Who is Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf – Prenda Law and the “Phantom” John Doe, case 4:12-cv-02049 (CA)

Since I had a free moment, I decided to see what all the hot air John Steele was blowing was all about.  His claim was that in 10 days (by 23 Apr 12) there would some Shock & Awe regarding their activity against the Does –

a little bird has told me that the first 100 individual cases against NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#. If you see your name in lights (or the names of 100 of your pirating buddies), maybe, just maybe, they are really are coming after you thieving criminals. {“The Pirate Hunter” posting on 13 Apr 12, www{.}fightcopyrighttrolls{.}com}

– Follow up posting –

know what, that is a fair criticism. It is harder than it looks to have this much litigation going on and to name as many pirates as we want to. We know we have two years to name the pirate, so I would rather do it right than do it quick. But the ramp up has been slower than expected.

I only ask one thing: IF I come back here in a week or so and start posting case numbers in large numbers, I want you, DIETROLLDIE, to admit we are finally naming pirates in bulk. Quite frankly, its time for both me (and you anonymous cowards) to put up or shut up. I only pray that when we start naming people, we get some of the people on this site so they can learn that its a lot easier to talk tough when your hiding behind a screen name.

Well I haven’t had the desire to go out to the Prenda Web site, so I’m not sure if they have in fact listed names of the Does.  Here is a 26 Apr 12, screen shot of the cases/names list from the Prenda Web site.  No new cases have been added for a while.  Seth Abrahams is still at the bottom of the list.  John, can I quote you?  OK – “NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#.”  Enough said.  😉

What I have started to see is cases of single named individuals and a single John Doe as defendants.

One of these cases is AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield, 4:12-cv-02049, Northern District of CA.  Brett Gibbs is the Prenda Troll for this case.  I apologize for the quality of the complaint.  I contacted the court and they said they are contacting Plaintiff to request a good copy (it appears Prenda’s printer was failing) – Way to go Brett! Keep up the professional image.  I will put a good copy out when I get one.  Here is the good copy – Complaint_02049(CA)  Thank you NDCA Clerks.   🙂     

So lets start this off first by stating that John was right that they have actually started to put names of “possible” infringers on the complaint.  But wait…. why are they also listing a “John Doe” along side of this named individual?  This is because Prenda is trying to walk a fine line between creating enough Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt (FUD) and not getting counter-sued by the named individual.  Some “bright minds” at Prenda must have thought that if they add a John Doe to the defendant list and then some statements to say they ARE NOT SURE IF the named individual is the offender, they could weasel out of any possible counterclaim suit.  Good luck on that one John.

Note: This case looks very similar to the Mark Randazza cases, with the notable exception Randazza usually has the court issue a summons to the defendant.  Here are some points of interest in the case.

Complaint Introduction

The Troll states this action is being brought against the defendants (John Doe and Hatfield), but “At this stage of the litigation Plaintiff does not know if Defendant Doe is the same individual as Josh Hatfield.”

Counts Against the Defendants

The Troll claims that Josh Hatfield is the register user of public IP address 67.161. 66.97, and that Defendant Doe used this public IP address to illegally download/share the copyright protected movie, “Sexual Obsession.”  We can thus assume that Mr. Hatfield was part of a previous AF Holding case and told them to pound sand. 

The complaint states that Josh Hatfield allowed Defendant Doe to do this and is thus complicit in the act.  Prenda’s investigators (most likely 6881 Forensics LLC, Peter Hansmeier), observed the illegal downloading/sharing on 21 Apr 11, 5:25PM.  Over a year ago.  In section #27, there is a new caveat stating this date/time is only a snap shot of when the investigator saw the illegal activity and NOT the start or stop date/time of the activity.

The counts in the complaint against John Doe are for

    • (1) Copyright Infringement – Reproduction
    • (2) Copyright Infringement – Distribution
    • (3) Contributory Infringement

The next count is unreadable (top of page 11), but I will make the guess that it is a claim of negligence against Mr. Hatfield.   This sections show Plaintiff claims Mr. Hatfield had a duty and responsibility to secure his Internet connection.  It has the usual BS line about “Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access…”  It then goes on to stated that if Mr. Hatfield did secure his Internet connection, then he must have allowed John Doe to use it and he either (1) didn’t adequately monitor his Internet activity OR (2) knew what John Doe was doing was illegal.  Either way, Prenda claims Mr. Hatfiled is responsible.

