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

Darren Griffin, CBC

Darren Griffin, CBC

Well things just got a little bit more interesting in appeal of Leigh Leaverton against the ruling of the Northern District of Iowa, Killer Joe Nevada (KJN), 5:13-cv-04036.  Please see my previous post on this for background – Since my previous post, the Troll filed a response and claimed that there was nothing wrong with the decision of the lower court in deciding not to award attorney’s fees to Leaverton.   KillerJoe_Brief_(14-3274_8th)   Here is a copy of the docket.   Docket_29Jan15_14-3274(8thC)

It looks like sometime after I wrote the initial article, attorney Christopher Lynch (Elf Man v. Lamberson – case # 2:13-cv-00395, contacted attorney Ray Johnson and informed him that “Darren M. Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC),” was a fictitious person/company.   Here is my article on thisThis is important, as the declaration from Mr. Griffin/CBC, was the reason early discovery was granted AND it was included in the appeal brief filed by KJN.


Attorney Johnson immediately contacted the Troll attorneys who were working this case and asked for an answer to the allegations by attorney Lynch. What he got back was not too surprising from the Trolls. Troll Keith Vogt told Johnson that when they filed the case, he had no information to suggest that Mr. Griffin/CBC was a fraud and thus there was no “ethical concern.“ What troll Vogt DID NOT do is contact Mr. Griffin/CBC, Plaintiff, or the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) to verify/dismiss the allegations. Instead he decided to leave the Griffin declaration in the Joint Appendix submitted with this appeal.

Now the other troll attorney who WAS working for this Troll/Plaintiff – Jay Hamilton, had something else to say. Attorney Hamilton told Johnson that his law firm had ENDED “its engagement with APMC.” He also stated that they would proceed with an investigation on the matter and get back to attorney Johnson.  Note: as of attorney Johnson’s latest filing, this was not done.  Here is a copy of a briefing on APMC’s business model and strategy – The fact that Hamilton admitted that APMC was at the center of this BT Copyright Trolling effort is telling – but not really that shocking to those of us that follow their antics. As the APMC is an interested party in these operations/Federal cases, they have FAILED to notify the court of their financial interest in these law suits. It could spell trouble for the Trolls. I would also be interested in finding out why Hamilton’s law firm ended their work for APMC. Was it due to ethical concerns??? Did they know of the various frauds and finally decide the risk to them was too great for the money they were paid??? Mr. Hamilton, please feel free to email me on the issue, especially if you feel I have gotten something wrong.

Attorney Johnson did not hear anything else from the Troll/Plaintiff and filed a Motion For Additional Time To File Appellants Reply Brief.   Motion_MoteTime_14-3274(8thC)   The file contains the Motion, Emails between Johnson and Trolls Vogt and Hamilton, as well as a Declaration of Attorney Johnson.

On 27 Jan 15, The court granted Johnson extra time to file his Reply.   MoreTimeGranted_14-3274(8thC)   The Reply can be filed no later than 2 Feb 15 (Monday). We can only hope the Appeals court will see what a clear fraud this case (and others) have been and asks some hard questions.

I would also like to point out that in the docket, the court makes it clear that this cases is set for an oral argument. This is something I believe Troll Vogt and the APMC really don’t want to happen. Besides allowing attorney Johnson to highlight the Troll’s slimy behavior, the Appeals Court Judges are likely to have some hard question of their own. If anyone has some tap dancing shoes, please send them over to Troll Vogt’s office – he may need them.

Prior to oral brief expect the Trolls will try to make some sort of deal with Johnson/Defendant, but I believe they are too cheap make a reasonable offer. Plus, I believe attorney Johnson has the advantage in this appeal, as the lower court was in error – my non-lawyer opinion. So this Monday I expect to see a nice Reply filed and then an oral briefing in the future.

DieTrollDie 🙂  “This was a revolution ignited with nothing more than a camera and some questions. Questions that led a man, once revered as a god among mortals, to cry and shit his pants.”  {Dave Skylark – The Interview}


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.

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

  1. Christenson says:

    DTD, excellent post…but I think the cartoon could be upgraded. Just thinking out loud here.
    Why, since the correct answer to the question of where’s waldo is nowhere in the world or in someone’s head, do we have a mostly complete picture of Waldo? Shouldn’t he be sitting inside the open skull of a demon? Or shouldn’t we just see the semi-transparent outline of his shirt, or glasses, or hat and clothes only?

  2. SJD says:

    Happy that exposing of the Griffin scam gets traction. Reminded me first steps in debunking AF Holdings.

    We’ll get there.

  3. Anon E. Mous says:

    Does anyone want to make a bet that phone calls are being furiously placed to our German friends and possible to Florida to seek advice? The trolls are not going to be able to slink away unscathed from this.

    I am sure much like in Lamberson the trolls are frantically trying to figure out how to handle this. I doubt the Trolls will make an offer anywhere near fair, in fact look for the to make a Lowe offer ( I know, I couldn’t resist the pun to a certain low ball offer made in the Lamberson case ). The trolls are going to be loathe to give up any cash.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the take a page out of the Prenda Playbook when Prenda was in trouble with the AF Holding case and fictitious Alan Cooper signature, in fact I would think the trolls will run with that scenario of some sort to try and get around the fallout.

