Darren M. Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation: Doesn’t Pass the Duck Test – Possible FRAUD Upon The Courts

Time for a Duck Test again. If you are unfamiliar with this term, it simply means that if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

On 4 Aug 14, Michael Patzer, Excipio GmbH, disclosed that the “Forensic Investigative Service” provider, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), a South Dakota Shelf-Company, contracts its BitTorrent monitoring systems/servers from Excipio GmbH (Germany).  [Also see this article]   Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA)   Not a great shock, as we assumed that the German BT monitoring companies were behind this aspect. What has been a bit of a mystery is who is “Darren M. Griffin,” “software consultant,” that CBC uses to support various Copyright Troll cases.  Mr. Griffin is responsible for providing declarations that justified the early discovery of ISP subscriber’s information in multiple cases (with multiple different Plaintiffs) in the US.

Internet search are pretty sparse for Mr. Griffin.  The name is relatively common, but nothing matching a software consultant for a company (CBC) that provides forensic investigative services to copyright owners.  Couple that with the fact that CBC is a SD shelf-company run out of a mail-drop and it looks like Mr. Griffin doesn’t exists.  That or Mr. Griffin is another Alan Cooper (AKA: Fraud upon the court).  See the later part of this previous post for additional details on CBC.

Now I know some people are going to say that DTD is simply a pro-piracy lunatic and there is nothing suspicious about this.  Then I suggest the doubters (and judges!) need to look just a little deeper and not take what the Copyright Trolls have to say at face value.

Time For A Closer Look

I decided to take a small sampling of the declarations from Darren M. Griffin.  Note: I know there are plenty more out there, so please feel free to send me a copy of any Darren M. Griffen declarations you have.  Here are the five I used –   Decl_Griffin_01658(GA) Decl_Griffin_00603(TN) Decl_Griffin_00129(TN) Decl_DGriffin_02911(CO) Complaint_Decl_Griffin_00727(AZ)

I then took screen-shots of the signature portions of the declarations and grouped them together.  I guess signing your initials could be a signature – but it still seems very odd and suspicious IMO.  Take a look and tell me what YOU think.  I’m no hand-writing expert, but none of them look the same or even similar.  It looks like the stupid Trolls couldn’t even keep the signatures straight – How very Prenda of them.  I also want to point out that under two of the signatures is the number “60998770.1” – If anyone has an idea of what this means, please contact me.

Griffin_Sig_Compare_1

 

Griffin_Sig_Compare_2Griffin_Sig_Compare_3

So do you think Darren M. Griffin passes the Duck Test?  My opinion is it sure looks like a “FRAUD” and not a duck.

DieTrollDie 🙂   “Rule #2: Double Tap” {Zombieland}

duck1

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.

29 Responses to Darren M. Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation: Doesn’t Pass the Duck Test – Possible FRAUD Upon The Courts

  1. SJD says:

    As Alan Cooper was beginning of Prenda’s demise, I hope the same happens with Guardaley-driven extortionists in the near future.

    Great post!

  2. Pingback: Judge Lynn Hughes does not mince words | Fight Copyright Trolls

  3. That mysterious number sure looks like a phone number with a dot mistyped for one digit — 609 is a NJ area code!
    Keep up the good work!
    P.S. This is not a comment. I have no love for the ducks!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks! BTW, if you want to learn some really weird things about Ducks, watch this video, “True Fact About Ducks” – Not for children).

      DTD 🙂

    • WDS says:

      If it is a phone number, that exchange would be in Princeton, NJ. Since both numbers were on a block that had the same layout and typeface, I thought it was possibly an internal form number

    • Quiet Lurcker says:

      Agree that it’s an identifier of some kind, but disagree that it’s a phone number. That number could represent only one item out of 60-odd billion. I doubt that. So, categories, getting smaller with each subset. Like you came up with – area code-exchange-sequential number – but probably not phone number unless the defendant or lawyer is in NJ. Likely not an IP address b/c 60.x.x.x is China. I would say a file identifier of some kind, probably used by the plaintiff attorney’s case management software.

