Battle Stations! – Prenda Law Sends WordPress An Overly Broad Subpoena For Information On Who Accessed DTD & FCT

9 March 13 Update

Previously the Legal department at WordPress (Automattic) promised to review the subpoena from Prenda Law prior to taking any action.  True to their word, they conducted their review.  On 8 Mar 13, WordPress sent word to Paul Duffy that they were not going to honour it for the following reasons.

  • Violation of CA Civil Code Sections 2029.350 and 2029.390 – Not on the proper form for a subpoena for production of business records in an action pending outside of California (Illinois), as well as not attaching a true and correct copy of the IL subpoena.  Prenda also violated the instruction of the subpoena when they asked that the business records be sent to them and not and not to the clerk of the court as required.
  • Violation of CCP Section 2025.250 – The subpoena purports to require production of business records in Chicago, Illinois.
  • Violation of CCP Section 2029.350(b)(4) – The subpoena was issued in Marin County, CA, when the discovery is to be conducted in San Francisco County, CA.
  • Violation of CCP Section 2020.410 – The subpoena was issued on 22 Feb 13, with a demanded compliance NLT 4 Mar 13; CCP Section 2020.410 requires a minimum of 20 days to respond to a subpoena.
  • Prenda Law Inc., improperly asks WordPress to create a document and to supply information, rather than properly asking for documents from a non-party.
  • The subpoena seeks information protected by the First Amendment, including rights to protect anonymous speech.
  • The subpoena violates the right to privacy under the California Constitution and common law, in that it seeks information relating to the websites that consumers visited.
  • The subpoena is “outrageously” overly broad, in that it is not limited to information related to any alleged defamatory posts (from Does 1-10).  It wants the public IP address of anyone who ever read the blogs in question.
  • Lastly, it seeks information that is not likely to lead to discoverable information, for the reasons enumerated above.

It warms my heart to see that people and organizations take the time to review a request such as this and not just pass the buck.  Thank you WordPress.

DieTrollDie 🙂


As mentioned by and others (Thank you all), Prenda Law Inc., is making a flailing attempt to salvage their cases.  Fightcopyrighttrolls article  Today I finally received a copy of the subpoena that was sent to WordPress.


I expected it to be specific in its request for information on,, and the eight posters of comments to our sites.  Well in true Prenda fashion, they are asking for this.


Really!  Where do you (Prenda Law Inc.,) think you can reasonable get the IP addresses (as well as date/time) of ALL people who accessed and since 1 January 2011!

A reasonable request (if you even had the legal justification for it) would have been for the specific post and comments you referenced in you complaint.

As I stated, this is a sad attempt to prevent the China Syndrome that Prenda Law Inc., has brought on themselves.  Please take a read of the transcript for the 19 Feb 13, deposition of Paul Hansmeier, Prenda Law, Inc.   Even if you can only read a small portion of it, you will see how evasive Paul Hansmeier is to any simple straight forward questions concerning AF Holdings LLC.   PHanmeier_Redac_Trans_08333(CA)   Unbelievable!

Note: the two remaining cases are in the process of being removed to the Federal courts, but WordPress could release this information.  I’m working to prevent this.  Notice:  I don’t know if WordPress will laugh at this overly broad request.  As there is a possibility that a release could occur, the public IP address (date/time stamp) could fall into the hands of Prenda.  I would expect that they would then try to cross-reference the IP address with their list of alleged BitTorrent infringement IP addresses.

If you have ever gone to this site or since 1 January 2011, you may want to contact WordPress and tell them you want them to refuse this overly broad request and at least wait until the issue of the case being removed to the Federal court is answered, before releasing ANY information.  As of posting this I have been informed that the case has been removed to the Federal court.  I will post more details as I get them.

Thank you.

DieTrollDie 🙂  “Some ships are designed to sink… others 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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Battle Stations! – Prenda Law Sends WordPress An Overly Broad Subpoena For Information On Who Accessed DTD & FCT

  1. Raul says:

    Strange that Prenda would want this issue of trying to sue critics in the blogosphere on the near eve of the 3-11 sanctions hearing before Judge wright (:

  2. "Fred" says:

    I am not affected by the Prenda cases. But I find this move most troubling. Whether it be the Obama administration tracking me with a drone or a snake oil law firm wanting records of which informational web sites I’ve visited, there is no longer any personal liberty in this nation. The Prenda-type suits are destroying the fabric of the American legal system. This goes far beyond copyright issues. These trolls not only need to be hunted down and defeated in court, they need to be put out of business.

