So, what’s interesting here is that my correspondent wrote to Paul Duffy, but got a reply from John Steele. Steele did not even bother CC-ing to Paul Duffy. What does it mean? Paul Duffy is just a façade, proxy. Steele is the one who runs this case. Paul Duffy is not a copyright lawyer (and even not a divorce one), and Steele uses him only because he has a DC license. DC so far has been friendly to trolls, but it may change soon. I strongly believe that Wayne O’Bryan from Virginia is exactly the same — a mere proxy. Proxies do not write complaints or motions — they just forward correspondence and sign documents when needed. Isn’t it just another solid proof that these con artists don’t have a slightest intent to litigate? I would understand using a local attorney as a representative, but Paul Duffy lives and works in Chicago, what the hell?
Well, this is not really a “discovery”. It was clear to me that someone, most likely John Steele, was behind the DC lawsuit. But now I doubt no more.
From: John Doe from Chicago
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:58:10 -0500
I’m one of the potential defendants on 11-cv-01741-JDB case. I did download the movie, although at that time I did not think it was illegal. Since then I stopped using Bittorrent and removed all the movies I downloaded up to day (including about 8 from of the Hard Drive Productions).
Since I don’t do it anymore, I believe I should be dismissed from the case. Let me know my options. I’m willing to pay a reasonable amount. I’m a student, so I can’t afford much.
After you tell me the amount you expect me to pay, and if it works for me, I’ll tell you my IP and Doe#.
Also I would like to see the release agreement if possible.
To: John Doe from Chicago
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:16:42 -0500
Mr. John Doe,
I need your IP address so that my client can determine how they wish to proceed.
Licensed only in
the state of Illinois
1111 Lincoln Road, #400
Miami Beach, FL 33139
T: (305) 748-2102
F: (305) 748-2103
This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
From: John Doe from Chicago
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:37:49 -0500
Since you did not answer my question, I will probably wait and see. Yesterday night I read a ton of information about this and similar cases and I’m convinced that this is not the worst strategy. Revealing my IP address prematurely, without knowing the amount you would claim, is stupid. If the amount is reasonable, I would pay and move forward with my life. If it is too high, I would probably spend money on a good IP lawyer (as far as I know, neither you nor Mr. Duffy specialize in copyright). Given the latest developments on the case, it is quite probable that I can even find a good lawyer who would defend me for free, as the chance to claim court fees is rather high.
So, it’s your call: either you let me know the amount, or you won’t hear from me any more. I offer you money (given that your claim is reasonable), so it is up to you: take it or not.
To: John Doe From Chicago
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:06:27 -0500
After careful thought, our client, AF Holdings would prefer not settling with you at this time. Im sure it would be much easier for you to find an attorney to work for free in DC than simply deal with our firm like an adult. Keep your insults and save up for the litigation. I think e should wait until your isp gives us your information before any settlement options are discussed.