Battle Damage Assessment of DTD Torpedo – Trolls Come to the Aid of D. Wayne O’Bryan

Well this week has seen many interesting things occur.  Sophisticatedjanedoe passed this wonderful document from the Virginia cases filed by the Troll D. Wayne O’Bryan (K-Beech, Inc., v. Does 1-85, case # 3:11-cv-00469-JAG, Eastern District of Virginia & Patrick Collins v. Does 1-58, case # 3:11-cv-00531-JAG, Eastern District of Virginia).  DieTrollDie Post

These VA cases were the first ones I filed declarations to refute Plaintiff’s memorandums.  I have since terms my declarations as “DTD Torpedos.”  I have had another Torpedo filed in an Arizona case, and I just fired a new one on a yet to be identified target case ;).

The document entitled “PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,” filed on 8 Dec 11, by DurretteCrump, PLC (Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq., Christine Williams, Esq., J. Buckley Warden, Esq.).  I don’t have any information on DurretteCrump, PLC, but working to support the Trolls isn’t going to garner them any “nice” points from Santa Claus. 3Trolls_Memo

Plaintiff most likely hired DurretteCrump, PLC to write a document asking that Rule 11 sanctions not to imposed on Plaintiff or the Troll.  The document is long and has attachments – I need to review these.  I will make a full review and post my thoughts.  One funny section can be found on page 4.

On October 24, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the issues related to whether Plaintiff and/or its counsel should be sanctioned for violating Rule 11.1 On October 24, 2011, the Court docketed a ―Declaration to Refute Plaintiff‘s Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Show Cause Order (Docket #22)‖ filed by ―an anonymous John Doe‖ also known as ―DieTrollDie‖. (Docket No. 39). This ―Declaration‖ was not verified or attested to in any matter and was filed by an admitted non-party to this case who lacks standing to file pleadings in this matter. 

Well I guess the torpedo did some damage.  🙂  As I stated in that declaration, I do have “standing” because of being a Doe defendant (in a different case), running my Blog (and talking to other Doe defendants), and MOST importantly in this case because the Troll mentioned the Blog/Internet forums that provide Motion templates/examples for Doe defendants to use (as a negative) – my Motions Page.  “YOU (Mr. Troll) opened the door that allowed me to come in.”  😉  As far as the statement that my declaration was not verified/attested to – stop it please.  I listed my Blog, as well as the other documents I cited.  The court and others can do verification if they want to.     

I understand that filing any motion/declaration anonymously is not as strong as doing it named.  The reason we (as Does) do this is to prevent being attacked by a powerful adversary because we are threatening their highly lucrative business model.  Even if filed anonymously, the court can read our arguments and judge if they make sense.  Don’t think you cannot contribute to this fight.  Any support you can provide is appreciated. 

As I’m writing about these funny happenings, I can’t help to think about this – Good Laugh. 

DietrollDie  🙂

“Some ships are designed to sink… other require our assistance.”

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 -
This entry was posted in 3:11-cv-00531-JAG, 3:11cv469-JAG, D. Wayne O'Bryan, K-Beech, Patrick Collins, Torpedo and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Battle Damage Assessment of DTD Torpedo – Trolls Come to the Aid of D. Wayne O’Bryan

  1. noneyabusiness says:

    We should all note that this pleading also still relies on the IP-address-absolutely-must-equal-an-infringer assumption. See page 17 and 18….. “….suit against the John Does identified only by an IP address and seek leave to immediately file subpoenas on the ISPs to whom the IP addresses belong so that the ISPs can identify the infringers by name……” Maybe some additional torpedos are needed that specifically address that incorrect and idiotic presumption. None of us should let these bastard trolls and their mental-midget spawn freely throw that bullshit out there as fact without attacking it for the crap that it is.

  2. Boy says:

    That was funny as hell! Made my day. Made me also think about the judge reading “Anonymous Doe also known as DieTrollDie”

    “He who laughs best today, will also laugh last”

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, there were various funny bits to what DurretteCrump, PLC, had to say. One thing I thought was funny is how they state that the Does in their motions cite settlement letters/calls from Steele Hansmeier who is an unrelated law firm to this casr – “pertain to an unrelated law firm to this litigation and expressly referred only to ―accounts of previous defendants…” But they had no problem with an Amicus Curiae being filed by Stelle Hansmeier – “On October 18, 2011, the Court allowed the filing of an amicus curiae brief by the Steele Hansmeier PLLC law firm. (Docket Nos. 18-19).

      Here is a funny footnote in regards to my declaration and the Doe who file as John Doe 1-58 (page 13) – “Additionally, it is hard to imagine more unreliable evidence. Not only is it flagrant hearsay but neither the identity of the proponent of the hearsay, nor the speaker of it is identified. Nothing whatsoever is disclosed about the source or the accused parties. It is totally unworthy of belief, in addition to being irrelevant.”