  3. Free Speech is not a Tort says:

    It’s time for a First Amendment fight, and unlike porn movie piracy allegations, the general public actually cares about free speech. Not only that, but it’s time to start dreaming up the best interrogatories, deposition questions, and discovery requests to foist upon Prenda, Duffy, and Steele (assuming he’s still in the game) should they continue these questionable allegations. After all, the truth is the best defense in a libel case. I fail to believe that the aforementioned three have much truth on their side given the available evidence, especially given the latest published deposition. I have 0 doubt that before a jury of peers, the Plaintiffs will lose and lose badly. Don’t be a afraid. Don’t be deterred. I’m sure our forefathers would have been happier being civilians than having to go to war. This is a similar fight, and though the form is different, the stakes are almost the same.

  4. Sausages says:

    I’m confused, wouldn’t a judge need to order this type of information be produced for a subpoena to have any effect? I don’t see any order allowing a subpoena to be served…?

    • john doe says:

      That was my first thought too… how did they get a judge to issue such a broad subpoena? Also, doesn’t a subpoena have to be signed by a judge? I didn’t see a judges signature on that document…

      • doeanon says:

        That was my question as well. Goodreverend was nice enough to respond to me on twitter.

        “subpoenas are generally issued with little oversight. Up to others to move to quash.”

        Isn’t that lack of oversight why everyone is in this position in the first place? If Judge Wright is pissed off at Prenda for the mess he has to sort through, maybe he should start railing against his fellow judged and the court system that allowed this to happen.

        With that little oversight of the subpoena process, Prenda and Malibu and all the other law firms that engage in this behavior have been turning the courts inside out.

  5. Pingback: A quick laugh when thinking about Malibu Media’s single “Doe” lawsuits. | TorrentLawyer™ - Exposing Copyright Trolls and Their Lawsuits

  6. James says:

    Actually you don’t need a judge’s signature to issue on an out-of-state subpoena that is then converted to a CA state subpoena. CCP Section 2029.350 states: “if a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena under this article.” That being said, they used the wrong form for their subpoena. The subpoena form they used is for forms related to actions pending in California with a trial or hearing date set. The specific form they should have used which is mandatory is Form SUBP-035. In addition, the subpoena must command compliance by the custodian of records with the duties described at on a specific date—no sooner than 20 days after the subpoena’s issuance, or 15 days after service, whichever is later. [CCP § 2020.410(c)] unless they obtain a specific court order shortening the time for compliance. There are other mistakes in the subpoena.

    A nonparty witness or a “consumer” whose personal records have been subpoenaed can however file a motion to quash the subpoena. However, a “consumer” (CCP § 1985.3) or “employee” (CCP § 1985.6) who is not a party to the action is not required to file a motion to quash, Instead, he or she may serve the subpoenaing party, the records custodian and the deposition officer with written objections to production of the subpoenaed records, stating specific grounds on which production of the records should be prohibited (e.g., invasion of privacy). [CCP §§ 1985.3(g), 1985.6(f)(2). Either filing a motion to quash or serving such written objections (by a nonparty “consumer” or “employee”) automatically excuses the custodian and deposition officer from producing the subpoenaed records until the court orders their production or the parties stipulate thereto. [CCP §§ 1985.3(g), 1985.6(f) (3)].

    However given the fact that a motion to quash could potentially identify the person in question. The most prudent thing to do would be to file written objections to the deponent or recipient of the subpoena.

  7. As an anti-copyright troll community, each of us may decide to contact and ask them not to comply with the subpoena, but in my opinion, WordPress has their own lawyers and staff who are expert in figuring out whether a subpoena is overreaching or not.

    On an unrelated note, I never heard of Steele clicking the “This content is abusive” button ( reporting DTD or SJD’s site to WordPress, but if anything defamatory is written, this is an easy way to stop the problem from escalating into a lawsuit. Twitter has a similar “Flag media” option for any Tweet he found to be offensive or defamatory ( Him failing to mitigate damages and then sue everyone in my mind wreaks of the same issue with copyright infringement / bittorrent lawsuits (failing to issue DMCA takedown notices to offending bittorrent files) — there is an easy way to resolve the problem without running to a judge.

