DISMISSED – Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073 (MI) – Waiver of Service Filed

6 Aug 14 – Update

This does not surprise me, but Troll Nicoletti shut down this case and never even reached the Discovery Phase for ANY Doe.  On 4 Aug 14, he filed the dismissal letter for all remaining Does.  On 5 Aug 14, The court issued the order that all remaining Does were dismissed without prejudice.   Doc_16_DismissWOP_00073(MI)   Doc_17_DismissOrder_00073(MI)   As the Trolls often do not tell the court the final numbers of settlements reached, I don’t know how many Does paid.

This just goes to show you that for this case, it was probably a better option to NOT sign the Waiver of Service form and just wait for the Troll to shut the case down.  Now of course Troll/Plaintiff could refile against the non-settling Does, but that is unlikely IMO.

I don’t know if Defendant Andersen paid a settlement (he signed the WOS), but as there was no motion for a default judgement against him, there is a good chance he did.  The Troll could have simply walked away without pushing the default – I wonder.

Another crappy BT Copyright Troll cases is over, but there are so many others still on the dockets.


25 Jul 14 – Update

Since last month, we have seen a couple of updates to this case (archive docket).

The voluntary dismissal of Doe #22 with prejudice is most likely the result of a settlement.  In the Order, the judge informs Mrs. Seglund that he is giving her 60 additional days (16 Sep 14) to file her answer to the complaint.  He also notes the confusion that this layperson has with the Waiver of Service (WOS) she signed and what it actually means.  I truly hope Mrs. Seglund has the strength to keep this up, but it may be hard for an older lady on social security to be able to do this.  Mrs. Seglund is the poster-child of a typical target of a BT Copyright Troll – someone who is disadvantaged and will likely settle if enough pressure is applied. 

Troll Paul J. Nicoletti, if you do force accept a settlement from her you are a low douchebag bottom feeding attorney (My opinion); actions like this is what gives attorneys a negative reputation.  You can easily speak to Mrs. Seglund and try to find out who the real offender is and where the computer is located.  At least attorney Maureen C. VanderMay (Elf-Mann LLC) had the good sense and ethics to eventually back out of these cases. 

Now we also have Defendant Andersen who signed the WOS and had until 18 Jul 14, to file his answer.  As of today, I haven’t seen his answer on the docket.  I expect that a motion for a default judgement against Mr. Andersen will happen sometime in the future.

For the remaining people in this case, I suggest you don’t give into the fear that the Troll radiates.  We have not seen any of these Does actually served and I doubt this will happen.  Troll/Plaintiff is especially concerned with all the information that is being exposed on IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and the Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC). 



26 Jun 14 – Update

Well it seems like Mrs. Seglund was not happy finding out the Waiver of Service form she signed required her to provide an answer to the court NLT 18 Jul 14.    Doc_13_00073(MI)   She apparently even wrote Troll Nicoletti a letter and explained that the computer that was connected to her internet connection was not hers (was no longer in her residence), and she didn’t know who did this.  Of course Troll Nicoletti did not attach this letter to the Waiver of Service form she signed.  Why bother to inform the court that a an older lady on social security denied being the infringer???   Keep up the good work Troll Nicoletti.     

Mrs. Seglund, I hope the court accepts your letter as an “answer” (denial) and makes the Troll move forward.  If not, please use the answer template I have provided and file it with the court.  I expect Troll/Plaintiff will not like to see a case against a social security recipient, so I would expect a motion to dismiss from them.  Please do not accept anything but a full dismissal – Do NOT paying them any money OR agree to find out who did this.  They can conduct their own investigation.



So I was looking at some of the various cases by the Copyright Trolls and this one caught my eye for a couple of reasons.  Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073, Western District of Michigan, opened on 21 Jan 14. The Troll is the wonderful Paul J. Nicoletti, who is working for Nicolas Chartier at Voltage Pictures.  Archive Docket.    Docket_19Jun14_00073(MI)    Complaint_00073(MI)   Complaint_IPs_00073(MI)

CMN3On first look, the cases appears to be just another Mass-Doe copyright infringement case for a crappy movie (my opinion).  The first thing that caught my eye was the declaration of Daniel Macek, supporting early discovery – ISP subscriber information.   Decl_Daniel_Macek_00073(MI)   If you remember, he works for IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and his name (Daniel Macek) was found in the Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC) briefing.  With all the Trouble the Trolls (Malibu Media, Elf-Man, & Voltage Pictures) are facing over the German firm/investigators, this little fact means this Troll/Plaintiff is not going to take this case to trial – they will not dare to expose the inner workings of this operation for fear of their demise.