This of course does not address the possibility that Mr. Hatfields WiFi Firewall/Router was compromised by unknown personnel.  WEP/WPA/WPA2 can all be beaten with enough time and effort.  Also of note is the WPS vulnerability  that allows for the security of these devices to be cracked in 24 hours.

Where is this Going

The way this complaint is written, I can see the Troll trying to claim to the court (not to Mr. Hatfield) that they actually believe this phantom “John Doe” is the person responsible for the infringement activity and Mr. Hatfiled did not do it.  BUT… Prenda is going to claim that the infringement could not have happened without Mr. Hatfield’s actions or inactions.  As this case claims all parties are jointly and severally liable, they can go after Mr. Hatfield for ALL the damages and then he would have to go after the phantom “John Doe” to have him pay his portion.  – This is of course only academic reasoning, as this case (and all the others) is going nowhere as usual. 

The best thing Prenda can hope for is the court grants them a deposition subpoena for Mr. Hatfield (prior to any summons), so they can question him and possibly develop some real evidence.  If the court tell them to first issue a summons (as it should), Prenda has to decide if it wants to take a chance.  We already have two CA counterclaim suits against Prenda represented Plaintiffs; how about a third?

The only reason I can see Prenda actually moving forward to serving a summons and the deposition phase is if they have some other evidence beside the public IP address.  Who knows, maybe these new cases are from a list of people who made the mistake of actually talking to Mark Lutz and told them something, but never paid a settlement.  As these cases are new, there will be more to follow.  Remember children – “Don’t be afraid of the big bad wolf.”

BTW – The 120-day clock has started for actually serving Mr. Hatfield.  120 days from 24 Apr 12. 

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

56 Responses to Who is Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf – Prenda Law and the “Phantom” John Doe, case 4:12-cv-02049 (CA)

  1. Sloop John D says:

    Steele was/is a divorce attny. he only knows how to scare and lie.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Could be a bit of a wait for the readable complaint –

      Subject: Re: Bad copy of complaint in PACER/NDCA
      From: ECFHELPDESK@cand.uscourts.gov
      Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:24:07 -0700

      We are still waiting for the electronic version from the filer of the case, they are given 10 days to send us that document so we can upload it. The clerk scanned it in as a courtesy, but we are still waiting for the electronic documents from the filer.

      Thank you,

      ~The ECF Help Desk for the Northern District of California

      DTD 🙂

  2. Porno Doe says:

    Looking at Recap AF Holdings cases (Sexsual Obsessions) 1 named Doe out of 3K+ Does seems ridiculous! That is .03%

    You have better odds at getting injured from mowing the lawn than getting sued by Pretenda!

    Now if you are stupid enough to stick your hand in the blades, that would increase your odds. The same applies when you talk to the trolls!

    I am now really scared!

    Again, do not talk to the trolls!

  3. Raul says:

    Again another great post (I wish I could be as clever as you and SJD-working on it). The pics and captions for this one were very, very funny.
    Reading those two Steele comments written in the context of the massive Lightspeed litigation he is trying to get off the ground finally made me understand why the porn industry and his fellow trolls call him “Buffy” behind his back. He is so mistaken when he comments that “we know we have two years to name the pirate, so I would rather do it right than do it quick”. This is because his moronic client Steve Jones a/k/a Steve Lightspeed gave an interview to YNOT,com in which it was revealed that:

    “A year after the investigation started, armed with Arcadia’s mountain of data, he filed suit. At first, the list of Does topped 13,000 in the U.S. alone. Lightspeed and his attorneys whittled the list to the 6,500 most egregious offenders to pursue in court.”

    “The lawsuit itself, filed in mid-December, is… ,”

    Sooo, Steve Jones begins investigating hackers in December of 2010 and filed suit sometime in December of 2011. The Statute of Limitations for the CFAA, conversion and unjust enrichment causes of action is 2 years from the date of discovery (the breach of contract and civil conspiracy causes of action are too idiotic to comment on even though they have a 5 or 6 year Statute of Limitations). Obviously Steele is referring to the arguably “viable” (they are not) causes of action when he comments on the 2 year time frame to bring suit against Does. Steele is not doing the math correctly: Date of Discovery (12-2010) – Date of Steele Post (4- 2012) = Time to Serve Earliest Discovered Does (less than 8 months).