    Link to original comment:

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks Rob. I have NEVER received ANY offensive/abusive content notifications from WordPress, emails to my hotmail account, or complaints about my Twitter posts from ANYONE. And we know that John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Mark Lutz all know about our sites and monitor the content.

      From the Paul Hansmeier Deposition, 19 Feb 13, Document 9-1, Pages 157-158.

      “Well, I know from reading the blog sites that you two participate in that I shouldn’t believe everything I read on the Internet.” In apparent reference to &

      DTD 🙂

    • G Thompson says:

      I think I’d faint if one of these personality types used ADR instead of going full legal.

      Though in the US does the use of ADR firstly (exhausting all other avenues) then bolster any claim in the eyes of the court regarding civil actions?

  8. thatbalddude says:

    Irritating little spaz, isn’t he? I think it will be amusing that, during the discovery or trial phase, should this get that far, he’ll be trying to prove all these comments are libelous but the replies and evidence supplied by the defendants will prove that we were right in our assertions. I can’t wait until the domino effect ripples down and takes out all the subordinate trolls in one swipe.

  9. AnonLitSupport says:

    I’m actually somewhat concerned about this, as I don’t know what sort of legal department WordPress has, and whether they would just pull up a blanket record with this information or actually take time in attempting to respond to it.

    The Prenda case captioned above however has been removed from St. Clair County to IL SD I believe. That means that’s no longer a valid subpoena. That was issued by a state court, for what is now a federal case. If it had not been responded to, then it SHOULD not, until such time as a magistrate or district judge orders compliance.

    DTD, you mention contacting WordPress to request they not release our information. How do you recommend doing that? I’m not a big WordPress user, and not sure how to contact them exactly (they don’t have a support at email). Also, are these actually hosted by WordPress, or just built in it? Because if they are hosted elsewhere, WordPress will (hopefully) just tell them we don’t host it, buzz off.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Send an email to (Thank you Rob Cashman) and tell them not to release the information as the State case was removed to the Federal Courts, the subpoena is overly broad in the context of the complaint (allegations), and they should abide by the stay of discovery.

      DTD 🙂

      • AnonLitSupport says:

        Thanks for that address. I did email them. Here’s what I sent, in case anyone else wanted to use the same thing:

        In re St. Clair County IL case 13-L-0075 subpoena issued
        Good afternoon. I have recently been made aware that WordPress was issued a subpoena in the above captioned case requesting that all IP addresses which have visited the web sites and be provided to plaintiff Prenda Law. I am writing to ask that WordPress not comply with this subpoena for a number of reasons.

        1) The subpoena is overly broad. While I am not an attorney, a cursory reading of the complaint which was submitted with the subpoena shows that there are a limited number of people being sued in this case. However, the request of their subpoena is asking for information from many, MANY other people who may have simply visited these websites and have not taken part in any of the alleged defamatory behavior. To then release this information would provide them with knowledge they have no right to.

        2) The subpoena is no longer valid. The subpoena was issued in a case captioned for the St. Clair County Illinois state court. However, since the issuance of the subpoena, the case has been removed to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. As a result, that subpoena is no longer a valid instrument of the court, as the instant case is before a different jurisdiction.

        3) The lawsuit is invalid in and of itself. The claims being made are such this lawsuit would be commonly referred to as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) case. These types of actions are illegal in Illinois under 735 ILCS 110. This is an attempt on the part of Prenda Law to intimidate the public into silence through the filing of a civil lawsuit. It is a clear violation of statute and an “abuse of the judicial process”.

        I make this request as someone who has visited the two websites in question and am therefore directly affected by the issuance of this subpoena. My privacy is important to me, as is my right to publicly speak against people and entities which I believe are violating the law and seeking to undermine our judicial system. If you (WordPress) comply with this invalid subpoena, you will be giving Prenda Law the means to further harass me and thousands of other innocent citizens, whose only “crime” is being engaged in our political and judicial systems.

        ​I urge you to not comply with the requests in that subpoena.

        Thank you.​

    • No cause for concern. As a matter of policy, we closely review all subpoenas, don’t respond to overly-broad requests, and push back on fishing expeditions.

      Here – dietrolldie has already let us know that the subpoena will be challenged. In cases like this, we don’t turn over any information until the user’s legal challenge has played out.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thank you Paul. We all appreciate your efforts at WordPress.

        DTD 🙂

      • Marshal Salty says:

        Paul, your response brought a tear to my eye, and I’m sure if you saw me you’d find that very hard to believe.

