Copyright Troll “London Has Fallen” Cuts And Runs When Confronted – 2:16-cv-01017 (WA)

27 Dec 16 UPDATE – Sophisticated Jane Doe (http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com) recently update the efforts of attorney Christopher Lynch to get his clients dismissed from various BT copyright troll cases.  Copyright troll David Lowe drops three defendants after defense attorney threatens to expose fraud   

This information is very important to Doe/Defendants and their attorneys. The Trolls are likely very annoyed that they have to keep dismissing ISP subscribers based only on a letter essentially saying “Put Up OR Shut Up!”  The fact that Troll/Plaintiff has NOT fought back is telling. The Trolls likely figure it simply means some of their victims will get away. There is still a good number of people who will not fight back and will pay to make the threat go away. The Troll is eventually going to have to either generate NEW fictitious people and companies to claim who is conducting their BT monitoring and evidence collection OR stop filing these cases in this jurisdiction (and eventually others). The greed that motivates these people is so strong that I suspect we will see new people/companies

If you are a Doe/ISP subscriber affected by one of these cases, make sure your attorney knows of this information. Even if you cannot afford an attorney, informing the Troll you know of this information and will add these letters/dismissals as attachments to your “Answer” may aid you. What we really need is for a judge to refer the matter to the FBI and start the ball rolling – Prenda Law, Mark #2.

On 12/19/2016, Mr. Lynch sent another letter to the troll, asking to dismiss his other client from Cell Film Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-10 (WAWD 16-cv-1180) and expressing similar concerns. Unsurprisingly, the defendant was hastily dismissed on 12/23, four days before the deadline.

In addition to the Griffin fraud, the latest Lynch’s letter to Lowe outlined many instances of the troll’s highly questionable behavior.

Particularly, it mentioned an Ohio case filed by the same plaintiff, where Lowe’s fellow troll attorney brazenly claimed that the plaintiff’s “expert” worked for a sham “Crystal Bay Corporation” as recently as this summer (Antonelli Law also wrote about this unusually sloppy case). This arrogance approaches (if not tops) Prenda’s.

——————————————————————————-

ltr-to-lowe1_01017wa21 Dec 16 UPDATE – Attorney Lynch was able to give two of his clients and early Christmas present this year – dismissal from a BT Copyright Troll case (2:16-cv-01017 (WA)). This is the same case as in the article below. On 13 Dec 16, attorney Lynch again wrote to Troll Lowe and told him that his clients were innocent and should be dismissed.   lewis-jcl-to-lowe_01017wa   alexander-jcl-to-lowe_01017wa   Note: both of these Defendants are senior citizens with little computer knowledge and no Bittorrent experience. This of course did not matter to the Troll – only that their names was on the ISP account. Attorney Lynch informed the Troll that Plaintiff had until noon, 19 December, to dismiss his clients or answers would be filed on that afternoon. If Troll/Plaintiff decided to not dismiss the Defendants, attorney Lynch planned on seeking attorney fees and costs. Attorney lynch made it extremely clear to Troll Lowe that an answer (Full Denial) was ready and that they would be asking many uncomfortable questions concerning their operation (see below).

So on 16 Dec 16, Troll Lowe dismissed both Defendants.   dismiss-lewis-alexander_01017wa

Here is a copy of the docket from 21 Dec 16.  docket_21dec16_01017wa

Defendant Files an Answer – What I did find interesting was on 19 Dec 16, one named Defendant filed an answer. I was a bit shocked as the named Defendant/ISP subscriber denied the infringement and stated that his “son” (I assume an adult child) was responsible – even provided a signed admission by the son.    zimm_answer_01017_wa

Now I assume the family dynamics have to be strained for this to happen. One thing it does do is make it harder for the Troll to get a settlement. The NAMED Defendant has answered the complaint (Denial) and even gave the Troll a signed admission by the infringer (who is NOT a party to this law suit). The Troll now has to decide if he will dismiss the named Defendant and seek a settlement from the son. I bet the Troll was hoping the ISP subscriber would assume responsibility and make the settlement for his son. Now unless the son is financially well-off, the chance the Troll will be able to get a full settlement out of him is low in my opinion. I seriously doubt the Troll will continue to go after the ISP subscriber, but “stupid is as stupid does.”

On Vacation??? Troll Lowe will Claim You Are Avoiding Service – Next on the “stupid” list for this case is an attempt by Troll Lowe to us an alternate method of service.  Over the course of four consecutive nights (27-30 Nov 16), a process-server attempted to serve a named defendant at her residence. During the course of these attempts, the process-server was informed that the Defendant was vacationing in California.   4serviceattempts_01017wa

Troll Lowe then file a motion to serve the Defendant via US mail.

altservice1_01017wa  mot-altservice_01017wa  The court took a look at the motion and noted that the process-server clearly wrote down that a neighbor said the Defendant was in CA on vacation. The court told the Troll that being away from your residence for four days on vacation does NOT justify authorizing an alternate service method.  Motion Denied   denied-alt-service_01017wa   For some reason the court did give the Troll 60 more days to serve the Defendant. 😦  moretime-serve_01017wa   Well at least it is going to cost Troll/Plaintiff more in service fees.