  4. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a 26 Apr 12, screen shot of the cases/names list from the Prenda Web site (See above in the post). No new cases have been added for a while. Seth Abrahams is still at the bottom of the list. John, can I quote you? OK – “NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#.” Enough said. 😉

    DTD 🙂

  5. that anonymous coward says:

    Aww its so sad he isn’t stealing material from Randazza faster.
    He ran around like a puppy with a bone touting Randazza’s $200K win in his letters, shame it was a settlement that was hollow.
    Now he is trying to use Randazza’s wacky if your router was open you owe me money ploy, after that was thrown out of court in Hawaii because the Judge said there is no such law or requirement.

    • Raul says:

      Thanks again TAC for pointing us in the right direction.
      In LMH v. Hawaii Members of Swarm (case no. 11-cv-262) Judge Ezra dismissed the negligence cause of action because:
      “The Court concludes that the allegations in the FAC are not sufficient
      to state a claim for negligence for a couple reasons. First, nowhere in the FAC
      does Plaintiff assert any specific legal duty in connection with its negligence claim.
      Further, Plaintiff has not cited, nor has the Court found, any case law with
      analogous facts from which the Court could conclude that the Defendants owed
      Plaintiff a general duty to secure their internet connection. Second, even assuming
      Plaintiff had alleged a cognizable duty, the FAC fails to allege any facts
      demonstrating how Plaintiff breached that duty. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in
      Opposition to the instant Motion highlights the purported risks associated with
      failing to password-protect one’s wireless network. However, Plaintiff does not
      allege in the FAC that any of the individual Defendants failed to password-protect
      his/her wireless network or otherwise monitor the use of his/her computer by
      others. The bare assertion that they “failed to adequately secure their Internet
      access” is conclusory and unsupported by specific factual allegations regarding the
      individual Defendants. Therefore, it is not entitled to an assumption of truth for
      purposes of ruling on the instant Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
      1940 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007));
      see also Moss, 572 F.3d at 969 (“[T]he non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and
      reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim
      entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
      failed to plead the necessary elements of its negligence claim and therefore
      GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to Count IV.”
      The order can be found here http://ia700609.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.hid.96264/gov.uscourts.hid.96264.66.0.pdf and the interesting docket here http://ia600609.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.hid.96264/gov.uscourts.hid.96264.docket.html
      The judge also muses in a footnote as to whether all these wacky state causes of action are preemted by the federal Copyright Act but elects to consider the issue, if necessary, at a later date. Very good stuff here.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thanks Raul. Good info. DTD 🙂

      • that anonymous coward says:

        It occurs to me, as often it does after the fact, that you should find a settlement Randazza got. Look for a settlement of $10,004. $4 for “contributory” infringement, and the $10,000 for the wacky wifi concept. The guy admitted not doing it but still signed off to accept the open wifi BS and the $4 was just gilding the lilly. I’m sure this “win” (read settlement negotiated outside of a courtroom) will rear its ugly head at some point again in the future. IIRC it was the end of a named case, I’m sure he put out a press release on xbiz talking about how it was making the world a safer place… blah blah blah…
        I expect many of the cases to hinge on this from now on. It keeps the IP identification off the table for expert dissection, and people will make the statement that they had an open router or were using an older encryption method easily bypassed. They will be informed they admitted liability in that statement and it is just easier to pay the $10K than to engage in a drawn out legal battle. So the Hawaii ruling will be important to publicize that this is a novel idea that has failed the legal test in at least 1 court so far and is not the slam dunk they’d like you to think it is.
        This again stresses how important it is to not say a damn thing to the trolls or their minions. So many people like to declare they are innocent, and try to help themselves by pointing out how it could have been someone else. Not understanding the world of hurt they create for themselves by saying anything at all.

        Funny how an IP gathering firm with a US mailing address (Strip mall office in NV, might just be a po box streetview wasn’t helpful) has all of their expert statements signed in their offices in Germany. Exhibitor (sp) or something… SJD was pretty sure it was a Guardaley (sp) spin off and this would make sense as they create more of these paper companies to be experts in the cases.