        Thank you.

        I’m sure you keep plenty busy but since the legal trainwreck we are witnessing may be a matter of professional interest and amusement to you, I recommend you take a look at the coverage of Prenda Law, Inc. on the blogs targeted as well as at Ars Technica and Popehat. They are truly the lowest of the low and indiscriminate harassment and intimidation are their chosen tools.

        Now we see that they hate the very essence of American Freedom and Democracy and quake with fear in the glare of the light in brings. I think you should know what you are dealing with, this is not merely some hapless enraged individual discovering the Internet for the first time, this is a calculated (if poorly calculated…) assault on Freedom.

        Thanks again for standing up to bullies.

  10. sorrykb says:

    Is it too late to get my IP address in here? I’m feeling left out.

  11. CTVic says:

    For the record, Paul Duffy and John Steele are orangutans who like to finger eachother’s bungholes and personally lick the debris clean prior to being beamed up by their mother ship to their home planet of Me-lika-threaten-sue-and-fling-shit-ia. It is from that location that they use their sue-and-fling-shit-ian mind control devices to influence judges into granting their demands for early discovery.

    Hopefully the above statement is too ridiculous to be possibly be considered as defamatory. Though I’m not sure. It seems like it could be true. If they sue me over it, then they’re just confirming it’s not too ridiculous to be patently false. Maybe part of it’s true. I bet it’s the bunghole part.

  12. whitakerlaw says:

    Well, for what it’s worth, I’m certainly willing to give up my name:

    To whom it may concern: I, John Whitaker, gladly admit that I have frequently accessed both the DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTroll websites since January 1, 2011 and may even have posted comments. Any communications intended for me can be addressed as follows:

    John Whitaker Whitaker Law Group 1218 Third Avenue Suite 1809 Seattle, WA 98101

    Just in case.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks John!

      You know what is really funny about this? They didn’t bother to highlight or mention the number of times they have visited these sites and made comments.

      DTD 🙂

  13. DieTrollDie says:

    JUST IN! WordPress will not release at this time. More details in a while.

    DTD 🙂

    • AnonLitSupport says:

      I just received this response to my email:


      Thanks for your note. The blog owner has already informed us that the subpoena will be challenged. Per our policies, we will not turn over any information (including on commentors) until that challenge has been decided by the courts.

      Thank you,

    • Anonymous says:

      “Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.”

      • Anonymous says:

        It’s worth noting further that:

        “A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.”

        Same wikipedia article.

        I have a hard time believing that joinder/conspiracy theories will prevail here, so the Plaintiffs will be likely forced into repeated and severe instances of litigation if they continue, which may or may not have merit prima facie. As it stands now DTD, FTC, and their commenters are a political group seeking political change. If the Plaintiffs want to disagree with that, go for it. No doubt there is someone or multiple someones ready to take this to a jury where common sense rules and likely won’t have a problem calling bullshit on a deposition like we’ve seen from Paul Hansmeier on behalf of AF Holdings.

  14. Pingback: Copyright trolls Prenda Law, Paul Duffy, and John Steele commence three lawsuits v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and our community | Fight Copyright Trolls

  15. annonymoosee says:

    Wow – and apparently Prentenda Law has never ever heard of things like TOR, private VPNs, sanitized notebooks on public networks, etc. An IP address is no longer an absolute confirmation of who is on the other end.

  16. Catchmeifyoucan says:

    The ten Does are likely dispersed throughout the US. Good luck trying to collect on that with the court having no jurisdiction over them!

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s probably not just 10. Given the subpoena for every IP address accessing DTD and FTC since Jan 2011, I have a feeling they’re going after a large number and will try to pile them into a single action. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, a court will likely rule that they’ll have to go after individuals for their own comments/posts. This means lots of actions seeking obscenely severe damages. It probably won’t take long for the litigants to be seen as vexatious and face their own problems. This is America. There is free speech. You may be called to defend that right. Now might be that time!

      • Lurker says:

        fat chance on defending first amendment rights. the voters obviously cannot even defend the u.s. constitution since they threw away their votes and voted for drones. where is the transparency that was “promised?”

