crushes trolls’ arguments: judges don’t like to change opinions unless there is a compelling evidence.

  2. Raul says:

    To follow up with what sophisticatedjanedoe say about Judge Gibney looking for support and to follow up on my harping about K-Beech’s failure to have a certificate of copyright registration which drives a stake through the heart of its “Virgins 4” and “Gang Bang Virgins” troll lawsuit IF you are lucky to live in a state that has adopted the so called “registration approach” a legal analysis (found here: http://www.williamsmullen.com/files/Publication/2b3e1635-a7e5-4a15-af39-bcc6b833ef64/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/6fb27b14-5e0f-411b-8fb1-c6a431cf2723/North%20Carolina%20Lawyers%20Weekly%20_%20Print%20_%20Copyright%20ap) says this about the 4th Circuit in which Virginia is located:

    “The 4th Circuit has yet to interpret the meaning of “registration” under § 411(a), and district courts within this circuit are divided. Two district courts have adopted the application approach, Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Rodriguez (E.D. Va. 2005), aff’d, (4th Cir. 2007) and Iconbazaar, L.L.C. v.America Online, Inc. (M.D.N.C. 2004), and one has adopted the registration approach, Mays & Assocs.v. Euler (D. Md. 2005).”

    So even though the Virginia District court has taken the “application approach” in a previous case (which would make K-Beech’s complaint OK on its face) it is still unsettled in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals so Judge Gibney would be soundly within his discretion to go “maverick” and adopt the “registration approach” and hammer those pricks for having a sua sponte dismissable complaint that requests damages (statutory and attorneys fees) they are not entitled to pursuant to Section 412 of the Copyright Act. In other words, Rules 11 “frivolous behavior”.

  3. Raul says:

    I meant in the last sentence: “In other words, Rule 11 frivolous conduct”.

  4. Steel Johnson says:

    Hmm… After Steele’s amicus brief and this I can’t help but think that a template amicus brief to file in every copyright troll case would be a nice project.

  5. troll hunter says:

    How about this k-beech puppet troll in North Carolina, think he is scared?http://torrentfreak.com/undercover-cops-and-politicians-escape-bittorrent-lawsuit-111013/
    Thanks Torrent Freak

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, I loved the part where they only want to go after people who have money. If you have no assets they can go for, then download/share their movies with no fear. What a loss of crap.

      DieTrollDie.:)

  6. CTVic says:

    “This information will eventually be used in any trial of Doe defendants regarding P2P File Sharing and Copyright violations identified by only IP addresses.”
    This is GREAT stuff!!! The troll’s jenga tower of lawsuits is listing heavily to port anyhow with these O’Bryan cases in VA – and somebody just fired a cannonball of education right into the middle of it.
    The only thing that I don’t see on the motion is the publish date of the report by my good friends at U of WA – which was sometime in 2008. If somebody could get a judge to recognize that the fallability of P2P tracking has been publicly known since BEFORE the troll lawyers even got started, the countersuits and pro bono defense attorneys are going to come out of the woodwork.

  7. ano says:

    In the VA case the court directs the Plaintiff, its new council and O’Bryan to appear in court. Interesting that Collins, Beech, et al are directed to appear in VA court.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s