    Let’s hope the court looks and digs deep here and does not let the trolls off with some technicality out of concern. The trolls know the game and they play it to the hilt, but they will always try to avoid any responsibility, Vandermay was a perfect example of that in the Lamberson case as was Judge Rice who seemed in my opinion to not want to delve into thing anymore than he had to.

    This one ought to be interesting and I hope like in Lamberson the trolls get socked hard, but time will tell.

  4. that anonymous coward says:

    I do hope the accused “defendant” rejects any offers to avoid this coming out in court.
    This is another one of those moments in time when a serious blow can be dealt to the extortion machine. (Call it defamation all you fscking want, I at least exist. Quick file a defamation suit to shut me up, cause that is working out so well so far.)

    This is one of those things that needs to be on the record so that judical notice can be applied, not to mention the bars of several states who quite honestly aren’t upholding the “high standards” they talk about by allowing lawyers to skate playing fast and loose with truth & the lives of people who might just be a name on a bill.

    The courts needs to stop giving latitude to these “fine upstanding” officers of the court and admit the smell of bovine excrement is coming from them and risk appearing to be impolite by pointing out the stink.

    • Anon E. Mous says:

      ” This is one of those things that needs to be on the record so that judical notice can be applied, not to mention the bars of several states who quite honestly aren’t upholding the “high standards” they talk about by allowing lawyers to skate playing fast and loose with truth & the lives of people who might just be a name on a bill.”

      All too true. I am amazed that the Prenda gang still has not felt any action from the various state bars they belong to. It’s funny that the rules of court and the rules governing a lawyers conduct seem to be in back and white but yet applying them seems to fall in grey areas of large magnitude with presumption of innocent and no harm intended being the first and foremost concern rather than right and wrong.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        the wheels, they move slowly.
        It would be “improper” for the bars to take any actions before a court is finished with them. To do otherwise might deny them their rights, so until all of the appeals are exhausted, expect nothing.

        One might note that allowing these lawyers to continue their campagin is “improper”, but there are few rules protecting citizens. Judges are supposed to be the balance in the law, but far to often they rubber stamp these cases forward… and when someone finally gets them to notice the pile of bullpuckey on the docket they then look for a way to quickly get it off of their docket. This might mean ignoring obvious lies, fraud, and a host of other things that are illegal and should be punished… but they don’t want to take the time.

  5. J Roberts says:

    Christopher Lynch uncovered a great deal of evidence and documentation, revealing that a fraud was being perpetrated in Justice Thomas Rice Court in Elf Man v. Lamberson). Is APMC illegally practicing law in US courts from offshore? Does Crystal Bay exist and who are its officers. Where and who is Darren Griffin and if he exists, what are his qualifications as an expert. Even the plaintiff’s attorney recused herself for possible ethical concerns.

    Elf Man v. Lamberson was only one of numerous identical cases before the same court, representing potentially many hundreds of thousands or dollars. There were pending default judgments to be made for what might be found to be fraud and therefore possibly innocent citizens unable to afford a defense attorney. Justice Rice decided to kick the can down the road. So here we are with another case, asking the same obvious questions. Questions that a five year old would be curious enough to ask.

    Many thanks are due Christopher Lynch. He takes his obligations as an officer of the Justice system seriously. He should be the model to follow in the thousands of troll cases before Federal Courts throughout America.

  6. WapBamBoogie says:

    I found this on Scribd dealing with the Griffin issue. Taken from the intro paragraph:

    “Order of the Chief Judge on counterclaims brought against Voltage Pictures and TCYK, LLC, related to the movie The Company You Keep starring Robert Redford and Shia LaBeouf.
    The Chief Judge dismissed all the counterclaims against Voltage and TCYK, and found:

    1) There was no copyright abuse in Voltage’s legitimate enforcement of rights;
    2) There was nothing unfair, fraudulent, or improper with Voltage’s actions; and
    3) Voltage may go forward with its claim that a subscriber who pays for Internet service and is not personally an infringer may be liable.”

    I’m not a lawyer, but can anyone else tell if the analysis above is correct?

    3) above is most concerning. What’s your take? Looks like it’s an ‘ok’ from the Judge to proceed against just a subscriber?

    • FU TROLLS says:

      SOUNDS LIKE THIS CHIEF JUDGE IS JUST ANOTHER FUCKING IDIOT who hasn’t put two seconds of effort into understanding what is actually going on. No wonder there is less and less respect for Courts, most lawyers, and the ignorant and corrupt lawmakers who allow this kind of criminal extortion to go on.

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

  8. Pingback: Pending 8th Circuit Court of Appeal Oral Argument in BT Copyright Troll Case (Killer Joe NV v. Leaverton, 14-3274) | DieTrollDie

  9. Pingback: “London Has Fallen” BT Copyright Troll Case, 2:16-cv-02028 (NV) – 23 Does | DieTrollDie

  10. 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