  17. YAWN says:

    This is incredibly stupid, even by troll standards. What were they thinking with this? Wow…

    • thatbalddude says:

      They probably wanted to raise a stink and attempt to cover their asse(t)s prior to the Monday hearings. “Oh, look, Your Honor! This is how bad things are getting! Look at all we have to deal with!” But I get the impression that while the troll lawyers are sharks, Judge Wright is an orca with an appetite for shark.

  18. Pingback: Ruminations regarding Malibu Media’s single “Doe” lawsuits. | Federal Computer Crimes (CyberLawy3r)

  19. Pingback: Thoughts about the Malibu Media single “Doe” lawsuits and reverse joinder theory (adding co-defendants). | The Houston Lawyer Blog

  20. Paul Hansmeier Can't Remember If I'm His Brother Or Not says:

    The unbelievable breadth of these subpoenas, asking for every IP that has visited the blogs, not asking for any information that would help ID specific commenters by IP or account information, and not even asking for information that might unmask the blogs’ owners, was likely a “calculated” move.

    Remember, they filed these cases 1-2 weeks before the hearing with Wright turned into probable Armageddon. Prior to that it looked like maybe, in the worst case, it might turn into the end of Gibbs’ career with Prenda. No doubt John was pissed about that, but it was before Pietz and Ranallo dropped the bomb documenting John’s tangled web of shell companies that provoked Wright to escalate his alert level to DEFCON 1.

    The anti-trolling community was keeping their feet to the fire, and no doubt with the work Pietz and Ranallo have been doing they must have felt we were getting too close for comfort on the Alan Cooper and Salt Marsh issues and the only way to prevent a situation like they now face was to make a desperate effort to scare everyone to stop reading, stop participating, stop discussing, and do it while nobody was watching.

    While it is hard to imagine what they were really “thinking” with this move I doubt the end-game would involve seriously pursuing any of their defamation claims, not with the discovery it would subject them to and the terribly ill-conceived complaint. They simply wanted to create a meme that goes “Read Die Troll Die or Fight Copyright Trolls and you might become party to a defamation lawsuit. Post there and you will become party to a defamation lawsuit.” Maybe if they could unmask DTD or SJD they would try to teach them a lesson, but one need look no further than their sad attempts at litigating copyright cases to see what kind of follow-through they have even where it counts.

    Unfortunately for Prenda, what John surely thought was his next brilliant scheme has blown up in his face spectacularly. With Wright rounding everyone up for a nice ‘splaining session on Monday, and interest in these cases spilling out well beyond our community, at least to a broader tech news and digital rights community, this has backfired absolutely spectacularly. At this point, assuming these cases go anywhere at all, civil and digital rights organizations will be falling all over themselves to get a piece, we have the publicity and public support, and come Monday we may have the strong support of the judicial branch of government as well.

    I know there will be plenty of ground for everyone to cover on Monday, but I would dearly love to see Pietz and Ranallo work a mention of this latest ploy into their briefing of Wright on the issues, it would be a great example of just how disgusting these characters are, especially considering the circumstances surrounding their presence.

    Just think, a couple of weeks ago Prenda thought their worst problem was a bunch of people talking about them on the Internet; it is sure going to be fun to find out what their worst problem is next week.

  21. Bill Price says:

    Nothing to say. I just wanted to get my IP addy on record as a commentor rather than just a lurker, to pad up to Excel spreadsheet that the Pretenda folks are subpoenaing from WordPress, even though WordPress is not agreeing.

  22. that anonymous coward says:

    How quaint, they “sue” 10 of us and then want to pile the rest of the internet on.
    I thought we made it clear that these mass doe cases were a bad idea.
    Another reason might be trying to find IPs that match their long list of shakedown targets and try to scare them with the big bad defamation case.

  23. anon says:

    Just wanted in on this too.

  24. Anon_Lurker says:

    Hi, normally I lurk. Thought I add to comments to see if get on the spreadsheet.

  25. Ronnie says:

    The address 161 N Clark Street in Chicago is a maildrop and rent-an-office business.
    “Suite 3200” is also home-base to “Zenith Enviromental Services” “Steptoe & Johnson”, and numerous other businesses.
    BTW, the phone number in the document should have a “312” (Chicago) area code, not “321”, which is a Brevard County, Florida area code.

  26. Where's the BEEF? says:

    In the complaint, Prenda claims to have become since its founding in 2011, one of the largest and most successful copyright infringement law firms. So good luck claiming damages!

