AZ Troll Motions To Strike DTD Torpedo & Order To Show Cause – AF Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-02144

I have been meaning to write this up, but thing just don’t slow down at times.  On 25 Mar 13, Troll Goodhue filed a motion to strike my declaration (DTD Torpedo / ECF NO. 41) and Motion for order to show cause, in case AF Holdings LLC v. David Harris, 2:12-cv-02144.   MTS_OSC_02144(AZ)

I must say I was a little shocked at his motion, as the pending high-drama in Judge Wright’s CA courts was so near.  Even Troll Goodhue knew the pending damage his masters were facing.  As of writing this, the only action taken by the AZ courts and Troll Goodhue has been the dismissal of John Song (2:12-cv-02132) on 4 Apr 13.   Song_Dismiss_02132(AZ)   Song_TrollDismiss_02132(AZ)   Heggum (2:12-cv-02130) and Harris are the only remaining from the original eight.

Take a read of the dual motion and then read my response below.  If there comes a need, I will formally respond to it.

Response To Attorney Goodhue

I’m not anti-copyright in any sense.  I just do not agree what you and Prenda Law Inc./AF Holdings LLC are doing.  It also seems Judge Otis Wright, CA Central District doesn’t think much of the Plaintiff/Prenda Law.  As a side note, I hope you got your money in advance from Prenda Law, because I think it is going to be hard to find them or their money in a while.

Yes, I may have made some procedural errors in my declaration.  As I stated, I’m a John Doe (NOT a lawyer as you foolishly suggest) and I had NO assistance is drafting the declaration.  You have no factual basis for claiming this.  One procedural error I think YOU have with your motion is in accordance with FRCP 11, a request for sanctions needs to be a separate motion; not combined with any other motion – you have combined a motion to strike and motion to show cause (sanctions) {Rule 11 (c) (2)}.

Also the motion needs to describe what parts of FRCP Rule 11 (b) I have violated.

  • The declaration was presented for any improper purpose (to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation).
  • My claims are not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument;
  • My claims have no evidence to support them or an investigation or discovery is unlikely to provide evidence.

The court can clearly see that the information provided in my declaration is relevant, backed up by supporting documentation/evidence, and not presented for an improper purpose.

Here is what FRCP Rule 11 states concerning a representation to the court

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

  • I’m not an attorney or actual party to the case.
  • I did sign it because I stand behind what I wrote.
  • A reasonable inquiry was made and there are facts supporting my conclusions.
  • There is nothing improper about wanting to expose to the court the questionable antics of Plaintiff and its minions.

I did not file an amicus curiae submission, only a John Doe Declaration of information relevant to the court.  The court on its own can examine the declaration and do as it sees fit.  I did sign the declaration, as well as providing a valid email address and Web address for contact.  My address and telephone number was not provided (as stated in the declaration) because of the validated fear of reprisal from this Plaintiff.  I understand if this detracts from the declaration and I accept this.  The information provided allows the court to validate the claims independently.  There is no perjury.  I’m not telling the court some “Tall Tale” and asking it to be believed on ONLY my word.

HPIM0795.JPGYou dare to claim I’m a self-described leader of an “organization” with an anti-copyright agenda.  I must really wonder if you have been to my Web site.  Did you actually write that part or did another associate do it for you?  My Web site is not part of some “organization” of anti-copyright fanatics.  I’m not anti-copyright in any sense and believe content owners have a right to seek redress for infringement of their works.  My difference of opinion is in how you and the content owners are running this business model that has been likened by some as a “shake-down” operation.  You further go onto show your lack of understanding when you make the wild claim that personnel who comment on DieTrollDie.com are …composed of members who are willing to take extreme measures to avoid liability for infringing acts.  You make baseless claims and do not back them up with proof.

The information in the declaration was not “prejudicial.”  My declaration (as validated by court documents) does NOT exhibit prejudice or bias.  Having a difference of opinion does not equal prejudice or bias.  It is not detrimental or harmful to the truth of the matter.  You make this frivolous claim to try to prevent the court from seeing the truth and possibly taking action.

