Prenda Law makes the classified number of actually served defendants public

Posted: March 1, 2012 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our lawsuit against you personally will not commence
until we serve you with a Complaint, which we are prepared to do if our settlement efforts fail.”
 
(From Prenda Law’s demand letter)

Recently Northern California district judge Lucy H. Koh commanded copyright troll Brett Gibbs (Prenda Law) to answer certain questions. In particular, she wanted to know

A list of the BitTorrent copyright infringement cases involving multiple joined John Doe Defendants filed Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm or predecessor firm in federal court. Identify the case by name, case number, court, and filing date. For each case, indicate how many Doe Defendants were actually served.

Well, we know how many defendants were actually served. Nonetheless, it was amusing to hear this answer from a troll, especially observing a long list of cases that MCGIP, Steele Hansmeier and Prenda Law have filed to date (I counted 118):

Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases.

Many thanks to you, John Steele, and to your restless crew of useful arts promoters, for an excellent illustration to your 1.5-year long scam. I have no doubt that this document will make a good exhibit to numerous motions and counterclaims.

Update

4/11/2012

After a reader has spotted that some of Prenda’s cases were not disclosed as ordered. I decided to write a separate post about it.

About these ads
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    Hey John. We know you like to troll the blogs, and we know how much you like to talk about how much you like to read the blogs. So why don’t you stop by and answer one question for us:

    Why are you such a PUSSY?

  2. Anonymous says:

    What a PUSSY.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Looks like Exhibit A for a class-action lawsuit.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I count 15878 Does, although one case did not have a Doe count in the name.

    Honestly with the way these cases have been multiplying I’m surprised it’s not more.

    At the current going rate of $3400/settlement that means a theoretical maximum grosss of right around $54 million for Prenda’s entire scam… No idea what the actual settlement rate is, but no wonder these guys thought it would be easy money.

    One thing worth noting is that assuming they are being honesty, we also have a comprehensive list of Prenda’s clients and with a full list of cases can figure out who all of their proxies are.

    But on that note, I already believe they are lying in this declaration. They have left out some of their recent “v. Unknown” cases filed in the Eastern District of California, where the complaint is against one John Doe, and then his to-be-determined co-conspirators. But they are still mass-Doe suits and the complaints contain a list of IP addresses, same as always. DTD recently covered a judge denying Gibbs’ discovery request in one of these cases:

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/22/ca-judge-denies-gibbs-expedited-discovery-of-115-co-conspirator-does-211-cv-03478-geb-efb-first-time-videos-v-john-doe/

    This declaration was filed under penalty of perjury by Prenda’s custodian of records and it appears that, as usual, they are lying. Wonder if Scumbag Steele will read this post and scramble to do some damage control, as usual.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed on the missing cases.

      Plus

      15,878 * $350 should have been paid to the courts to file the listed cases = $5,557,300
      (minus)
      118 x $350 paid to file the listed cases = $41,300
      (therefore)
      Citizens of the U.S. have been robbed of over $5.5 Million in fees rightfully owed the courts.

      Liars, Thieves, Trolls.

  5. Barking up the Wong tree says:

    Time for the ship to sink?

  6. Bambi says:

    subscribed

  7. JDS says:

    “This is gold Jerry, GOLD!”

    Pretenda Law – BUSTED!! :D

    Every MTQ henceforth should attach a copy of this admission to the court that not a **SINGLE** Doe has been served yet, out of 118 cases targeting hundreds of thousands of Does.

    I don’t know what will claim Gibbs first – the cancer eating up his soulless being, or these increasingly frequent humiliations in court. Anyone with a modicum of self-respect or shame would have quit this scam and tried to redeem himself before his imminent day of reckoning. Well done Brett! You obviously have your priorities sorted out. Be a scumbag to the end.

    • Porno Doe says:

      “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
      I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
      The evil that men do lives after them;
      The good is oft interred with their bones;
      So let it be with Caesar”

      or Steele, or Gibbs!

  8. Barking up the Wong tree says:

    Did they not have the option of dropping the case instead of revealing this info?

    • anonymous says:

      Good question. Most of the other trolls, do exactly what you mention, including John “Hubris” Steele.

  9. JDS says:

    Must be the result of their low IQ level combined with their high level of hubris. These morons seem unable to think straight anymore.

    Or maybe Judge Koh didn’t give Gibbs a choice (threat of contempt of court?)

