DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-04) – “Better Call Lipscomb” – Motion For Default Judgment (Malibu Media LLC), 2:14-cv-00821(OH)





Hello everyone!  Much has been happening lately concerning BitTorrent (BT) Copyright trolls.  SJD at has been keeping us all up to date.  Thanks! For this DieTrollDie podcast, I will briefly go over some of the recent BT Troll activity.  My main point of discussion is DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 37; Malibu Media, LLC v. David Ricupero, 2:14-cv-00821 (SDOH).  Archive Docket    Motion_Default_FRCP37_Doc78_00821(OH)   Fightcopyrighttrolls Article

7 Mar 16 Update – Here is a Fightcopyrighttrolld article on how Troll Lipscomb want to cut and run from this case.   Defendant opposes Malibu Media’s brazen attempt to cut and run without compensating wrongly accused   The reason???  Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (an argument from ignorance) – 302702957-OHSD-14-cv-00821-Doc-80

 A court must temper a plaintiff’s right to voluntary dismiss by imposing consequences when it used not in good faith, but rather as a tactical tool to frustrate due process and in such a way that it prejudices a defendant’s rights. See e.g. Collins v. Warden, London Corr. Inst., No. 12-cv-1093, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72643 (S.D. Ohio May 28, 2014). The fact that Malibu can unilaterally terminate the action under Rule 41(a) does not mean that it should not be held accountable for what occurs in that action. River City Capital, L.P. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 491 F.3d 301, 310 (6th Cir. Ohio 2007); Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 397-98. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of the Rule 41 provisions regarding voluntary dismissal without prejudice is to “curb abuses of the judicial system,” and the policies behind Rule 41 are “completely compatible” with the policies of other Federal Rules whose violation may bring sanctions or impose penalties. Id. at 397. WHEREFORE Ricupero respectfully requests this Court dismiss Malibu’s claims with prejudice pursuant to either the Court’s discretion, Defendant’s Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. 78] or Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 79].


Plaintiff Malibu Media LLC refused to produce the only probative evidence it claimed would support liability. When ordered to produce the evidence Malibu Media denied any order had issued. After discovery closed Malibu Media represented that it is contractually prohibited from obtaining and producing the evidence. Malibu Media compounded its intentional failure to meet its discovery obligations with a cascade of belated requests for extensions, unequivocally false statements to the Court and Defendant David Ricupero, and other dilatory and obstructive tactics. While forced to incur costs in his defense, Ricupero was irreparably prejudiced by Malibu Media’s unmitigated failure to provide him with the facts behind this action. He therefore requests the sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

The Motion in my opinion shows the TRUE nature of the Trolls and efforts.  This is NOT a one-off incident, it is the standard operating method for a scum-bag copyright monetization business model (my opinion).

As always, feedback and comments are greatly appreciated.

Articles & Documents

New BT Copyright Trolls

  • Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC
  • QOTD Film Investment (Queen Of The Desert)
  • PTG Nevada LLC (Pay The Ghost)

Additional information on these and other BT Copyright Trolls can be found at the Antonelli Law blog – Torrent Defenders

DMCA Take Down Attempts Against &

Not sure who filed these DMCA Take Down notices/Legal Complaint with Google (Lumen redacted that information), but it is marked “International.” Stupid Trolls.



Fightcopyrighttrolls Articles

Yet another proof that X-Art doesn’t care about reducing piracy as much as about shaking down alleged file-sharers  The defendant claims to be an X-Art subscriber. The troll’s cases is based on a claim that the Defendant was not authorized to download/share the movie(s) via BT and that their agent collected a small amount of data from the Defendant. If Defendant’s claim is true, Troll/Plaintiff has ZERO evidence to show and illegal transfers of data took place.

Copyright trolls hit a new low: Keith Lipscomb wants to depose defendant’s teenage daughter in a porn case   What is a Troll to do when they cannot find evidence showing X-Art movies on the Defendant’s hard drives???  Hell, lets depose his teenage daughter in hopes asking her about barley legal porn downloads gets a settlement or walk-away deal. @$$hat alert

A model Answer to Malibu Media’s frivolous complaint   Welcome back Nicholas Ranallo!  CA Doe Defender files an Answer to Malibu Media’s allegation of BT Copyright Infringement. Attorney Ranallo understands Troll Lipscomb/Malibu media’s weak spot – DISCOVERY.  Discovery is that two-way street Troll Lipscomb likes to claim is only one-way – his way. Pay particular attention to the jointly filed Case Management Report – CaseMgtReport_Doc31_04152(CA).  There isn’t an area that Troll Lipscomb/Malibu media is going to be able to hide from.