As I have stated, the various courts are free to do as they will with the information I provide.  The fact that no court has openly stated the information I provided was used to take action is a hollow argument.  As most of the courts have allowed the declarations to stand, there is obviously some agreement with the content.  You also forgot to tell the court that after I filed my declaration (ECF. NO 98), in 1:12-cv-00656, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Cisa (CO), the Plaintiff (represented by Prenda Law – Your Bosses/AF Holdings LLC) dismissed the case (ECF NO. 99).  What is funny to note is the Plaintiff closed the case when it was so close to obtaining a default judgment against defendant Cisa.  The Plaintiff in this case had shown due process in attempting to served the defendant, but were unsuccessful.  Cisa Case Article

I find it totally laughable that you cite the following in your motion.

The Court has a responsibility to the actual parties in the lawsuit to protect them from baseless accusations and unnecessary litigation. Hard Drive Productions, Inc., v. Does 1-21, No. 11-00059 SEB (S.D. Ind. July 27, 2011), ECF No. 22 at *2-3 (“The Court must be informed as to the identity of the parties before it for whole host of good reasons, including but not limited to the need to make service of its orders, enforce its orders, and ensure that the Court’s resources (and the public tax dollars that fund those resources) are not misspent on groundless litigation.”)…

You dare to state the claims I make are “baseless” and cause “unnecessary litigation.”  The issue of unnecessary litigation based on the apparent fraud of “Alan Cooper” and the undisclosed financial interest of Key Prenda Law personnel in AF Holdings LLC (Plaintiff) is a matter that will soon end THIS unnecessary litigation.

As we wait for Judge Otis Wright to hand down what will likely be the first nail in the Prenda Law coffin, I truly hope you are working on a notice of dismissal for the remaining AZ AF Holdings LLC/Prenda Law cases.

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

7 Responses to AZ Troll Motions To Strike DTD Torpedo & Order To Show Cause – AF Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-02144

  1. Raul says:

    This is one a small handful of Prenda lawsuits where the probability of a Wright-like hearing is very likely in the near future. Keep up the great coverage.

  2. thatbalddude says:

    Shame on you, you bully, for making that poor troll cry.

    Do it again!

  3. that anonymous coward says:

    Yes we resort to extreme measures, we point out the flaws in their cases.
    We undo the damage your baseless claims and lies cause to people who might only be guilty of paying a bill.
    We point out how they are abusing the legal system to the tune of millions of dollars.
    We point out how few of these cases ever move past the give us the names and look away portion.
    We point out how a series of alleged LLC’s setup offshore keep shuffling ownership to change names to avoid the history of bad acts associated with each reincarnation of the scheme.

    I called your bosses worse than nigerian scammers, they threatened to sue me.
    Notice – I’ve not been in a courtroom where a Judge said fraud was the right word to describe my actions, can your bosses say the same?

    I call your ilk mean things, but hey in every open post I’ve made to welcome visiting Judges and clerks I’ve apologized for my rough tone… have you ever apologized to anyone you’ve targeted incorrectly… or do you dismiss them before they can raise claims before the court demanding the court make them whole after your attack?

    “You have no power here. Be gone before somebody drops a house on you.”
    (Note its not a death threat, its a quote. I know how scared you all like to pretend to be because someone online said something mean about you.)

  4. TheCountryHasLostTrackOfWhatTheLawIsReallyFor says:

    While I am not personally involved in a lawsuit and the one I had taken an interest in has dismissed (without prejudice) my friend (a doe), I am laughing at the implication that I am one of the members of an organization with an anti-copyright agenda and am here to “take extreme measures to avoid liability for infringing acts.” I’m not a fan of lawyers as it is and this blog is pure entertainment. Thanks DTD and all other contributers.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you. Please don’t think all lawyers are like the Copyright Troll we discuss here. They are just like everyone – some are good, bad, and possibly Ugly. 😉 I have met many who are helpful and thank them for their time and effort.

      DTD 🙂

  5. Vpn says:

    good-luck with all your legal situations, “leader of an anti copyright organization” is that like the new terrorism?

  6. Guest says:

    “Extreme measures to avoid liability for infringing acts”? Oh, you mean like using a VPN? Like John Steele uses? Are you saying that John Steele is a copyright infringer, Badhue?

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