BT Copyright Troll Calls Magistrate Judge “Erratic” – Objection To Findings & Recommendations (3:15-cv-00866)

30 Dec 16 UPDATE – Yesterday attorney Madden filed his response to Troll/Plaintiff’s object to the magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations.   def_responsetoobjections_00866or   This response could be titled, “Plaintiff is Wrong.” It is  simple and straightforward document, in which attorney Madden tries to educate Troll Crowell on his lack of understanding of Res judicata, Estoppel, PrecedentDiscretion, and claims that are/were “objectively unreasonable” from the start.

… Apart from Plaintiff’s incorrect understanding of “precedent” and “discretion,” its only dispute with the Recommendation appears to be that the magistrate’s equally careful exercise of discretion in a different case came out against a different plaintiff (which happened to be represented by the same counsel, Mr. Crowell). But that is not an example of treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently, as Plaintiff would have it; it is merely treating a misbehaving party consistently, whether the misbehavior is the unreasonable pursuit of invalid claims (in the present case), or the unreasonable inflation of costs and fees to coerce an overreaching settlement (in the earlier case, now on appeal as Glacier Films (USA) Inc. et al. v. Turchin, 16-35688 (3:15-cv-1817-SB)). 

So now we wait for the judge to take all of this under advisement and make the final determination. I expect the court will accept the magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. The amount is small in comparison with what Troll/Plaintiff has obtained overall, but it is a start.  Happy New Years everyone.



e_stupid1It is probably not the best idea for a Troll attorney to tell a magistrate judge they are acting “erratic”; especially after the judge issued a Findings & Recommendations against your client. objections-to-findings_00866or   As this Objection is from well-known BT Copyright Troll attorney Carl D. Crowell, I’m not surprised.   Previous Troll Crowell Article   findingsrecom_00866or

Both prior to and subsequent to the findings and recommendation in this action, and even in the instances of admitted willful and persistent infringing activity by an unrepentant defendant, it has been established that before the Magistrate: a) prevailing plaintiffs and defendants are to be treated alike; b) and fee shifting for bittorrent litigation is inappropriate. That is except now in this one case the Magistrate discards her established doctrine and elects erratic discretion over consistency.  {PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE}

Now I understand Troll Crowell had to make some sort of objection; If ONLY to bill Plaintiff for more money. I stand corrected – I missed the part that stated the Response had to filed NLT 19 Dec 16.  What makes this objection even more humorous is that Troll Crowell couldn’t even meet the court suspense for filing it. The court required any objection to be filed 14 days after service (2 Dec 16); so that means it should have been filed no later than 16 Dec 16. It was filed on 19 Dec 16.   docket_28dec16_00866or

docket-late_00866orThe court did not say 14 business days – but I could be wrong. Still, as the objection is only 5 pages long and NOT very impressive. I can not see why it would have taken him so long to accomplish.

Troll Crowell Objections Because –

  • The Magistrate’s Findings fail to follow established precedent – Basically both sides should be treated equal and that awarding fees/costs to Defendants goes against previous decisions not to. Maybe the court is starting to tire of being used in money-making business model??? How about the court saying the claims against the Defendant were “Unreasonable?”
  • The Findings are not supported by the clear facts of this case – Somehow the court got it wrong and that Mr. Gonzales was responsible because the infringing activity stopped after the law suit was filed. Troll/Plaintiff even has the gall to say that NO economic relief was ever sought from them. So NO settlement demands were ever made (or received) by Troll/Plaintiff against any of the Doe Defendants???
  • Plaintiff is not precluded from filing another claim against Gonzales, including an indirect infringement claim – The ridiculous statement is that Plaintiff can still re-file against Mr. Gonzales via a “vicarious infringement” claim. The problem with that “theory” is the Defendant would have had to have had the “Right” and “Ability” to control the infringing activity, as well as a “Direct” financial interest in it.
    • As the Defendant was the ISP subscriber, there was arguably the ability to control the activity (or attempt to).
    • Where the Troll will have an uphill battle is in getting the court to believe that ANY “Right” was established AND that the Defendant benefited financially from the infringement. There was NEVER any agreement/contract between Plaintiff and Defendant as to being responsible for protecting Plaintiff’s movie. The best the Troll will be able to do is claim that the agreement between the ISP and the Defendant somehow extends to protecting Plaintiff’s movie. Good luck on that claim!
    • As to showing the Defendant had a direct financial benefit from the infringement, the Troll is going to have to cook up some really good rationalization. Maybe they can claim that the adult group care home residents and the employees ONLY lived and worked there (Rent & Services benefits) because they could use BT freely and without the Defendant stopping them.

I think filing this “late” objection was only Troll Crowell going through the motions. I look forward to attorney Madden’s response. The good thing is the cost to respond to the objection is going to be added to the attorney fees claim. So attorney Madden has until close of business on 10 Jan 17 (Two Federal holidays during this period). What would be extremely funny is if the court decided not to accept the Plaintiff’s objection based on the late filing and no reasonable explanation as to why. I doubt that will happen, but I can hope.

I hope everyone has a wonderful New Year’s Eve and that 2017 brings you something you need, want, and especially deserve.

DieTrollDie 🙂

“And there’s a hand, my trusty friend!
And give us a hand of yours!
And we’ll take a deep draught of good-will
For long, long ago.” {Auld Lang Syne, Robert Burns}

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


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 Carl Crowell, Cobbler NV LLC and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to BT Copyright Troll Calls Magistrate Judge “Erratic” – Objection To Findings & Recommendations (3:15-cv-00866)

  1. SJD says:

    Worth reminding that Magistrate Beckerman is a former prosecutor. Go on, Crowell, we are sitting comfortably, watching a movie, which has a predictable finale.

  2. SM says:

    Um, I can’t see where the objection was filed late. The docket clearly says that objections were due on the 19th, which is when they were filed.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I will have to look again, but the R&F states a,response is due,14 days after service. I assume service occured electronically on 2 Dec. As it said I could be wrong. Filing on the last day is a norm

      DTD 🙂

  3. WDS says:

    Defendants response by Attorney Madden to the objection to the magistrate judges recommendations is short, direct, and totally on point. The request for bond in case of an appeal is also a smart move. I hope the District Judge does exactly that.

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