The second thing that caught my eye was that two of the defendants signed a Waiver of Service of Summons form (WOS) and Troll Nicoletti filed them with the court on 13 and 18 Jun 14.   Doc_11_WOS_00073(MI)   Doc_12_WOS_00073(MI)   The court has set 18 Jul 14, as the deadline for both of these Defendants to file answers.

Now some may believe I’m prejudice against the Trolls, but something just felt wrong with this.  It is my belief that the Trolls are trying to trick the Does into signing the WOS and then they will try to pressure the Doe to settle after the date to file an answer has passed.  If a Defendant doesn’t then settle, they will simply move for a default judgement.  I believe most people who read the WOS will only see the fact that if they don’t sign it, they could have to pay the fee for be served by a process-server.  They do not see the part that requires them to file an answer with the court within 60 days of signing the WOS.  What is also troubling to me is one of the Defendants indicated she doesn’t have an email address.  This usually means it is a person that is computer illiterate (no offense) and is unlikely to have used BitTorrent and downloaded Plaintiff’s movie.  The security of the network from an ISP subscriber such as this is also suspect – network run open, using WEP, etc.  So this just seem like the Troll is up to no good.  Care to comment Troll Nicoletti???  This could get embarrassing.

So to possibly help these two Does (and others), I have a basic denial answer template for this Countryman Nevada case.  For the other 28 Does, there is no need to use this “Answer” at this time – that is unless you are actually served with a summons/complaint OR you sign the WOS.  I personally would not sign the WOS – make them serve you first. As 99.99 of these cases have never seen final judgement (or people being named/served), the possibility of having to pay for service is remote at best.

If you have to file an answer, don’t just slap your name on it and file it with the court. Please use the template as a starting point and make it fit your situation. I will remind everyone that providing a false statement is a serious matter and can get you in trouble – don’t do it.


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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to DISMISSED – Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073 (MI) – Waiver of Service Filed

  1. Anon E. Mous says:

    I sincerely hope one day a Judge who is not just rubber stamping these cases thru their court takes an objective look into these Waiver Of Service documents that the troll is submitting to the court in these cases.

    IMHO the Waiver Of Service documents are being abused by the Trolls. I suspect that that the poor ISP subscriber who is getting one of these notices that their IP Address was seen downloading a video in violation of someones copyright has no idea what the Waiver Of Service means and what the effects of signing it are.

    In my opinion ( and as DTD has stated ) this is trickery on the the Troll attorneys part and I agree it is being done to give the Troll an edge in furthering their dash for the cash so to speak. Now I should state that there is a possibility that an ISP subscriber who does receive one of the Waiver Of Service documents with the trolls infringement letter may very know what it is and are signing it with full knowledge of what it entails.

    With that being said in my opinion I would guess that many folks that are recipients of one of the Waiver Of Service letters have no idea what it means or how it will effect them in this litigation. I am of the opinion that the Trolls are playing this angle to their advantage. I would hope a Judge looks at these Waivers Of Service and questions the Trolls on their inclusion and how the Troll’s are using these.

    Yes this is a legal means and when used has it’s benefits, however the trolls have shown they will use a variety of legal tactics and and not so legal tactic’s as a means to further their own end of achieving settlements by whatever means is at their disposal and we have seen this on many fronts such as:

    – The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
    – The Pure Bill Of Discovery,
    – Not actually owning the copyright, Including porn movie titles in litigation to which said client didn’t produce or have a copyright to sue over
    – Using improperly issued subpoenas without leave of the court
    – Faked Signatures on court Documents, Non exsistant company officers
    – People showing up in court acting as an agent of a company when they had no official capacity as a company representative
    – Monitoring firms and Lawyers uploading and seeding their own clients movies
    – Failure to notify the receiver of subpoena ( read ISP’s ) that said Subpoena’s were quashed by the court
    – Improper joinder of defendants

    And that is only a brief summary of the various tactics the Troll’s have used. Now by no means am I saying Nicoletti has employed these with that said I do believe if a Judge had a closer look at these Waiver Of Service letters that are included in the Trolls notice of infringement letter being sent to the ISP subscriber He/She may be of the opinion that these are being sent out to intentionally get the ISP subscriber to sign something they did not have an understanding of or the complications that could arise from the ISP subscriber signing it and I would be of the opinion that this is the case with most folks that have signed it.