  4. DocGerbil100 says:

    What the…? The little f***ers have stolen my initials! The dirty little thieves! It’s an outrage! 😀

    Hello, DieTrollDie. 🙂

    I don’t normally post here (I’m an actual, dedicated pirate, I believe you may not approve of that and my posting here – even under a new pseudonym – might prove counterproductive in some fora), but I feel the need to somewhat-vehemently deny that this Darren Griffin is anything at all to do with me. I swear under penalty of perjury and righteous bitch-slapping that I am not – and never have been – in any way involved with the profoundly squalid practise of copyright trolling, nor of giving aid and comfort to them in any way at all.

    As it happens, though, I am in a job where I do have to sign things, sometimes a few things, sometimes dozens of things, before I get to go home. I used to write my entire name, but it’s slowly dropped down to just my initials, these days. I’ll usually start with a clear three letters, but – depending on how tired I am – it’ll drop to just one letter and then just to a kind of squiggle and eventually just a short, slightly wobbly horizontal line, if I want to go home badly enough. This is just me in one day, so I’m not sure how much should be read into the variability of this guy’s initials over what I presume to be several months.

    If I was signing legal documents, I like to think I’d have enough respect for the legal system to give a coherent, recognisable signature all the time, but if this Griffin person is signing dozens of forms daily, he may have a different opinion.

    Having said all that, his first signature does look very different to the rest, doesn’t it…
    I wish you good fortune in your hunt for the elusive Mr Griffin, if he exists.

    Before I go, I thank you for all the hard work you’ve put in fighting these fraudulent, self-glorifying extortionists. I follow the blog avidly and it’s most impressive, most impressive indeed.

    All the best, DTD.
    — DG100, 08/08/’14
    🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank for the kind words. No I don’t condone the infringement, the same goes for the Trolls. The uses of initials is simply that- not a signature. In my prior career as an investigator I signed and was sworn to many more documents than these Bozos ever have been. It is simply sloppy Troll work that hopefully back fire.

      DTD 🙂

  5. David says:

    Frankly, looking at all the signatures I see an amount of variation that’s not all that different from my own ones, and also an amount of commonality. Now I obviously don’t sign just my initials (is that even proper for legal papers?) so I have more letters that may steer me off-course before completing the signature. But compared to my own signing variations, I still find that sample set not particularly suspicious.

    However, the amount of variation in a purportedly routinely executed mere two-letter signature, even while it does not strike me as coming from more than one person, still might suggest that the undersigner does not routinely employ this signature. In that case, reducing the signature to two letters might help masking his lack of routine in signing under this name.

    Again, I am no handwriting specialist, and I actually doubt that even a specialist could reliably (as far as reliably goes in that discipline) work from this sort of low-quality scan.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Really? If you are simply looking at the variety of signatures and do not take in the the history of the Copyright Trolls, BitTorrent monitoring firms, “Crystal Bay Corp.” (the Shelf-Company), etc., you

        might

      be able to suggest this. In totality, the signatures stick out as a possible fraud. Please take a look at this group of signatures (from legal documents I submitted to various courts) I made over a long time span. There are some differences, but they all stick out as being very close. Even with the low-quality scans, you can still see the differences and similarities. Note: I don’t sign many documents as John Doe and the signatures with the same dates are from different sections of the particular document. What is even more suspicious is when the questions about Crystal Bay Corp. and Darren Griffin started up, he disappeared and Mr. Macek started to sign for CBC, linking back to APMC and German BT monitoring firm.

      DTD 🙂
      DTD Signatures

      • DieTrollDie says:

        In fact today (11 Aug 14), Troll Stephenson filed a DBC case in CO (1:14-cv-02225) against 20 Does and the declaration supporting early discovery is from Daniel Macek, Crystal Bay Corp. Archive Docket Declaration (Daniel Macek, CBC)

        DTD 🙂

      • David says:

        Well, your “John Does” here are executed in a calm manner. If you take a look at the last two ones, it is clear that you are not habitually signing like that, however: the first D is executed spine-first, the second one bowel-first. You are apparently “lettering” the signature. The “DG” instead is executed with a flourish, and a lot of the variation seems to stem from the pen remaining on-paper with some and coming off on some.

