Lipscomb Fishing Co., or “Exculpatory Evidence Request”

KLFC128 Feb 13 – Update

I have been getting a few request for ideas on how to respond to the exculpatory evidence request letters lately.  As previously stated, there is NO legal requirement to reply to the request.

Saying that, I’m of the opinion it could be good to respond on your own terms.  As I have previously cautioned everyone – don’t make any false statements if you do respond.  Also do not provide the Troll any of the information he is asking for.  The type of response I’m suggesting is an adapted Richard Pryor Response.  Take a look at the example and tell me what you think.  If you decide to make such a response, please edit the letter to fit your situation.  So if you have a Linux OS that comes with BitTorrent installed, please remove that corresponding part from the letter.    DearTroll

DieTrollDie 🙂


Keith Lipscomb and the rest of the Copyright Trolls have been taking a beating on various fronts.  Just as in a military offensive, the attacker adjusts his actions as need to get the effects they desire.

Recently Troll Lipscomb sent out “Exculpatory Evidence Request” letters.  The letter is smoothly written to inform you, as the ISP subscriber, your public IP address has been associated with copyright infringement activity.  Troll Lipscomb wishes your assistance in making the case for him, as he only has weak evidence unless you help him.  This is actually good evidence of a Troll admitting the public IP address they collected is so weak they are unsure of actually trying to litigate it further – “CLUE!”  Ltr1

Following pagesPage 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5.

Even with claims of looking for “exculpatory” evidence, he still makes this comment.

Included herewith is a form which allows you to convey to us any evidence which you believe makes it less likely that you are the infringer.

How about “that you are not the infringer.”  He goes on to tell the recipient that unless the request is returned in 10 days, they will assume there is no exculpatory evidence.

Now further down in the letter is a notice to the recipient that anything you say or provide to them will likely be used against you.  He also goes on to tell you to email and/or write to him if you do not wish further contact from him until served with a complaint/summons.  The email address for this is copyright@lebfirm.comThis part reminds me of a Florida court order with similar provisions. 

Here is my 30 Aug 12, post concerning Lipscomb (Malibu Media) and a Florida court order with 5th Amendment like aspectsPlease take a read.  The wording in the court order is similar to what is in this exculpatory evidence request.  Note: One part is not in the letter – Plaintiff/Troll must inform the Doe that if the they (Plaintiff/Troll) incorrectly “name” the ISP subscriber as the defendant in a case (i.e. true name – Malibu Media LLC, v. Mark Jones), then Plaintiff/Troll could be subject to sanctions IAW FRCP Rule 11.

The questionnaire asks the recipient to provide the following information.

  • List all authorized users of the network.  Doesn’t ask if there have been any unauthorized users.
  • Is there a WiFi access point associated with the public IP address?  This question is so poorly worded; some people may not understand that he is asking if your Internet connection is wired, WiFi, or both.  Note: for most people, the answer is going to be YES – Wired & WiFi.
  • Has BitTorrent been installed on any systems?
  • How far is the closet neighbor to you?  They already know this via Google Maps/Google Earth.
  • Have you or other users purchased Plaintiff’s movies?
  • Have you visited any Web sites containing Torrent Magnet Links?
  • Have you or others used search engines to search for information on torrent files or Web sites?
  • Have you or other ever visited streaming media site containing “unauthorized” copies of Plaintiff’s movies?
  • Have you ever receive notices of copyright infringement from your ISP or other content owner?

Now what is missing from this questionnaire?  How about “Did you do this?”  Why?  Maybe because they don’t care if you did it or not, regardless of this “exculpatory evidence request.”  A good piece of exculpatory evidence is a simple statement that you didn’t do this.

I will caution everyone in responding to such a request.  It is voluntary, but as stated, it will be used against you if possible.  Before you make any response, be sure to review any relevant court orders in PACER to ensure Lipscomb is abiding by them.