  27. Pingback: Copyright Trolls Order Wordpress To Hand Over Critics’ IP Addresses | TorrentFreak

  28. Professor of Douchebaggery says:

    Um, it’s so easy to overlook even the most fundamental things when people are as full of shit as Prenda, but a quick search of the Illinois corporate records database reminds everyone that Prenda was not incorporated until November 2011, yet they want records going back to January 2011 in the Prenda v. Internets subpoena.

    How we were able to defame Prenda before it was incorporated is left as an exercise to the reader; I imagine Booth Sweet and Erin will have a field day with that.

    Unfortunately the database sucks so bad I can’t link directly to the record, you have to go and type in “Prenda”

  29. Douglas says:

    Man. All of this crap upsets me. Where do these people get off thinking they can bully and abuse everybody with no repercussion? I even blog about this kind of crap on my site too. It pisses me off.

  30. TheCountryHasLostTrackOfWhatTheLawIsReallyFor says:

    Since when is it a crime to surf the internet and read about the kind of crap douchebag lawyers are doing to ruin our country? It’s about time a couple of judges just slap these trolls and tell them to knock this sh!t off. Back in the ‘old days’, we had ambulance chasers… these scumbags are no different. (yea, and I wanted my IP on this as well)

  31. Porno Doe says:

    wondering if they are still on Excel 2003! They might need to upgrade to accommodate for the extra rows!

  32. Jacky lafond says:

    Hey not only request overly broad information, they also request it in a proprietary format. They really got it going there haha.
    Make sure they go down pls!

  33. Machiavelli says:

    Has anyone pointed out that these clowns are the lowest scum sucking, bottom feeding rat basters?

  34. IhaveTroll says:

    Just want to add my IP as well. Stupid Trolls!!!

  35. Ginta Sobaseki says:

    Is there still free space on the spreadsheet or i am to late?

    Waiting for mondays news. 🙂

  36. Rumperstein says:

    Add my IP to the trolls’ lawsuit too! …. may go viral.

    Consider me in on this too. This may end up as a massive class action First Amendment battle and award!

  37. Someone says:

    1) Prenda subpoena list of IPs of posters to DTD
    2) Prenda then correlate IP list with illegal/unsavory activity
    3) Prenda remembers that they themselves and their associates also post here.
    4) Suddenly realize that 2 is probably not a good idea after all….

  38. Pingback: Prenda Law wants IP address of every anti-troll blog reader | iReadTech - Tech new summary | All the tech news

  39. Pingback: Prenda Law wants IP address of every anti-troll blog reader | TechKudos

  40. warpath says:

    Weird. Threatening a website increased it’s traffic and user responses. Didn’t see that coming. They should go after The Oatmeal next.

    There is a great read in which Mathew Inman received similar letters from an attorney demanding $20,000 for what he posted on his website.

    Instead he raised 200K for charity, took a photo of the pile of cash and sent it to them with an FU letter.

    You may want to consider The Oatmeal defense as well as the RP defense.

  41. Pretenda Law Sucks says:

    no one seems to have pointed out that since these trolls have no shame, they will take the IP addresses and use that for new porn cases. any IP address they can get, they will just put them and claim the IP address downloaded their porn.

  42. I hope this post is in time to get me on the naughty list.

  43. Doe says:

    has anyone else thought about filing a john doe response to the complaint just for the hell of it since they did not expect a quick response?

  44. Evan Stone, is that you? says:

    How is the subpoena even valid when it is issued by the plaintiff? I dont see any judge approval.

  45. Pingback: Prenda Law wants IP address of every anti-troll blog reader ← Redmondpie

  46. Pingback: Prenda Law wants IP address of every anti-troll blog reader | WP Demo

  47. Gregory Keener says:

    John Steele and his associates and Prenda might be the most idiotic individuals I have ever heard of. Not only are they not fit to practice law, they are not fit to use our oxygen. In fact, I have so much faith in the overall incompetence and stupidity of John Steele and Prenda that I’m even using my real name to post this. What are they going to do? Sue me? They’ll be lucky to still be practicing law by the end of their current shenanigans. Feel free to add my e-mail and location (Riverview, FL) to the spreadsheet too! Screw Prenda and have fun making them squirm.

  48. Pingback: Copyright Trolls Order WordPress To Hand Over Critics’ IP Addresses |

  49. Peter says:

    my IP is in 😉

  50. Pingback: Copyright Trolls to Judge: Nope! We’re Not Coming to Scary Hearing | TorrentFreak

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