DieTrollDie 🙂

Gorobei Katayama: “Why didn’t you build a fence there?”   Kambei Shimada: “A good fort needs a gap. The enemy must be lured in. So we can attack them. If we only defend, we lose the war.”  {Seven Samurai, 1954, Akira Kurosawa}

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 Podcasts and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-04) – “Better Call Lipscomb” – Motion For Default Judgment (Malibu Media LLC), 2:14-cv-00821(OH)

  1. Pingback: Malibu Media’s obstruction of discovery prompts a powerful motion for default judgment | Fight © Trolls

  2. Tony says:

    So, the fact that they refuse to provide the evidence can they be sued for trying to shake people down by filing frivolous lawsuits? Isn’t this illegal?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      This fact will make it easier for people to make counterclaims. It will be interesting to see Mslibu’s response to the motion. I don’t expect anything of substance to come from it. The only thing they can hope for is the court simply dismisses the case. Hopefully this is a fat chance.

      DTD 🙂

    • Scalia's Ghost says:

      Yes. Fraud upon court due to not having possession, custody, and control of the primary evidence in their action. If they can’t produce it, they can’t rely on it to make a claim. Second-hand hearsay ‘evidence’ is not evidence at all when it is only based upon a single uncorroborated and unprovable assertion from a paid third-party that is then filtered through yet another paid third-party for unsubstantiated summation, and then presented by counsel and put into a court pleading, all while knowing that the actual baseline evidence cannot be produced for corroboration and examination.

      You can add in a healthy dose of perjury by counsel due to the various signed statements they have made when filing their case about the veracity of their evidence/case. Sanctionable: definitely. And It’s beyond sanctionable conduct too: it’s criminal.

      Liars. Extortionists. Frauds.

      These copyright terrorists should be treated just like any other terrorists………

  3. John says:

    Nice articles. I posted on here about two months back about receiving a DMCA with no Settlement letter attatched for a single download. I contacted my ISP and ensured the activity ceased. Well here I am two full month’s later with absolutely nothing heard but I sometimes find myself thinking back on all of it and waiting to exhale. Would you say that I can be reasonably sure I am out of the woods after 8 weeks of nothing if the activity has long since stopped and the monitored activity was a single film owned by Reality Kings? Sorry to sound anxious I’m just looking for perspective.

  4. Pingback: Defendant opposes Malibu Media’s brazen attempt to cut and run without compensating wrongly accused | Fight © Trolls

  5. eastDOESit says:

    Could a doe cite the declarations by Delvan Neville in prior cases when questioning the mass joinder issue in current mass doe cases? Would they help his case?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes a Doe could do that in hopes the court would dismiss all Does in the case except for #1. The only issue is a troll might then go after the Doe that filed such a motion by filing a case specifically against him/her.

      DTD 🙂

  6. EJRandolph says:

    Dear U.S. Attorney’s and Department of Justice,

    I’ve read that the D.O.J. has ongoing interest in these blogs. Good. Welcome. Lets get to work.

    I realize you should already have and know most of this, but I thought I’d provide a little extra emphasis and encouragement by quoting the information below, putting the activities of these copyright terrorists and extortion trolls, along with their foreign and domestic co-conspirators, in proper perspective:


    §1961 – Definitions
    (1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, EXTORTION (emphasis added), DEALING IN OBSCENE MATERIAL (emphasis added), or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical …. ; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, USC : …. section 1951-extortion; section 1952-racketeering; section 1956-money laundering; section 1957-monetary transactions from unlawful activity; section 1960-illegal money transmitance; … .

    § 1962 – Prohibited activities
    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity …….

    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

    (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

    § 1963 – Criminal penalties
    § 1964 – Civil remedies
    § 1965 – Venue and Process
    § 1966 – Expedition of Actions

    My opinion is that the US Attorneys should have more than enough ammunition and evidence to go after these domestic courtroom terrorists, cleaning-up the copyright-extortion troll shitpile, and especially the largest contributor and biggest turds riding the wretch-worthy waves of the copyright-troll cesspool, Keith Lipscomb and Malibu Media. These scum are economic terrorists, running what I think can be proved to be a RICO-designated extortion organization. I look forward to your prosecutorial involvement in ridding the American public and the Federal Court system of the foul stench of their extra-judicial copyright actions. Please put an end to their extortionate ‘enforcement’ activities.