If I was to respond to it, I would not list out all the people who have had access to the network.  Probably the only thing I would do is give them the Richard Pryor Response (RPR), the fact that my WFR is wireless (WiFi), and a statement not to contact me again until served.  Remember – This is an “Exculpatory” evidence request, not an “Inculpatory” request.  “Show Me The Evidence” Article.

Other relevant posts from FCT/SJD

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 -
This entry was posted in Keith Lipscomb and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Lipscomb Fishing Co., or “Exculpatory Evidence Request”

  1. Anonymous says:


    This was pathetic when Prenda tried it. Copying this trick makes Butterball look like a huge loser.

  2. SJD says:

    Thanks, DTD. I did not say it explicitly, but I strongly felt this must be publicized to warn potential victims of this brazen entrapment.

  3. anonadoe says:

    You notice they ask if you visit bittorent index sites, well no not even that, they just ask if you visit sites with bittorrent magnet links. Either way, they don’t ask which ones. So if you go to a perfectly legal site with bittorrent links, like the HumbleBundle site or, you’d have to answer yes, but there’s no space to explain what you do.

    And again, acting as if having torrent installed automatically means you’re a pirate.

  4. pissed off Doe says:

    Dear Doe, we don’t want to spent our hard earned money in hiring local counsil and getting a proper subpoena to ask you the following questions, so pretty please with sugar on top be so kind to give us this information.

    Your sleazy fat troll, lipscum and the gang.

  5. RessyM says:

    Any chance of a Doe who receives the letter sending in a complaint to the Judge stating Lipscomb didn’t follow their rules to the letter, and that, as “anonadoe” states, perfectly legal bittorrent use (and admittance of it) can make you become a bigger target to Malibu?

  6. Raul says:

    A nice response might be along these lines: “On the advice of counsel, I will not discuss the subject matter of this threatened lawsuit in writing or over the telephone. Likewise I will not disclose any exculpatory evidence in writing or over the telephone to a law firm that is threatening me with a lawsuit. Accordingly please cease and desist any and all further contact.”

    Disgusting how the douchebags try to shift the evidentiary burden when the burden is on them.

    • New Troll Victim says:

      I just received this letter from Mary Schulz. Am I obligated to reply to this? If I am, is your suggested reply above real, or sarcastic? Sorry, I wasn’t completely sure. Also, should I ask my lawyer to send a note to them asking them to hire a forensic expert to prove it? I am fine with that as their case against me is completely invalid. Only issue is, out of the 3 computers I have, 1 of them does not exist anymore — the motherboard busted and it has been disposed. Would that be an issue?

  7. sharp as a marble says:

    lmfao here are my favorites “#6 on p5) has the defendant……ever visited plaintiff’s website?”
    plaintiff has no website that i can find. a preliminary google search only lists “malibu media llc” as a fraudulent company created for the sole purpose of litigation and has no media that it is selling.

    #8 on p5) “has the defendant …… used a search engine to search for info on…..websites.
    answer: everyone uses search engines to find info on websites

  8. that anonymous coward says:

    Remember campers the standard required in a civil matter is more likely than not.
    If you know what BT is, or a magnet link is it is OBVIOUS your an evil infringer.

    Number 10 is why they went Verizon only. Verizon is the first scumbag company complying with CCI and 6 strikes notices. And here is exactly what I was afraid of, they are being used to bolster a case and they are untested, unproven, unverified, etc etc pieces of bullshit. But we can use them to show the court your an evil infringer.

    The proper answer to number 8 is..
    Yes, I found these websites called DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls… you should run away now troll, you have no power here… leave before someone drops a house on you too.

  9. that anonymous coward says:

    And submitted this to Kash over at Forbes, and over at BoingBoing… Cory has posted a couple of my submissions in the past lets hope my luck holds.
    I wandered into doing battle with copyright trolls by accident, stumbled over 6 strikes… and now they are merging. One can only hope that CCI takes it in the teeth as they become connected to porn trolls extorting the innocent.