    While I would hope that any ISP subscriber who receives a Notice Of Infringement letter with or without a Waiver Of Service attached to it would educate themselves by either speaking with a Lawyer or by using the Internet to do some searching on the Troll Lawyer and the Client they are alleging infringement on behalf of or even the movie title, that will help in getting you some information to help you get an idea of what this Notice Of Infringement is about and what the Troll Lawyer and Plaintiff are up to by contacting you.

    I am of the opinion that sooner or later a Judge will get a Defendant or defendants counsel who are going to bring these Waiver Of Service inclusions with a Notice Of Infringements and how the Trolls are gaming the courts and the ISP subscriber with what I would call coercion by duress (my opinion of course) as the Trolls want to mention big sums of money that are possible or damages awarded in other cases ( a favorite of many trolls )

    I would heed DTD’s advice and not sign anything without educating yourself thru the internet or speaking with a Lawyer. The trolls is counting on you to panic and fall all over yourself to pay them off. This is there goal, to wring you out of your cash. Educate yourself before you talk to the Troll or sign anything they send you.

  2. Psycho Doe says:

    I hope the judge and anyone involved in this case becomes familiar with Elf Man v. Lamberson (WAED 13-cv-00395). I wouldn’t pay the plaintiff a single cent because they are afraid to go to trial. They have nothing!

  3. WDS says:

    Since there is publicly available contact information for the two who have filed a waiver of service, has direct contact been made with them to make sure they understand the ramifications of what they have done. Obviously they are not regulars of this site, or they would have never signed it in the first place.

    • Anon E. Mous says:

      To be Honest, I dont think so.That being said I am hopeful that they contacted a Lawyer for some advice or used Google and found out some information regarding the Trolls and the Plaintiff. Let’s hope for the best.

      I will say I do hope a Judge will take the trolls to task for these Waiver Of service documents being included in the Trolls Notice of Infringement letter, we all know why the Trolls are using it.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I often times will reach out and make sure people understand what is happening. I will hold commentingvfor the moment.

      DTD 🙂

  4. Jane Doe says:

    An important article might be on what is happening in default judgments. In EDPA case 2:13-cv-05917-MSG $37,677 was awarded and 2:13-cv-05894-JS $55,677 was awarded. There are about a half dozen more cases from last fall in which defendants defaulted and the judges have not ruled yet.

    Two of the defaults are by grandpas one guy is 74 and the other 84. I doubt these old goats are downloading teen porn!. More likely they croaked on being served.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks for the information on the defaults. It does not surprise me that the Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media are doing this. Most likely they will get nothing out of these two old guys, but you never know what greed will make people do. If these guys had money, they would have likely hired an attorney at some point. A hollow victory. So much for the claims that we can prove every case – utter BS! These two guys simply ignore the Troll and so as not to lose face, they went ahead with the defaults. It looks like PA has taken the view that each of these garbage movies is worth $2250 plus fees/costs. Sad.

      DTD 🙂

  5. Jane Doe says:

    It looks like the award is $2250 per infringement plus attorney costs and fees.

  6. Anon E. Mous says:

    Wow! I can’t believe that occurred with this older lady. I dont even think John Steele would be that low..Nicoletti ought to be ashamed.

  7. Anon E. Mous says:

    I should add that this older Lady was smart to send a copy of the letter to the court and she made sure to mention that waiver of service. It will be interesting to see if troll Nicoletti panics here. I am interested to see if Nicoletti tries a little damage control and contact this older lady to try and avoid her going in front of a Judge.

    As much as I would like to see what the Judge might have to say about these WOS letters, I dont think this lady should have to be put through the 3 ring circus Nicoletti is in charge of here.

  8. WDS says:

    I’m sure there will be a dismissal filed at any moment. They have said over and over they only go after the worst offenders, and dismiss as soon as there is any indication that they have the wrong person.

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