      • Raul says:

        I first saw this bizarre notion of a duty of care when DTD posted about AZ’s Hutchens trolling under the Randazza umbrella and was shocked by the audaciousness of it. After all it is a concept that only a Nazi would embrace. Negligence is a rather dry topic but it does merit a post as most troll complaints are now adding it as a cause of action and Hawaii is the sole precedent on this issue. Seeing how I am the author of dry posts, I will tackle it unles you, DTD or SJD want to give it a more amusing twist.

      • You are always welcome to help out 😉 No, I did not plan to write anything on this topic. Yet before you start, I want to point you to an interesting discussion on TorrentFrieak in case you haven’t stumbled upon it: visit 3 links listed on this page.

        Also, make sure to note Hutchen’s hypocrisy citing her last year article.

      • Raul says:

        Hutchen’s hypocrisy will be featured as it maybe the only amusing thing about the post. Sigh!

      • that anonymous coward says:

        Not me… I’ll be on the sidelines being snarky 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hello TAC. Always good to read your words. I got a good laugh when I saw Randazza’s work coming out in Prenda documents. Thanks for the information.

      DTD 🙂

  6. that anonymous coward says:

    DTD – you never call, you never write…. *cry*
    And I shared that fun story of failure and try try again….
    I’m glad I can add a little here and a little there…

  7. Porno Doe says:

    TAC always wondered were you were!

  8. Guest says:

    >a little bird has told me

    The little bird has laid an egg, Steele, and it’s running down your face. Congratulations for looking like an idiot for the rest of the world, and for kindly confirming that “the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#” and “its time for… me… to put up or shut up”.

    Get out of the courts and stop wasting everyone’s time and money. It’s not yours to keep.

  9. Raul says:

    Aside from Steele being full of shit, a pornographer that actually specialized in that fetish was convicted in 4-24 for violating federal obscenity laws http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/ira-isaacs-guilty_n_1460413.html I, for one, am a huge supporter of the First Amendment BUT think that LMH need a little federal hassle for all the anguish they have caused as of late. Outing teenage homosexuals to their parents-what assholes!

    • that anonymous coward says:

      One of the more targeted places has a very good support team in place, there is this crazy guy with a Guy Fawkes avatar who talks alot and helps them calm down.
      Hell even Randazza has a spy there checking up on the fear mongering, he gave up posting anything now thou. After you out them as a spy and let them stay they get confused.
      If you wanted to hurt LMH the easy way would be to get people in NV to ask if NV thinks so little of human life that they are going to not pass laws like CA did mandating condom use. LMH beat feet out of CA before the law was passed. Does NV even have mandated testing like in CA? Of course this could be behind the recent lawsuit Randazza filed on behalf of one of the performers who is being “stalked”, showing how they care for their models… as long as they don’t use images of themselves to promote their escorting.

  10. DieTrollDie says:

    I should have a post out today concerning negligence and how it is applied to these cases. It is amazingly simple in terms of these cases and hard to believe the courts allow shuch BS filing to even address this issue. Clearly FUD designed make some Doe put up their hands and give up.

    DTD 🙂

  11. johndoe says:

    Silly rabbits. The cases have begin to be filed. I know. Your thinking, where are they? Your forgetting something, these are state court cases, not federal, thus there will not be any handy ECF for you peeps. Which got ol’ Brett, aka “Mr. Evil”, to point out something very interesting to the Troll. He said why post all the information on the new suits for everyone and make it easier for them to find/fight/publicize during the first 30 days? (Hint: The 30 days is a clue). So don’t worry, they are not filing in little county court houses, most without electronic filing systems, throughout the country every day and serving people left and right. They didn’t just pay over $4000 in process server fees for April serving individual basement beaters. They didn’t just help Yuen get his reverse promotion (I wonder which partner the newly minted associate Yuen reports to?) Steele didn’t just didn’t kick every major ISP’s ass in DC last Friday, and everything is going just fine for you guys. Lutz and his new boy aren’t slapping people around while playing “Gimme the Loot”. And some large studios did not reach out to beg Prenda to become new clients. About that bridge I have for sale . . .