  10. CTVic says:

    We think you may have committed a crime. We are so nice that we won’t be pressing charges. We would still like to sue you for a shitload of cash, however we can’t prove that you did anything wrong, so we would like you to call us and admit guilt so that we can sue you for a shitload of cash. Otherwise, we’ll just keep sending you letters and leaving you voicemails threatening to sue you, because we really can’t until you call us and tell us that you did it.
    So please, save us the trouble of harassing you unnecessarily, and just call us and tell us that you did it.

  11. doe says:

    local council is also sending out these letters without the disclaimer that the info can be used against you. also note thes questions refer to a defendant. as far as i know no recipient of this letter would be considered a defendant (isnt that a violation of court orders?) finally these questions are extremely leading in nature.

  12. John Doe says:

    So what is the general consensus if a request for exculpatory evidence is received? Should one just completely ignore the request. Also, since the letter is naming individuals, is this any indication that if a lawsuit is filed the individual will be named instead of xxx company vs john does 1-?. Also, will ignoring this letter have any negative consequences down the road? Thanks for any thoughts!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      OK. You are not required to respond to such a request. As stated in the letter, they are not sure if they want to pursue you and want you to make that decision easier for them. The letter is no different from the usual settlement letter these guys send. This type of letter only gives the recipient the false hope that they can explain why they didn’t do it. The Troll doesn’t really care and it shows in the letter. They don’t even straight out ask if you or a member of the family did this. They don’t want to give people the chance to say they didn’t do it. IMO, if you respond to such a letter, you had better spell it out in no uncertain terms that you didn’t do it, there is no evidence on your network/systems to show this, and you will fight them if named and served. I certainly wouldn’t give out ANY personal or family member information at all. All they have is the public IP addresses for a specific date/time – that is it. Anything you provide them will only be used to try and get you to settle. Re-read the letter – This letter should have been titled “Inculpatory Evidence Request.

      As far as ignoring it, it has the possibility of a Troll thinking you could be ripe for a default judgment. That is why I’m of the opinion to at least call and give them the Richard Pryor Response, as well as to stop contacting you – not interested in settling – because you didn’t do it.

      DTD 🙂

  13. Reblogged this on TorrentLawyer™ – Exposing Copyright Trolls and Their Lawsuits and commented:
    I am posting the following article entitled “Lipscomb Fishing Co., or “Exculpatory Evidence Request” to my website because many individuals are sending me inquiries and e-mails which in my opinion this article answers wonderfully. In short, with any of Lipscomb’s lawsuits, you do need a lawyer. However, to allay some of your fears with regard to the so-called “exculpatory evidence requests” that you are receiving, I think this article will be helpful. Obviously not legal advice.

  14. I hope you don’t mind my doing so — I re-blogged your article on my website. I felt that you covered everything that needed to be said about these requests, and that it didn’t make sense for me to write an article covering the same content.

  15. DieTrollDie says:

    OK. Jorden Rushie (@JRushie) made a good point on Twitter “@HoustonLawy3r @DieTrollDie The exculpatory evidence could work against them, if someone fills it out and then they proceed w/ litigation.”

    I will caution everyone in responding to these types of letters/request, etc. If you do feel the need to respond, I would suggest you only give them a variation of the Richard Pryor Response. Please note – do not say anything that is not true, it could come back to haunt you. The Prenda/Alan Cooper fraud matter is a prime example of this.

    Something like this:

    1) I did not infringe on Plaintiff’s copyright of the movie(s) you have listed.

    2) There is no evidence on my systems showing I’m responsible for the alleged copyright infringement.

    3) Please stop contacting me, as I will not pay a settlement for something I didn’t do.

    4) I will defend myself against these allegations in court as necessary.

    5) I will comply with any legitimate discovery obligations in the context of an active civil case. Your informal exculpatory evidence request is frivolous and is not offered in good faith. You do not even have the common curtsey to ask if I did infringe Plaintiff works, – I did not.

