Colorado Postings – Motion To Quash (Mechanic: Resurrection) & Jason “Jay” Kotzker – Life After BT Copyright Trolling

Motion To Quash ISP Subpoena – Colorado

me2_trolling1I’m often asked by Does to look into a BT copyright infringement case and give them my thoughts (non-attorney).  For most of the time, these cases are template-based with little changes here and there. If there is anything interesting, it usually comes from a Doe or Defense attorney. I recently took a look at a Colorado multi-Doe case and noticed an attorney filed a Motion to Quash (MTQ) the ISP subpoena (early discovery). The case is ME2 Productions (movie: Mechanic: Resurrection), Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (20 Does), 1:16-cv-02580, filed on 17 Oct 16, by troll attorney David John Stephenson, Jr., Rocky Mountain Thunder Law Firm.   complaint_02580co   complaint_ips_02580co   complaint_cpyreg_02580co   docket_14dec16_02580co

I thought this was interesting, as for the most part in CO (and all other jurisdictions), it is waste of time and money for a Doe/Defendant to file a MTQ (my opinion). The money it costs is often better spent on either negotiating a settlement or fighting in some other way. The CO courts (AKA: Judges Wiley Y. Daniel & Michael E. Hegarty) are well versed in these cases and generally are going to allow early discovery of ISP subscriber information. As much as I would love for the courts to kill these cases at this point, there is NO other way for the Plaintiff to even begin (NOT that they actually would.  LOL!) to find the offender without getting this information. I believe the CO court (as well as most others) know this and also understand that these Trolls/Plaintiffs are just using the courts to advance their business model (settlement generation) under the guise of “stopping copyright infringement” – total BS in my opinion.

So here is the MTQ filed by Doe 11’s attorney, Louise Aron, on 28 Nov 16.   mtq_doe11_02580co

The first thing that struck me was that it wasn’t the “normal” format we see for MTQ’s.  The court also noted this and advised Mrs. Aron to comply with rules/procedures (docket entry #14). Now the court could have told Mrs. Aron to refile it in the correct format, but it didn’t. I read this as a good sign and maybe the court would like to have deeper discussion on the issue. The CO courts are generally considered a “Troll Friendly” environment, allowing multi-doe cases (most profitable type) and early discovery with little to no issues. The CO courts required monthly status updates and will regularly tell the Troll attorney (Troll Scott Kannady (Brown & Kannady, LLC) & Troll Stephenson) to advance the cases or close it down. So for the most part, naming and serving a Defendant in these CO cases is not the norm. The Trolls usually get as many settlements as possible and then close it down in a couple of months. Repeat the procedure over and over again – money continues to flow.

Because of this, I generally suggest that CO Does do not talk to the Trolls and only hire an attorney if they receive a summons/complaint or a deposition subpoena. I do also suggest they contact a defense attorney and at least get a consult.

In looking over the MTQ, I liked the straightforwardness of it and it shows a bit of passion in its contempt for the Troll/Plaintiff. I think the court may have also liked it and welcomes the disruption it may bring to these BT copyright troll cases. Attorney Aron makes it clear that what Troll/Plaintiff is doing is wrong.

Plaintiff set this up. Plaintiff isn’t really interested in preventing copyright infringement. Instead, Plaintiff wants infringement so it can collect money from individuals. Plaintiff is fostering violations of copyright in order to obtain settlements. Implicit in copyright law is the requirement that copyright owners themselves are responsible for making sure that they prevent infringement. Plaintiff did the opposite. Plaintiff is associated with activities online at https://myspace.com/me2productions and elsewhere which created an endless supply of Mechanic: Resurrection to be made available for download.

AND this was funny:

De Minimis. Even if 11 had infringed, there would be de minimis damages. As a conciliatory gesture, I have set aside $15.00 from my own funds to cover whatever a viewing of “Mechanic: Resurrection” is worth.

Note: Rotten Tomatoes gave “Mechanic: Resurrection” a 26% score.  So I think the $15 she set aside may be a bit excessive.

Take a read of the MTQ and tell me what you think. I have no doubt that Troll Stephenson has been in contact with Mrs. Aron and trying to see if Doe #11 will accept a lower settlement.

My non-attorney suggestion to Doe #11 is to NOT accept a lower settlement. The chance that Troll/Plaintiff will actually name/serve her is very low (my non-attorney opinion). Doing so would be ridiculous and a bit risky. I’m sure attorney Aron/Doe #11 have their “Answer” ready to go. As I have said before, once an “Answer” is filed, it is a bit harder for the Troll to cut and run. It becomes even harder if counter claims are made against Troll/Plaintiff – AND I would expect this from Mrs. Aron. For now we wait for the response from the Troll – Without it, the court could quash the ISP subpoena.

I don’t think the CO court will kill the ISP subpoena, BUT I do think they will make the Troll spend some time/money in defending their position. Once the ISPs release the subscriber information, Troll Stephenson will milk all the settlements he can (18 other Does – Doe #4 settled on 13 Dec 16, doe4_settlewp_02589co) before dismissing the case without conducting ANY other investigative steps or naming/serving a defendant. These case are about money and playing the odds – If only 10 of the Does settle for $4K, Troll/Plaintiff will take in $40K. Fighting Doe #11 is a waste of their time and money. Too bad the courts cannot do anything to stop the waste on our court system.

