DTD SLCM Strikes Home! – Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, 2:12-cv-02084, Eastern District PA

OK, I wasn’t not expecting this declaration to make it into PACER so quick, but sometimes it happens.  🙂  This is for case 2:12-cv-02084, Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, Eastern District PA.  Previous post on this case.

After listening to the audio hearing of Christopher Fiore (14 May 12), I decided to make a declaration (I called this one a Sea Launch Cruise Missile) to refute the misinformation provided and try to set the record straight for the court.  The judge sounded like he had some valid concerns and was willing to listen.  I hope this declaration is not striken from the docket, but you never know what a court may think of it.  I wonder if this will bring out the Troll behind Fiore. 

The following docket information has me listed as a defendant in this case.  I’m not one of the defendants and I did not try to present my declaration as such.  I think the clerk may have assumed I was one of the Does in this case.  I will have to contact the court clerk and make sure they are clear on this.  It may just be that the clerk felt this was the best way to associate my declaration to the case.  Either way, I still got a “kick” out of seeing my AKA and the address in the docket.  🙂         Docket5Jun12_02084(PA)

Here is my declaration (Sea Launch Cruise Missile) for this case –  DTD_SLCM_02084(PA)  Please enjoy, comment, and use any and all aspects of it in your Troll fighting efforts.  The Exhibit image isn’t the best, so here is a better copy – Public_Private_IP_Addresses*** For the public IP address in this document, guess who has used it? *** 

Here is the link to the audio file of the hearing I based my declaration on –  Audio File Here is the .PDF file for the hearing with the .MP3 file embedded in it.  Hearing_02084(PA)   I had to sign up for a “DropBox” account to get the files loaded.  If you are interested in getting a DropBox account, here is a link – DropBox.

14 Jun 12 Update – Doe #14 in 2:12-cv-02090, Malibu Media LLC., v. Does 1-15, Eastern District of PA, used this declaration as an exhibit to his motion to Quash/Sever/Dismiss (filed on 12 Jun 12) – MTQSD_Doe14_02090(PA) 

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 Malibu Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to DTD SLCM Strikes Home! – Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, 2:12-cv-02084, Eastern District PA

  1. that anonymous coward says:

    Should start a business filing these in every single one of these cases…
    Shame one can’t run an anonymous kickstarter…
    200,000+ people targeted… if everyone gave a dollar we could educate every Judge

  2. Raul says:

    Hopefully the torpedo will make the judge reconsider his order allowing expedited discovery. It is somewhat irksome that this barely capable punk troll is getting away with this scam on a wholesale basis in the EDPA. I had thought that Judges Savage and Davis were onto him but they are now also allowing expedited discovery. Puzzling.

  3. Zippy says:

    I hate to be a newbie and ask this, but how does Expedited Discovery differ from normal discovery?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      This allows the Troll to get a subpoena for ISP subscriber info prior to having to name and serve each Doe. Normal Discovery starts after this. Without this, the Troll would never get your info and have the option to serve a Doe. Not that 99.999% of the Does will ever be served anyway.

      DTD 🙂

  4. anony-mouse says:

    i finally listened to the mp3 (yes i know i am behind the times) but when he said it was a server based out of eastern europe i almost gagged. the only way to be this uninformed on a topic is to do it on purpose. you have to actually be working at it to be working in a field that specifically deals with technology and still be clueless about it. and wether you like it or not being an “ip attourny” means that you are working in a tech based field. look at real IP lawers and most of their bachelor degrees are in engineering or some other tech degree. i wounder if this numbskull got his under-grad in “under water basket weaving”

  5. srslywtf says:

    Hi all, I recieved a subpoena from this particular lawyer. I’m one of the john doe’s. After doing some research online, i was finally able to find this website and read more in depth as to what they are doing. As you can tell i’m not all that knowledgeable with the legal issues at hand. After reading thru with what you provided, i come to the conclusion that i have to ignore them at all cost until a legal document comes with my name on it? is that right?

  6. srslywtf says:

    i mean from verizon about this particular case..

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. If you can possibly file a motion, that is great also. Otherwise ignoring the Troll unless YOU get a summons or deposition subpo.ena. This is very unlikely to happen.

      DTD 🙂

  7. srslywtf says:

    Thanks! So from what i read a motion around 800 or higher? does it help me out in this case?

  8. DieTrollDie says:

    You can prepare a motion yourself. Only thing it costs is your time, effort, cost of copies, and mail postage.

    DTD 🙂

  9. srslywtf says:

    Again thanks for your help! And i’m guess i should be monitoring the pacer case at the same time?