      Sad Trolls

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • Boy says:

        Do we now have puppeteers or ventriloquists filing motions? Proponent or speaker of the hearsay?

        Sad sad trolls!

  3. Danny says:

    Here’s a helpful list of the five “R’s” for any John Does out there facing suit:

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you Danny. I will state that the choice to hire an attorney is an independent one and that you do not have to have one. Myself and others have had our subscriber information released by the ISPs, not settled with the Trolls, and the case was eventually dismissed. Saying that, if I was actually named and received a summons, I would hire one and fight like hell.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  4. CTVic says:

    Just reading through these “torpedoes of truth”. After my snickering & chuckling about these poor trolls who are seeing opposition literally coming out of the woodwork, it occurred to me that these “Declarations” might be better served if you filed them as “Amicus Briefs”?
    With what little I know of the legal system, an Amicus Brief is usually filed by somebody who is a non-party to the specific issue at hand, but has a vested interest somehow. It strikes me that this kind of legal document describes you perfectly, being a former Doe Victim, and administrator of this blog.
    If your declarations start getting shot down, Amici it may be a good avenue to take.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I have thought about adapting my declaration to an Amicus Curiae/Brief format, but since each court has more specific rules on Amicus Briefs, the declaration is easier to get filed. The biggest issue I face is showing I have proper standing to file my declaration. So far that was not an issue in VA and AZ. The next torpedo should arrive at the court some time this week. We will see how the latest one is received. 🙂 I may contact some of the friendly attorneys or the EFF and see what their opinion is.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  5. AZtrollSlayer says:

    You might want to send one of your DTD Torpedo’s to sink AZ troll Ryan Stevens ship in CASE #: 2:11-cv-01604-NVW. They have named 5 individuals, dismissed the rest, and served summons on each of them. Doesn’t look like they are fighting back so things are moving pretty smoothly for the trolls.

  6. JD says:

    Anything new with this case?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I haven’t had a chance to look this one up in PACAER.

      Dietrolldie 🙂

    • Raul says:

      It seem the Trolls are using the District Courts in AZ and NC to test the waters with serving Does and taking default judgments. Problem for them is that it seems some Does are putting in Answers and discovery demands. It will be interesting to see how this game of chicken plays out. IMHO these ambulance chasers have no game and are going to screw up royally at some point.

      • Esneider says:

        Thank you for the encouragement. Your blog is fsitaatnc! The more I read, the more I want to fight. My subpoena notice from Neustar is at least unethical, and perhaps illegal. It arrived in the mail yesterday, barely a week before the date in which the ISP is to comply with the subpoena, it does not include a case number (which is necessary to file an MTQ), and it encourages me to call the lawyer who is suing me.It seems that this type of subpoena notice is designed to make it very difficult, or even impossible to file an MTQ on time. I called Neustar yesterday (Friday) and had no luck getting someone on the line. I was disconnected. I tried them again today, but it is Saturday and they are closed. So, assuming I get them on the line Monday, I will have only until Friday to show proof of my MTQ to my cable company. I am going to look on the bright side. If this subpoena letter is designed to discourage filing an MTQ, then maybe that means that filing an MTQ works. I will file one. Also, any sensible judge who is made aware of this unfair type of subpoena letter might dismiss the case. I am going to mention my unfair subpoena letter in my MTQ. But then again, if I am able to file my MTQ on time, then that may prove that the subpoena letter was fair. (I might be over thinking this one).

  7. anonymous obviouly says:

    From a post on

    Hello Mr. Visacillas,

    I have a question for you regarding lawsuits being brought by a pornographer by the name of K-Beech, Inc. in Florida and across our nation. K-Beech is claiming in these lawsuits that hundreds of John Does unlawfully infringed upon their DVD entitled “Gang Bang Virgins” for which they recently obtained a copyright on 10-24-2011 (Registration number PA00017579630) but the lawsuits, by and large, were instituted before the copyright registration. However, “Gang Bang Virgins” is scene by scene identical to an earlier pornographic DVD entitled ” Grand Slam” which was produced by a company called Combat Zone who applied for and obtained a copyright for it on 6-14-2006 (Registration number PA0001332187) which is over 5 years prior to K-Beech’s registration for the same DVD albeit under a different title. You can compare the two movies here:
    and here:

    So my question is twofold: Is this activity (if accurate)) fraudulent and who should this activity,if fraudulent, be reported to?

  8. The Dude says:

    It seems the Honorable Judge Jones Jr. is going to make Mr. O’Bryan work for this one. The ambulance chaser filed 9 suits in EDVA (8 for Malibu and 1 for Patrick Collins). The judge has continued their motion to expedite and requested the plaintiffs prove the reasoning behind their joinder. It also appears the Judge has or may consolidate the all the cases.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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