        If I were to simulate a different signature, I’d probably try executing it with a similar amount of flourishness to my real one. If I had to guess, I’d rather think we are talking about the same person here, but not his real signature.

        Again: I am no expert at all, I am just comparing with my own manner of signing. You do with yours as a comparison point, and we both don’t really have enough data points to do statistics. Lynch does not appear willing to let this go, however, so one way or another we’ll hopefully find out more.

  6. SJD says:

    Note that Crystal Bay Corporation’s owners paid their fees, so formally CBC is again in a “good standing.” I hope any defendant who fights back considers going after CBC financial statements: would be really interesting to see who paid for this shelf.

  7. Anon E. Mous says:

    If you ask me there are two of the “DG” initials look somewhat similar, the others are not eve close. If you ask my opinion there is more than a few different hands making these initials I believe. hink we will see the mysterious Draeen M Griffin make and an exper

    Much like Prenda’s Alan Cooper, I don’t think we will see the mysterious Darren M Griffin make and an appearance anytime soon. Darren seem’s to have a lot in common with Prenda’s Alan Cooper and my invisible childhood friend. in that no one seems to remember ever seeing any of them!

    It is a lot easier to conjurer up someone to take a fall than it is to actually have a real live person willing to put themselves in jeopardy and possible legal peril.

    Sooner or later someone is going to be asked to have Darren M Griffin appear before the court, if there is a big fight to keep Darren from appearing or how he cant be located to appear, we all will have seen that play out before and we all recall the fallout from it

  8. WDS says:

    While my signature may very with how many in a row I have signed, The basic way that I make a letter doesn’t change. There are at least three distinct styles in the collection of signatures. At the time these were done, it looks like they weren’t even worried about trying to make them look similar.

  9. James says:

    The number is a document id number for the file on a file management system such as DeskSite or FileSite. If the same number appears twice, it could mean that the document id number was not updated (which happens) when the file was updated, or it could mean the same document was used. The .1 means it is version 1. A .2 would me a second version…

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank James. Yes, it fits with the information we have seen concerning APMC running the show and providing templates to be used in all the cases they run.

      DTD 🙂

  10. Mitch Stoltz says:

    The mysterious number looks like a document ID number automatically applied by a law firm’s document management system . It’s used by many law firms as a way of identifying a document internally, and it’s often seen on papers filed with a court. The .1 at the end means it’s the first version of the document.

  11. Pingback: Elf-Man v. Lamberson: Judge Rice awards attorney’s fees to the defendant, but doesn’t sanction the trolls | Fight Copyright Trolls

  12. Pingback: Federal Judge: High statutory damages for copyright infringement violate the Eighth Amendment | Fight Copyright Trolls

  13. Pingback: Copyright troll A. Jordan Rushie, or There and back again | Fight Copyright Trolls

  14. Pingback: Where is Waldo (Darren M. Griffin/CBC/APMC)? – 8th Circuit Court Of Appeals, 14-3274 (Killer Joe NV) | DieTrollDie

  15. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, In Australia (iiNet v. DBC) – Bugger Off APMC/Macek | DieTrollDie

  16. Pingback: Duel Article: Dallas Buyers Club LLC Activity & Forensic Expert Patrick “Never Convicted” Paige | DieTrollDie

  17. Pingback: Copyright trolls hit a new low: Keith Lipscomb wants to depose defendant’s teenage daughter in a porn case | Fight © Trolls

  18. Pingback: UPDATED: Malibu Media sues its former counsel Keith Lipscomb and his firm for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty | Fight © Trolls

  19. Pingback: How copyright trolls plunder both US citizens and… rights holders | Fight © Trolls

  20. Pingback: Why the FBI should investigate the Guardaley racket | Fight © Trolls

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