Life After BT Copyright Trolling – Jason “Jay” Kotzker

Now since I’m talking about a CO BT copyright troll case, let’s see what a previous CO Troll attorney is up to – Jason Kotzker. Troll Kotzker previously worked as the local CO attorney for Malibu Media (X-Art), filing over 450 BT copyright troll law suits. At the end of 2014, Troll Kotzker, stopped filing Malibu Media cases in CO.

We later learned why Troll Jason Kotzker was leaving CO BT Copyright Trolling:

Defendant Jason A. Kotzker is an owner, member, and/or manager of Sequoia One, and a manager of Gen X, and is an authorized signatory for many of those entities’ bank accounts. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint, including the Defendants’ sale of consumer payday loan applications containing consumers’ Social Security and financial account numbers, as well as other sensitive information, without the consumers’ knowledge or consent, to third parties that used the information to commit fraud. In addition, Kotzker knew about the business practices set forth in this Complaint, was recklessly indifferent to them, or was aware of a high probability of the fraud and intentionally avoided the truth. In connection with the matters alleged herein, Kotzker transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. {my emphasis, Section 8., Doc#1, Case 2:15-cv-01512-JCM-CWH, FTC Link}   complaint_sequoiaone_kotzker_01512nv

Kotzker eventually agreed to pay the FTC $45,000 (of a $7,135,992 judgement against him and the others defendants).   final-order_kotzker_01512nv  So what has Kotzker been up to since?

strainwiseconsult_1According to the “Strainwise Consulting” web site, he is their “General Counsel.” What makes this a bit interesting is the name on the “Management Team” Web page, “Jay Kotzker,” NOT Jason. I don’t know why it is not “Jason,” but according to the stipulated order, he must –

…report any change in: (a) name, including aliases or fictitious name, or residence address; or (b) title or role in any business activity, including any business for which the Stipulating Defendant performs services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in which the Stipulating Defendant has any ownership interest, and identify the name, physical address, and any Internet address of the business or entity.” {Section B.1., Doc#56, Case 2:15-cv-01512-JCM-CWH – final-order_kotzker_01512nv}

So maybe this is just a simple mistake.  Maybe…  But based on what Jason Kotzker did (according to the complaint and stipulated order) and his questionable ethics in working BT copyright troll law suits for Malibu Media/X-Art (my opinion), it does make you wonder. I also wonder if Strainwise Consulting knew of Jason Kotzker’s history. I’m sure the FTC will look into this in some fashion – I just hope they get to the bottom of it. For now, we will keep an eye of this and make sure to update my article tagging to include “Jay Kotzker.”

Other Kotzker Articles Of Interest

Malibu Media (X-Art) Cases In Colorado (Little Bo-Peep Has Lost Her Sheep)

Feds accuse X-Art/Malibu Media’s attorney Jason Aaron Kotzker of a $7,000,000 payday loan fraud

Malibu Media attorney Jason Kotzker moves to stay FTC civil case pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against him

FTC Puts An End to Data Broker Operation that Helped Scam More Than $7 Million from Consumers’ Accounts

These data brokers cost consumers millions by illegally selling off their financial information, says FTC

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   “I have spent my whole life scared, frightened of things that could happen, might happen, might not happen, 50-years I spent like that. Finding myself awake at three in the morning. But you know what? Ever since my diagnosis, I sleep just fine. What I came to realize is that fear, that’s the worst of it. That’s the real enemy. So, get up, get out in the real world and you kick that bastard as hard you can right in the teeth.” {Walter White, Breaking Bad}

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 Keith Lipscomb and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Colorado Postings – Motion To Quash (Mechanic: Resurrection) & Jason “Jay” Kotzker – Life After BT Copyright Trolling

  1. WDS says:

    I in general like the MTQ that 11’s attorney put together, but I’m not sure what her problem with Comcast is. While I think it would be nice if the various ISPs would try to quash these before notice need be sent to the subscribers, I’m not sure what actual obligation they have to do it. I understand throwing everything including the kitchen sink at this, but maybe they should have not thrown the bathtub as well.

    I think the putting aside $15.00 is funny.

  2. Quiet Lurcker says:

    Anyone here notice that para. 9 raises a direct Constitutional issue?

    Or that there’s an implicit counter-claim against not only the troll for asking for the subpoena, but against the ISP for for failing to carry out an implied legal duty to defed the customer’s (implied) privacy interest?

  3. MJV says:

    There is hope. I was a doe in BT copyright case back in 2013 here in CO. Stephenson was the plaintiff’s lawyer on that one too. There is hope as long as one has the time to fight it. I filed an MPA as well as a an MTQ. I think only 2 or 3 does were dismissed (they must have settled) but eventually, I want to say that in January 2014, Hegarty closed the case after a third request for extension to name and serve was submitted. They were given something like 14 or 30 days or the case would be closed because they had already had ample time to name serve the defendants. Again, if you can ride it out and withstand contact from the trolls, do so, there is hope.

  4. Pingback: Doe Defender “Letter” Is “8 for 8” Troll Dismissals & Update to CO Copyright Troll Case – Mechanic: Resurrection (1:16-cv-02580) | 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