  10. Raul says:

    DTD, your declaration made it into another EDPA lawsuit, Malibu Media v.Does 1-15 (12-cv-2090, as part of a Doe MTQ! http://ia600704.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.paed.461493/gov.uscourts.paed.461493.10.0.pdf

  11. AnnoyedByTroll says:

    I just got a Letter in regards to the same situation from my provider. How were you able to file that MTQ and still hide your identity. Or can you file one for this case two.

    RFC Case Number: C-M12-2095J
    Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-02095-LDD
    File Date:Thursday, April 19, 2012
    Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber, LLC
    Defendant: John Does 1-18
    Cause:17:101 Copyright Infringement
    Court:Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
    Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

  12. Wow says:

    DTD – Can people simply use the declaration PDF you included and file the motion for cases in Eastern District PA?

  13. burnthetrolls says:

    RFCexpress latest update says that Doe #13’s motion to quash was denied… Is this a typo? There is no documentation on MTQ except for Doe #14.

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94465/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-15/summary/

  14. Aiden2072 says:

    The declaration was also used as an exhibit in two Doe filings on 5:12-cv-03139 (Malibu Media, LLC vs John Does 1-22) in PA ED.

    http://ia701208.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.paed.463525/gov.uscourts.paed.463525.docket.html

    Reminder to anyone involved in that case: motions to quash or vacate the subpoena must be filed no later than July 10, 2012.

    Aiden2072@hotmail.com

    • Aiden2072 says:

      Any idea what this order from Judge Savage (in 5:12-cv-03139-TJS) , responding to Fiore’s oppositon to the MTQ means:

      ORDERED THAT NO LATER THEN 8/8/2012 THE PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN WHICH IT SHALL CITE EACH CASE WITHIN THE 3RD CIRCUIT HOLDING CONTRARY TO THE CASES CITED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM.

      • Raul says:

        It means Judge Savage has had just about enough of Troll Fiore’s extortion racket and is grasping around looking for a way to shut it down.

  15. The Tod says:

    Is it just me or is it a bad month for trolls?

  16. Anonymous says:

    There hasn’t been a good month for the Trolls since about this time last year. Yeah, there have been discovery requests granted here and there and a couple default judgements but on balance the Golden Age of easy mass-Doe cases with hundreds to thousands of defendants joined are long over.

    It was mostly down to Ira Siegel and Brett Langdon Gibbs double-teaming the Northern District of California. They flew too close to the sun and got burned, had a bunch of big cases eviscerated by judges there, and it’s been mostly downhill since. Ira took almost the whole year off, just re-emerged in CAND using the Matlock Law Firm as his pawns. Prenda moved on to CAED where they’ve been getting shut down, and tried filing a handful of single-Doe cases that have either gone nowhere or turned into lawsuits against their clients.

    Sad days for trolling, that’s for sure.

  17. C.H.U.D. says:

    I’m a new b at all this – i typed the case # and found you guys. Thank God I did!
    I’m named in the 4:11-cv-04501 thing . I don’t live in DC or Texas and they know who I am,
    where does that but me? help. and whats this 2/3 strikes thing I read about? does that apply to me? what’s my chances y’all. I’m haven a hard time sleepin.
    You guys sound like you know what your talking about. I just got the letter that they want $3,400.00 to make this go away. ( money I aint got) How would they know if I did down load or not with an open home network?
    I did not know there was a law that, I had to have it locked down.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      OK. First of, get some sleep and don’t worry about this case too much. If you don’t live in Texas, you are good to go. This is because your public IP address was part of the DC and TX cases. As the Troll cannot sue you in a TX court, he would have to refile one in your jurisdiction. As that would mean dismissing you from the TX case, then FRCP 41 applies – after two dismissals for the same matter, the case is “adjudicated” (DC – dismissed; TX – dismissed; = finished). That doesn’t mean that Prenda will stop sending you letters and calling you (Lutz or Robo-call). They don’t care if they cannot legally get you, they just want you to send them money. If they are foolish enough to open a case in your jurisdiction, you could file a motion to dismiss based on FRCP 41.

      They don’t know if the ISP subscriber was the one who downloaded/shared the movie. They don’t care either. They just threaten to sue unless the ISP subscriber pays up. They of course don’t know anything about your home network (Open or Closed), except that you were assigned a certain public IP address for a specific date/time period. And there is NO law requiring you to run your home network closed/secured. The Trolls don’t like this, as if makes it really hard to prove who was responsible. The claim of negligence has been shot down in a few courts and it pisses them off.

