Repost of Federal Compter Crimes (Blog) Article, “AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1140 — Dismissed, but according to the plaintiff’s plan.”

Just wanted to get this out to the people who haven’t seen it yet.  Thank you to houstonlawy3r for posting this information.

Here is the article – 

Bottom LineCase 1:11-cv-01274, AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1140, has been voluntarily dismissed by the Troll (Prenda Law).  The judge in the case gave Plaintiff until 9 Mar 12, to start naming/serving Does or to dismiss the case.  As expected, Prenda dismissed the case.  They still have the Does’ personal information, so I’m sure they will still keep threatening them unless they settle.  Here is houstonlawy3r’s view of what Prenda really meant when they told the court they were dismissing the case. 

In other words, “Court, we are dismissing the case so that you do not need to waste your time looking over us watching what we are doing.  We would prefer not to have you watch us anyway because you will force us to do something we don’t want to do (e.g., “name” defendants), which would make our extortion scheme much more costly to us and thus we wouldn’t be able to sustain our operation if we had to actually go after defendants.  So thanks to you, since we now have all the names we need from the ISPs of the putative Doe Defendants, we will continue to call and harass those who haven’t settled without having you worry about what we are doing.”

In short, I would have liked to see the judge issue an order indicating that since they have dismissed the case, they are no longer permitted to use the names they acquired from the subpoenas and collect settlements from putative defendants.  The legal system is not a tool to discover private information about internet subscribers only to dismiss the case and continue their extortion scheme offline.

For this reason, I suspect that you understand why I am not so happy with this case dismissal.  Getting your names only to dismiss the action was simply part of their plan all along.

What???  Prenda doesn’t really name Does???  Say it isn’t so.  Don’t believe me???  Take it straight from the mouth of the Troll –  That number of named/served defendants is ZERO.

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 Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Repost of Federal Compter Crimes (Blog) Article, “AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1140 — Dismissed, but according to the plaintiff’s plan.”

  1. Raul says:

    Well, if recent developments in the Northern District of California are the yin to this circus that we all find ourselves in then this unfortunate development is the yang. Nonetheless you can see that with an increasingly sophisticated pool of Does (thanks in no small measure to this site and the one run by SJD) and judges who are becoming weary of this con that the ground is starting to shift.

  2. Doe says:

    Hi, I have also posted on houstonlawy3r’s blog as well, and would also like to ask you the same question. What do you recommend at this point for a Doe involved in this case? They sent their settlement letter to my last place of residence, so I haven’t received it (which houston said is irrelevant anyways). I have searched around on rfcexpress for cases filed in my state’s federal court, and haven’t seen anything from AF holdings, again, what do you think I should do? If they haven’t served anyone yet, is it likely they will at all?

    If you would like any more information on my situation I would be happy to oblige.

    • B says:

      No it’s not likely. In fact it will NOT happen, they don’t serve anyone.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      John Steele’s favorite number is “ZERO.” That is the number of Does they have actually named & served with a summons. Saying that, ther have been a couple instances where they get a judge to authorize a limited deposition of a Doe to “Determine if you are in fact the infringer.” Just another scare tactic to try and get people to pay up. As the case in not in your State, I would say “hold tight” and just keep an eye on the case. Please email me more details on your case/situation.


      DTD 🙂

  3. Gatekeeper says:

    Speaking of AF Holdings dem Premduh Trolls are dumb. Gibbs on da left coast saying, nope we haven’t named anybody. Duffy on the other left saying they done did. I confused like that lying door man riddle. (One of us always tells the truth… the other one always lies.)

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