    The goal of responding to something like this is to show the Troll you will respond (and thus are not a good default canidate) and you are saying you didn’t do this – provide an exculpatory evidence statement. Again, becareful. Even with the extremely unlikely chance that any forensic examination will ever take place, I wouldn’t lie.

    DTD 🙂

  16. ignoreeverythingdoe says:

    Should i still send a response with Richard Pryor Response if it is past the 10 days deadline? The letter is dated Jan 25th but was not received until Feb 2nd. Is it better to respond with a letter or over phone call? Or should i kept ignoring it? I’ve only gotten two phone calls so far.

  17. Pingback: Malibu Media Changes Tactics – Single Does & “Enhanced Surveillance” | DieTrollDie

  18. DoeSaysDoh says:

    Just got a letter in a DC case. I guess they want to spread the risk around…

    • DoeSeeDoe says:

      I got one in DC too (from Jon Hoppe, Lipscum’s local troll). Seems like a cheap and easy scare tactic… And if they get someone to fill it out then they’ve gotten ahold of some free leverage to scare you even more… This smells of desperation– am hoping that’s true. Sickens me that this letter tries to prey on people’s hope of getting these sociopaths off their back.

  19. Noone says:

    Any chance they choose not to bother? In the letter it says that they’re deciding whether to pursue but I live on a rent and don’t have any savings or real money on my account.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      They could. They are trying to decide if you are ripe for additional settlement pressure and/or a default judgement. Note: even with all these new single defendant cases, they have still not taken anyone to trial – cases judged on their merits. Only default judgements. If you don’t have any assets to speak of, you are not their idea target. That of course doesn’t mean they wouldn’t accept any money from you. Lipscomb and Malibu Media are poor starving professionals that need a helping hand (heavy on the sarcasm). Even if they do name and serve you, don’t default and AT LEAST file an answer with the court.

      DTD 🙂

      • Noone says:

        What’s the worse they can do if they send me a settlement offer and I don’t accept to pay it? From what I’ve been reading they have been in the thousands and I definitely don’t have that kind of money.

      • Noone says:

        Also, can you explain what you mean by a default judgement?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        The worst they can do is serve you with a court summons. If you don’t respond to it (actually to the court), they can ask they court to render a default judgement in their favor. If the. Court does agree, then it awards them some amount. The amount will range between $750 and $150K.

        DTD 🙂

      • Noone says:

        If I do get served with summons other then go to the court date what should I do? Have any does been served with summons lately particularly from MM?

    • pissed off Doe says:

      Noone, if you are served, the case in will reflect your name, ie Troll Malibu is suing you, changed from the original John Doe #. Malibu has been serving people in Indiana, but it costs troll and MM $$$ to go after individuals. If you are named and served, get an attorney.

      • noone says:

        I have been named but the last thing I received from them was a letter of exculpatory evidence. I’m just wondering if they’re going to serve me or send me a settlement offer because I don’t have any assets since I live on rent and I don’t have any savings or anything of that nature.

      • pissed off Doe says:

        Noone, lipscum and gang need more info from u in order to serve you, so he sent out letters asking for more info. If he is smart, he will leave you alone as there is nothing to gain from you, but we are talking about ambulance chase quality attorneys here. Just do your homework and study other cases, if you are served, reply with an answer. Do not let them get a default by ignoring.

  20. pissed off Doe says:

    Lipscum just filed 8 more single Doe cases in fl, I wonder how many of them are from thr does that responded to this.

    • DoeSeeDoe says:

      Not clear what’s going on with the flurry of new Malibu cases. Judges have been looking unfavorably on the lumping together of does in suits, so it seems the tactic now is filing single doe cases and then enjoining more does later.

  21. Pingback: What To Do If You Are Served By A Copyright Troll | DieTrollDie

  22. Noone says:

    I cannot wait until the Bellwether Trial. I hope these sleaze balls get what they deserve.

  23. George says:

    Thanks folks, for advice.
    I received the same request letter from kotzker law group. How do i know if i am already being named or a John Doe in a court case?