DTD 🙂

———————————————————————————

NOTE: The following information should not be taken as legal advice – in any sense.  What I have here is an example of what worked for one attorney when trying to get Troll/Plaintiff to dismiss his client.  This is also NOT an advertisement for this attorney/Firm. Use it as YOU see fit, but note that there is no guarantee that a Troll/Plaintiff is going to back down as in this instance. Still, if more information like this ends up getting filed in various BT Copyright Troll cases, the courts have a better chance of seeing the true nature of these cases – USING THE COURTS AS AN INSTRAMENT OF GREED.

troll_runfool1Bottom Line – Attorney Lynch (Lee & Hayes) is able to get his client dismissed (London Has Fallen case 2:16-cv-01017, Western District WA) after telling Troll attorney David Lowe he plans to go forward with discovery of the various personnel and foreign companies claiming to be responsible for the BT monitoring and evidence collection apparatus.  Attorney Lynch told the Troll in very clear terms that they had five business days to dismiss their client.  AND it worked – in fact it only took the Troll four business day to do so (28 Oct 16 – 4 Nov 16) – a record in my opinion.   letter-to-troll-david-lowe-oct2016_01017wa   doe_dismissal_01017wapdf

We learned a lot from our earlier defense of innocent victims in Elf-Man and The Thompson Film. We learned that your client’s foreign representatives have no U.S. witnesses. The Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Collins was “observed infringing” and the docket shows that ours is the first LHF case where “Daniel Arheidt” is used as the “witness” – the previous WD WA LHF cases used “Daniel Macek.” We doubt that Mr. Arheidt (or Mr. Macek) or their employers Guardaley (or IPP or Crystal Bay Corporation or Maverickeye) are properly licensed under RCW 18.165 to conduct private investigations in Washington – even though they were “engaged in the business of detecting, discovering, or revealing . . . evidence to be used before a court,” necessitating such a license under RCW 18.165.010. (None of the exemptions of RCW 18.165.020 apply.) In the District of Nevada, your client calls Maverickeye “the Investigator” (Case No. 2:16-cv-1803.) The policy of RCW 18.165 is to protect Washington citizens from abuse by unlicensed investigators. 

This is not too surprising, as the goal of these cases (my opinion) is to generate as many settlements as possible while keeping the time spent running cases to a minimum. Take a read of the attached letter.  Attorney Lynch laid it out for the Trolls – Dismiss my client or they would bring up all the questionable people/companies behind these operations. (Do a search for these names on my site and the Internet)

  • Daniel Arheidt
  • Daniel Macek
  • Michael Patzer
  • Darren Griffin
  • Guardaley
  • International IP Tracker (IPP)
  • Crystal Bay Corporation
  • Maverickeye

Now as Attorney Lynch was previously able to get a $100,000 award against Troll/Plaintiff “Elf-Man,” in WA, the decision was easy – “Cut & Run.”

  • If you are a Defendant in one of these cases and have an attorney, you might want to forward a copy of the letter to him.
  • If you are Defendant representing himself/herself, the information might also be of some value to you. The Troll will know you will not be able to conduct Discovery like Mr. Lynch, BUT they will NOT want the letter to be filed in any of their cases. 

Please share this information and documents as widely possible. ALL of the BT Copyright Troll cases out there have some ties to ALL of the current Troll/Plaintiffs. Remember that for this business model to work, the benefits (settlements) must exceed the cost of running these cases.

DieTrollDie 🙂   “May thy knife chip and shatter.”  {Fremen taunt, Dune}

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.

6 Responses to Copyright Troll “London Has Fallen” Cuts And Runs When Confronted – 2:16-cv-01017 (WA)

  1. Pingback: Copyright Troll Backs Down When Faced With Exposure - TorrentFreak

  2. Doe72 says:

    -Excerpts from the Maverickeye UG website
    “Maverickeye UG makes it possible to detect and retrace copyright infringements with highly sophisticated software technology”
    “The author reserves the right not to be responsible for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of the information provided.”

    -Now from the Guardaley website (looks oddly familiar to the previous)
    “The author reserves the right not to be responsible for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of the information provided.”

    Their software is apparently so sophisticated that none of their “associates” can testify how it actually works or if the info provided is correct. I wrote “associates”, because it could be one guy for all anyone knows. Daniel Arheidt could just be Mr. Macek with a poorly chosen alias. Mr. Macek was the only one that actually appeared in court and he ended up embarrassing himself in the process. Hell, “Mr. Macek” could’ve just been an actor and maybe the whole shebang is operated by the troll leaders here in the USA.

    Considering the gravamen for 99.99% of the troll cases is based off evidence from the German based anti-infringement companies, it’s no wonder they’re scared of discovery. If a case goes though discovery in a competent court that shows evidence of fraudulence from Maverickeye UG, Guardaley, or IPP – that case will be used by future defenses over and over. Which in turn means more expenses and less settlements for them until they create yet another shell company that uses an IPP.

    What’s also funny is that the exact same troll attorneys are used for each respective state. There might be occurrences of multiple cases at a time involving different companies and movies, but what stays the same is they ALL use the same attorney.

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

  4. Pingback: Copyright troll David Lowe drops three defendants after defense attorney threatens to expose fraud | Fight © Trolls

  5. Pingback: GA Court Servers BT Copyright Troll Case Sua Sponte – 1:16-cv-04055 (NDGA) – “Royal Flush Odds” | DieTrollDie

  6. Pingback: Three Troll Post – Not Prenda, But Still All Idiots (19 Jan 2017) | DieTrollDie

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