    ps. You rub a dub champs always bitch about ex parte hearings and sleazy court antics by Trolls. But in April, I understand Steele went all over the damn country to 4, FOUR, Quattro, major evidentiary hearings (2 in DC Circuit Court alone) in which every major ISP in the country was there fighting on behalf of their thieving clients, and Steele strained his leg kicking their ass every time. I hear he even appears at other hearings and whispers little helpful tidbits in other Trolls ears in certain Western states (which is why they are starting to work even there). It must be the airline miles since this litigation doesn’t work right? But just in case, pirate names come to papa!!

    pps. Relatedly, I hear the depo of Yuen’s client went real well (Side note: 300 lbs, slurpy in hand, greasy hair, right out of central casting), especially when he admitted to going to the Pirate Bay and downloading porn while Yuen sat there typing on his laptop. I hope more people hire Yuen. Maybe he could get promoted to Clerk!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Is that you John? Or is this one of his minions or a content owner? As you are using the same IP address (IP: , nl2.mullvad.net – Mullvad Proxy Service) as John, so one has to wonder. Your writing is a bit different from John and you don’t appear to be on a drunken rant. But you did use “Your” when you should have used “You’re” in a sentence. Grammar is not the point here, so I digress.

      Yes, hiding the Prenda/Steele activity makes it a bit harder for all of us, but it still reaches the light of day eventually. This repulsive business model started the same way in the Federal system and now because of our actions, is moving on to new uncharted ground. I’m sure some of our friendly lawyers will enlighten us on the veiled “30 day” reference. That or the affected Does will find us via Google and the fun begins. You claims of great success in the courts is the usual Troll bravado. Yawn……. We understand we will not be successful all the time, but we are one hell of a thorn in your side. The thorn will fester and your operations will suffer for it.

      Did you get a chance to read the EDNY order yet? Just in case you missed it. http://ia600709.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.321301/gov.uscourts.nyed.321301.39.0.pdf
      You make a big deal about filing in State courts, but you don’t even realize the financial strain these courts are under. I bet many of them are worse off than the Federal courts. The State courts are not going to take it lightly that you are abusing them for financial gain.

      Not that a 300lb. greasy haired individual with a “slurpy” doesn’t have an image problem, but what does that mean to the case? OK, so he went to the Pirate Bay to obtain torrent files to download porn. Yes. How about did he admit to downloading/sharing the movie in question? Is that all Prenda has on this guy? Are they going to conduct a forensic analysis of the system(s)? Funny, I think you would have gloated more on the deposition if there was more to it.

      DTD 🙂

      P.S. The core of your operation has NOT changed. Create fear to induce settlements without the risk of a trial. Once we remove the fear factor, the truth become clear to see.

      • Doe says:

        If the claims are made in state courts that seems like a pretty easy “wrong jurisdiction” dismissal:

        (from nolo.com) :”So unless your case involves one of the few types of cases over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction (copyright violations, patent infringement, or federal tax claims)”

        Exclusive jurisdiction seems pretty conclusive there.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m pretty sure driving the Trolls out of federal court counts as a victory for Does, not a loss.

      • A JOHN DOE says:

        The interesting part is that they are using a proxy….which is the exact logical fault of the lawsuit. Did the email come from him or the Mullvad Proxy Service. The just disproved the basic claim of their own lawsuit, that the server logs identify a person, and that there are cases in which they are incorrect.
        Proxies come in many shapes and forms, NAT on routers, backdoor trojans , and millions of computers unknowingly participating in botnets

    • Anonymous says:

      Yuen probably doesn’t need to be too concerned even if his clients admit to downloading the works at issue in those cases, since they were not registered with the copyright office in a timely matter the point is basically moot.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thanks for the info.

        DTD 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        matter = manner, of course.

        The Abrahams case is particularly egregious. IP logged March 21, 2011. Work registered November 28, 2011. Amazing they were foolish enough to pursue an “individual” case from that batch of Does when the work was not registered at the time. I’m pretty sure the originating mass-Doe complaint from March 2011 states the work had been registered, but according to the Copyright Office, the registration date is issued as the date a complete application for registration is filed with the Copyright Office, so they didn’t even apply until eight months after that filing…

    • anonymous says:

      “Your forgetting something, these are state court cases, not federal, thus there will not be any handy ECF for you peeps.”

