BT Copyright Troll David Lowe Gets the “Slap of Love” – Pro Se Motion To Dismiss Granted (2:16-cv-01273)

Well BT Copyright Troll David Lowe is on a roll – rolling down the stairs in the Western District of Washington. In the continuing saga that is this sad state of affairs, Troll Lowe even went so far as to claim that Raul and myself  are “BitTorrent advocates,” and I was belittling the courts award of the $750 minimum statutory damage award in a 9 Aug 16 Tweet.   Fightcopyrighttrolls Article

stupid-lowe_01273waHe also claims I have been encouraging Defendants to take default judgements rather than fight or resolve the issue (this means pay a settlement). More “alternative facts” from this turd attorney who has exchanged whatever ethics he originally had for the dirty money of these cases (my opinion). His statement to the court is a bold face LIE. I simply stated the total amount was probably less than a voluntary settlement and attorney fees. I will make this extremely clear – I’m not a BT advocate, I don’t advocate copyright infringement, and I don’t suggest people simply ignore valid legal documents from the court. The fact that people use BT to illegally share copyright protected works does NOT justify the slimy actions of the Troll attorneys and the Plaintiffs who employ them.

lowe_sucks1_01273waTo be perfectly clear to an otherwise simpleton idiot (my opinion of Troll Lowe), I was belittling HIM (Troll Lowe) and NOT the court. I was extremely happy the court (Judge Martinez) gave the minimum damage award in that case. I would of course like to see the court give Troll/Plaintiff nothing, but that was not realistic.


So after the recent slap down in the WDWA, I bet Troll Lowe was expecting things to get better. Wrong. On 28 Feb 17, Judge Martinez AGAIN slapped Troll Lowe down. Here is the background on this case – LHF Productions, Inc., v. Doe 1 et al (14 total Does), 2:16-cv-01273 (WDWA).

On 11 Nov 16, Troll/Plaintiff (London Has Fallen (LHF)) filed an Amended Complaint identifying Mr. Sosa as one of the Defendants, claiming him (along with thirteen others) unlawfully infringed Plaintiff’s movie via BT.  Mr. Sosa was named as a Defendant ONLY because he was the ISP subscriber (he paid the bill) and thus his name was associated to the public IP address Troll/Plaintiff claimed committed the infringement. Mr. Sosa disputed LHF’s allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case against him.   sosa_mot-dismiss_01273wa   Mr. Sosa told the court an IP address is not a reliable or legitimate form of identification of a person.” Mr. Sosa also said LHF has not presented any proof that Mr. Sosa either owned or used the IP address in question, and that LHF “is without a verified infringer.” Additionally, Mr. Sosa told the court he has complied with LHF’s request for voluntary cooperation by reviewing the computers in his home, speaking with his children, and by changing his computer and internet passwords. Mr. Sosa stated the Troll failed to state a “plausible” ground for relief. The court initially said Troll Lowe failed to respond to Mr. Sosa’s motion to dismiss (this was a mistake as Troll Lowe did respond.) and thus was not contesting the claims.  Even when Troll Lowe’s response was taken into account, the court was NOT impressed.   granted_mot-dismiss_01273wa

The Court Dismissed The Case Against Mr. Sosa.

LHF has not alleged any facts that link Mr. Sosa to the infringing conduct alleged, and while it is possible that Mr. Sosa participated in the BitTorrent “swarm,” it is also possible that someone else with access to Mr. Sosa’s IP address is the actual infringer. As noted by the Ninth Circuit in In re Century Aluminum Co. Securities Litigation, parties must allege something more, “such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative explanation is true,” when “faced with two possible explanations, only one of which can be true and only one of which results in liability.” 729 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2013). Because LHF has not plead sufficient facts to support its allegations, its claim against Mr. Sosa warrants dismissal. Accordingly, Mr. Sosa’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Well, Troll Lowe was not too happy and filed a motion showing that he did respond to Mr. Sosa’s motion and asked the court to reconsider the dismissal.   lowe_mot-reconsider_01273wa   This is really starts to get funny (laughing at Troll Lowe and not the court). The court responded by telling Troll Lowe NO in a short two-page order.   denied_mot-reconsider_01273wa

The Court apologizes for this oversight. However, consideration of Plaintiff’s response does not alter the outcome of this matter.


Because Plaintiff did not plead “facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative explanation is true,” its claim against Mr. Sosa warrants dismissal.

I think this clearly show that this judge (and maybe the WDWA) is getting tired of being used & abused as a money-making tool in their operation. Greed makes people do otherwise stupid things and rationalize their efforts when logic would tell them to stop. So I don’t expect Troll Lowe to stop plying his otherwise dirty trade anytime some. What will likely happen is the Troll master-minds will either stop filing cases in WAWD OR they will try to avoid the name and serve route. Either way the amount of money they generate is going to be less.  Time to move onto a new jurisdiction???

One last thing…  Troll Lowe, Kiss my @SS!

– Suggested reading – Troll PokerTalking To The TrollsRichard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the  neighbors think, never mind the un-guessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!{Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein}

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 Christopher Lynch, David Lowe and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to BT Copyright Troll David Lowe Gets the “Slap of Love” – Pro Se Motion To Dismiss Granted (2:16-cv-01273)

  1. WDS says:

    I sincerely hope the attitude of this judge spreads through all the jurisdictions where they are filing these garbage, money grabbing cases.

  2. Doe of does says:

    These trolls are blood suckers. Greedy thieves! It infuriates me that the law allows this riff raff to jam up the court systems with these cases. It should be a crime!

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