      DTD 🙂

      • C.H.U.D. says:

        Thanks for the info,You are a Great Person for helping like you do!- But! are you sure this rule FRCP 41 thing works even for jurisdiction dismissals here in the bayou state? I read it over and they said— (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an adjudication on the merits. What ever that means?
        It sure sounds like a except-ion to me.
        Is there a Lawyer out there that can but this in plan words?
        I am grateful for all yall’s support to the 200000 plus going through this HELL.
        Signed ; C.H.U.D. ( still not sleeping well )
        P.S. I got my first call 2 days ago- I did not do it -it’s not on my system- I’ll go to court if I have to- don’t call me again was what I told him. He replied ” I’ll call again if my boss tells me to -I don’t work for you.” then he said something about receiving time sensitive material soon.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        So you got to hear from Mark Lutz. LMAO! The time sensitive material is their “Informal Discovery” paperwork. It is very useful as cage or litter box liner.

        DTD 🙂

  18. Chuck says:

    What are the chances of getting the MTD for John Doe #14 ( MTQSD_Doe14_02090(PA) )as a Word document? I am named (by IP Address anyway) in the latest filing by Mr. Fiore and after reading all the positngs here I am in the mood to fight back.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I don’t have that MTQSD as a Word file. You can copy/paste the text of the MTQSD into a Word Document and clean-up/reformat it as needed. It would also allow you to tailor it to your situation.

      DTD 🙂

      • Chuck says:

        It’s not letting me cut and paste (because it was scanned to a PDF perhaps). There is software that will read the file and create a Word document. I’ll go that route. Thanks.

  19. Chuck says:

    DTD: I am using your Motion to Quash as a template for mine. On Page 10 of 26, it looks like there is something missing. Do you recall how that last paragaraph started?

  20. Pingback: Eastern District PA Referrs 48 Troll Cases To Judge Baylson For Monitoring & Coordination | DieTrollDie

  21. Anonymous says:

    Would love to see one of your missiles land in HDP v Does 1-1495 !! It could be very useful in that case as it appears the Does’ information will be released shortly, and it’s a case with a large number of Does. Please consider it!

  22. Pingback: Judge Boylson wants to test copyright trolls’ evidence in a bellwether trial « Fight Copyright Trolls

  23. Troll Hunters says:

    Congrats DTD!

    Listened to the hearing. OMG, I’ve never heard such a sorry for an excuse explanation of bittorrent than the one provided by the troll. Stupid Fiore knows absolutely nothing but again that is no surprise. He may as well give up for falsifying information to mislead the judge.

    He lied to the judge and said he asked ISPs for MAC addresses and IPs, then went back to change his story about asking for customers personal info. Dumb ass doesn’t even know what is a MAC address–more lies.

    Obviously, there are no technical “experts” among his troll gang, because his explanations suck.

  24. Pingback: IP como evidencias en casos de Copyright « Moviles & Tecnologia

  25. Another John Doe says:

    Thanks for your advocacy, DTD!

    I found this page because I was named in one of the other Malibu cases assigned to Judge Legrome D. Davis: Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02095-LDD, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania., Malibu Media, LLC plaintiff v. John Does 1-18 defendants.

    I received the subpoena letter from my ISP this summer. A few weeks later I received one call (straight to voicemail) from plaintiff attorney that I did not return. Haven’t heard anything since.

    I just moved from Philly to Texas and wanted to get up to date on case to ensure I didn’t miss any developments as a result of move and consequently hinder my ability to defend myself.

    I googled the case number and stumbled upon a “Motion of Voluntary Dismissal” filed by plaintiff on 8/17/12 (on plainsite.org) which says I was dismissed 🙂 But the voluntary dismissal says “Plaintiff plans on further investigating and confirming the information provided by the Internet Service Provider and will re-file and serve each Doe Defendant if deems necessary” 😦

    I contacted the court today. I spoke with a clerk and asked if I could provide the court my new address so if the trolls re-filed a suit against me I would be properly notified. Clerk said since I’m a John Doe that can’t be done and if I wanted to provide my new address to someone it’d have to be plaintiff attorney.

    But I’m not sure I should be contacting plaintiff’s attorney. Think it might be better to lay low. Thoughts?

    Thanks again,

    Another John Doe

    • Raul says:

      DTD will wholeheartedly agree with me. Never, never contact the troll. Your move may have very well thwarted their ability to harass you. If they are going to refile against you they will have to do it in Texas where I do not believe they have any active attorneys. Lay low.

    • SMDH says:

      I second Raul, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CONTACT PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY!!!! Having said that: my opinion is that you are in the clear. You’ve been dismissed and have since moved… way out of their (EDPA’s) jurisdiction. I would lay low online (Read Cashman’s Blog) and enjoy the holiday season. (Side note: I would also avoid your previous internet provider if you can…)

  26. Whodunnit? says:

    Hi DTD. This looks like an amazing piece of work. I just got notice from ISP in a new EDPA case by Fiore. I’ve reached out to my attorney for help, but they are not fully versed in the dark arts of internet technology. What’s the status of this motion? I’m thinking of possibly using it to fight the extortion. Any guidance would be appreciated.

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