      Eventually you will have to sue (if you ever name anyone) in federal court, you can bet your smug ass that someone will question your use of the state courts.

      btw… Learn how to use Your and You’re

    • The Tod says:

      Uh-oh, troll gets cranky with no nap. 🙂

    • Guest says:

      If you can’t put up, then shut up. That’s what Steele promised. It’s really no one’s problem if he fails to hold up to his promise and people call him out for it.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah, I love how failure to deliver is now part of the master plan!

        I’m sure these cases will be so cunningly and skillfully litigated that we won’t even be able to find any indication they ever happened…

    • A JOHN DOE says:

      Of course that is Steele, look at the self ego stroking.

    • A JOHN DOE says:

      Wow such contempt for opposing counsel as well as Yuen’s client who you claim is such an aficionado of your “art”. I can assure you by the time a few more judges get involved in these cases John is going to have much worse than a sore leg, is that his thing?

  12. Raul says:

    OK so the master plan is to take default judgments but where is the proof as to damages? How are you going to handle Does who retain counsel and point out to the court that your client’s case is built upon bad/inadmissible evidence and laughable legal theories?

    BTW-even though this came out of a federal court yesterday and not a state court it does make for some enjoyable reading http://ia600709.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.321301/gov.uscourts.nyed.321301.39.0.pdf

    • Doe says:

      Well at least one judge hasn’t been fooled.

      “Plaintiff K-Beech’s rambling motion papers often lapse into the farcical. In its papers, counsel for K-Beech equate its difficulties with alleged piracy of its adult films with those faced by the producers of the Harry Potter books, Beatles songs and Microsoft software, and compare its efforts to collect from alleged infringers of its rights to the efforts of the FBI to combat child pornography. Mem. in Opp. at 4, 10, DE [22]. In an ironic turn, the purveyors of such works as Gang Bang Virgins, explain how its efforts in this matter will help empower parents to prevent minors from watching “movies that are not age appropriate” by ensuring that viewers must pay for plaintiffs products, and thereby effectively notify parents of such activity because “many parents would surely notice if they showed up on billing statements.” Id. at 7-8. It is difficult to accord the plaintiff, which features “Teen” pornography on its website, the moral high-ground in this regard.”

      …that is just hilarious

      • Anothernymous says:

        Piracy, child pornography, and “think of the children” reasoning? It sounds like someone tried to shove all the eggs into one basket and they all broke…

  13. Anonymous says:

    Well there is no suing for copyright infringement in state courts, so it will certainly be entertaining to see what they dream up.

  14. Raul says:

    With all this traveling that Steele has been doing lately has made his wife quite lonely. At least that’s what she tells the plumber when he cums over to fix her pipes.

    I know, I know: bad juvenile joke but sometimes you need to lower yourself to your opponent’s level

  15. Anonymous2 says:

    It’s interesting that johndoe troll boasts that major studios are reaching out to Steele/Pretenda.

    Would high power studio corporations, some publicly held, stake their reputations on a discredited porn lord lackey ? Would major studios really jettison their large stable of corporate attorneys to go with a scamming lawyer running an extortion ring ? Would they place their bets on a lawyer whose major “victory” is a default judgement ? Do MGM, Fox and Disney want to be lumped together with “Super Anal Black Cougars” and “Teen Anal Sluts” ?

    More troll lawyer bluster.

  16. jaydoe says:

    i think the caes he will be filing in state courts are for the lightspeed hacking casses, which hold less water than pure copyright cases, but can be argued under the cfaa outside of federal courts.

  17. Pingback: Phantom Doe #6, AF Holdings LLC, v. Josh Hatfield, 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | DieTrollDie

  18. Pingback: End of the Prenda Phantom Doe (#7), AF Holdings LLC, v. Josh Hatfield, 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | DieTrollDie

  19. Pingback: Qui Tam Claims – HDP/Prenda Law Responds – 3:12-cv-01006 (Seth Abrahams) | DieTrollDie

  20. Pingback: Night Of The Living Prenda (Phantom Doe #8), AF Holdings LLC, v. John Doe (Josh Hatfield), 4:12-cv-02049 (CA) | DieTrollDie

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