    Extortion is a criminal act, no matter how loud these extortion trolls protest, or how artfully the trolls try to disguise their activities by covering them with self-serving legalese. These trolls employ deception, half-truths, and lack of full and truthful disclosure in many of their statements and filings. These include:

    1. filing legal actions, and sworn statements in support of those legal actions, despite knowing, and now finally admitting on the record in one of their latest cases (ohsd-14-cv-00821), that they do not have possession or control of, and cannot even produce for the court or defendants, the most basic evidence the troll based its court filings upon. This is fraud and perjury, plain and simple. And its happened thousands of times now…across state lines and diverse court jurisdictions, in literally any and every action they have brought to federal district courts claiming copyright violation.
    2. knowingly filing legal briefs with deceptive descriptions and half-truths on bittorent use/purpose and on identifying victims/defendants using only an IP address, all meant only to obtain “prior to rule 26f conference” subpoena’s, thereby denying due-process to all ultimate defendants.
    3. seeding its own so-called ‘films’ to bittorrent even prior to public availability, entrapping potential alleged infringers that trolls can then extort money from.
    4. lack of substantive DMCA process use, demonstrating clearly a failure to even attempt to mitigate any alleged economic damage they claim.
    5. so-called expert testimony/reports/support from biased bought-and-paid-for (sometimes illegally contracted…) “experts” that lack standing and qualification as expert witnesses.
    6. lack of any effort going after initial torrent file seeders.
    7. producing much of their porn illegally in Ventura county CA, knowingly negating any legal rights to copyright and later legal action. Porn/obscene material cannot be properly copyrighted anyway.
    8. use of unlicensed and foreign private investigators, in violation of state law and statutes.
    9. failure to inform courts of, and failure to make available to opposing counsel, the unproven and unsubstantiated ‘proprietary software’ that the extortion operation relies upon to find alleged infringers, and possible manufacture of ‘evidence’ of alleged infringement.
    10. aggressively employing subterfuge and outright fraud in hiding ‘evidence’, evidence sources, software relied upon, trial experts, foreign actors, APMC involvement in illegally directing lawsuit activity in the US, false depositions utilizing non-experts…..they fight any legitimate examination and dissemination of their evidence and activity by any court or defense counsel.
    11. cut-and-run action when confronted with trial-based outcomes, to avoid properly paying their extortion victims defense costs, costs that the trolls have saddled extortion victims with in order to defend themselves from baseless and frivolous lawsuits.
    12. surveillance, recording, and intercepting private and priveleged communications that likely violate terms of one or all of the ECPA, CFAA, SCA, and WFA federal acts/statutes.

    These above actions, in some circumstances individually, and especially when considered in total, results in coordinated-enterprise extortion activities. These trolls are victimizing many unwitting and sometimes unrepresented defendants when victims are hit with unjust subpoenas (again, obtained through deceptive initial filings) and then unjust settlement demands. This extortion activity is solely meant to unjustly and illegally enrich the copyright troll, again primarily Malibu Media and its morally and ethically challenged dumbass lawyer(s), led by Keith Lipscomb. All of the above demonstrates that this IS NOT about legitimate copyright enforcement action at all, but solely about trying to game the courts and obtain money with extortion-tainted “settlements”, no matter how much the copyright/extortion trolls protest and attempt to cover-up the reality of their behavior.

    IMHO every involved law firm principle, clerk, and associate involved in these lawsuits, and the owners of the porn company itself, should be pursued, individually and collectively, and prosecuted accordingly. By law any and all proceeds are ill-gotten gains, and any resulting investments and proceeds from their extortion activity should be recovered and returned to the troll’s victims and the court system. All principle extortion actors involved in this process should be prosecuted, fined, and incarcerated.

    Go get them D.O.J. The copyright terrorists actions, and we the aggrieved American public, deserve no less.

    Edmund Jennings Randolph

    PS.. Anyone else interested in looking into the illegality of these extortion trolls questionable actions should take the time to read the entire 18 USC, chapter 96, especially §1964(c) for those individuals having already been extorted from or under current judicial process from these extortionist trolls. It fits trolls to a ‘t’. Hit back hard…..these extortionists deserve it.

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