  24. Doe1 says:

    I’m thinking about filing a complaint against one of Lipscum’s deputy trolls with the state bar and/or court. The “excupatory” fishing letterhead names me in a non-existent case: “Malibu Media vs. Me” (there are no current cases in my state, much less one against me. The original mass doe case I was part of was under “Patrick Collins”). Isn’t that illegal/unethical? Would it do any good to write a complaint detailing this nationwide extortion scam and how a lawyer in their state is involved? Any lawyers have any input?

    • DieTrollDie says:


      Does the paperwork have the old case number or just MM v. you? From what I have seen, they are not putting a case number on them and they state they are trying to determine if further litigation is warranted. I think you would have a hard time getting an ethics charge against them, but it doesn’t hurt to try. The letter is simply them trying to find additional evidence under a scare tactic.

      DTD 🙂

      • Doe1 says:

        No, just MM vs. me. I guess if courts are turning a blind eye to the harassment and threatening of does after ISP discovery then there’s not much hope that this extrajudicial letter will be found unethical (even though it’s a brazen entrapment/extortion scheme). Might try anyway.

  25. warpath says:

    you have the love the question asking if you’ve installed a bit torrent client. Ubuntu Linux, used by over 20 million people worldwide, comes with Transmission BitTorrent client pre-packaged. You’d have to go out of your way to uninstall it – it’s installed with the base workstation OS.

  26. JohnD says:

    Thanks DTD for the sample, great job as always !!

  27. A-computer-security-specialist says:

    I mailed a letter back to Fiore based on your example. I was very polite in my points but basically pointed out the obvious that I didn’t do it, you can’t prove I did, you can’t prove my computer was involved because of all the handheld wireless devices out in the public nowadays, you can’t even prove my router was involved because of IP simulation and spoofing software that is easily available, and that I would be glad to go to court and embarrass them in front of a judge and jury. I also pointed out that the letter was dated in the second week of February and the postmark was 8 days later so they obviously sat on a ‘time urgent’ (10 days) letter for at least a week before mailing it. I waited equally long before I mailed mine. We’ll see what the next step is (besides me laughing)

  28. Pingback: Update To The “Richard Pryor Response” OR What To Tell The Troll When He Calls | DieTrollDie

  29. doeJr says:

    Is the general consensus that if we get an EE letter (in CA) we should send in a letter of our own(based on example above), to help mitigate possibilities of being served a summons?
    Has anyone gotten any kind of response to it?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Based on a recent MM response to a MD court, filing a response letter may be of value to you. The following is from page 14 of the response.

      “In its Complaint, Plaintiff has provided every Defendant with an exculpatory evidence form and the opportunity to provide evidence of non-infringement to Plaintiff. With any Defendant that fails to provide a credible basis for non-infringement, Plaintiff will serve the Defendant and proceed to litigate.” {}

      Now what is a “credible” basis for non-infringement??? The Troll can just as easily claim you are not credible. At least by responding to their EE letter, they cannot claim you ignored it and an innocent person wouldn’t do that. As I stated multiple times, don’t provide any information that can be used against you and don’t make any false statements.

      DTD 🙂

  30. Fishing says:

    So are these letters usually sent out while the case is still open? The case I was a Doe in was denied extension a couple months ago. I never received a letter or anything of the sort. When did people receive their “please help me keep my Porsche without working for it” letters? While their case was still open?

  31. Pingback: Impact Of Judge Otis Wright’s Order On Other BitTorrent Copyright Trolls – Next Generation? | DieTrollDie

  32. Pingback: Is Two Years Old | DieTrollDie

  33. Pingback: Copyright trolls go mental: XArt’s lawyers demand 7.35 million dollars from a wrongly accused ISP subscriber | Fight Copyright Trolls

  34. Pingback: Why is X-Art lying about its model’s age? | Fight Copyright Trolls

  35. Pingback: Malibu Media’s new low: grossly overboard evidence preservation order | Fight Copyright Trolls

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