    Either way, looks like they’ve got the trolls by their b@lls. No way to weasel out :D

    Run Troll Run :D

  10. A Dude says:

    Somebody else is going on the offensive again HDP, filed 2 days ago.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Considering how retarded this whole mess is, I’d be surprised if Yuen didn’t just start photocopying his arguments and bring several thousand suits against these jokers.

  12. JD says:

    Wow, what a record of greed.

    The devil’s calling.

  13. CTVic says:

    That one sentence is pure gold: “no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases.”
    Paraphrased as: “Prenda Law – All bark, no bite.” … or … “Prenda Law – Pay us or don’t. We won’t sue you either way.”
    This is a sentence, that if properly publicized, will make the entire extortion scheme implode and collapse upon itself WITHOUT help from any court, lawyer, judge or jury. Their entire engine is driven by the fear of being sued – which incidentally, has nothing to do with guilt, as evidenced by the fact that a hefty percentage of people who receive threatening letters and calls have done nothing wrong.
    Without the fear of being sued, the Copyright Troll’s house of cards collapses, and leaves the witless architects homeless, broke and blaming anybody but themselves. You can’t strong-arm somebody into paying you if you have no arms.

    It’s all going down as we speak. Those who are solidly in the middle of it will be ruined. I’m looking at you, John Steele. Your name and face are as tightly tied to this fear and extortion scheme as Andrew Crossley’s in the UK. Ira Siegel, Ken Ford, Leslie Bennett, Keith Lipscomb – they’re all early adopters and fellow architects, but their faces aren’t as firmly imprinted onto it as yours. I sincerely hope your scheme has netted enough for you to make an early retirement, else you may find yourself in Miami with that cardboard sign saying “will gargle balls for food”.
    Though it would be nice to see each and every slimy lawyer who signs onto this “shaming for cash” scheme be tarnished from it, the new adopters who sign on as the feeding frenzy falls apart will probably slip quietly away.

  14. anon says:

    And even if a percentage of does ARE guilty that doesn’t mean that plaintifs can use what ammounts to extortion to make money off of them. The” ends justify the means” (or “in order to make an omelett….”) argument used by these trolls is disgusting.

    • I wholeheartedly agree. Although naturally I’m concerned about innocent victims of this scam above everything else, I think that those who indeed shared those damn movies don’t deserve this grossly disproportionate assault. One of the best comments (emotionally and factually) comes from the Rob Cashman’s blog. I would sign under each and every word:

      Bob Dobbs on December 23, 2011 at 5:01 am wrote:

      Just want to add one more note to make sure nobody here is unclear as to the context.

      You, John Steele, and your co-conspirators are filing suits demanding $150,000 in compensation for a single consumer-level act of copyright infringement. (A normal person understands that this is a violation on the order of double-parking.) This is under a law you know full well was 100% intended for commercial infringement, not consumer infringement.

      By interesting coincidence, the average life savings of the median American is approximately $150,000.

      So what you have been doing is mass demanding entire families’ life savings in compensation for the most minor copyright infringement imaginable.

      This of course is a prima facie monstrous position to take, and the fact that you have asserted this to be your lawful privilege against many thousands of people makes you a monster.

      And you are doing it totally blind, too. You know as well as we do that the evidence that you are using is totally insufficient to prove the assertions you make.

      We know why you don’t take these cases to court – every time a sane 3rd party (e.g. a judge, or a tech reporter) looks at what you are doing, they think you’re an ass of the lowest order. 70 year old grandma with an unsecured wi-fi is responsible for a 3rd party downloading a dirty movie? Seriously? “Transparent extortion scheme” is a phrase that comes to mind.

      Why you would expect anyone person would treat you with anything but total contempt and hostility, I can’t explain. You should be shunned by society and honest merchants should refuse to do business with you.

      Also, you’re a bit too clever for your own good. Because you are suing so many people, it is statistically certain that you have sued a great many emotionally unstable individuals with nothing left to lose.

      Sleep well, demon. May everyone in your life share your ethics.

  15. Donnicton says:

    As I recall, on Steele’s earlier motions for expedited discovery(I don’t know if he still presses this issue), he would rave about how it was absolutely necessary to obtain defendant information due to the time critical nature of the case, so that they could advance the trial while there’s still a possibility that the file data was still retained.

    Whelp, here we are over a year since many of his initial filings started, and the only thing he has advanced are more filings.

    Oh I am looking forward to how the defense uses this.

  16. For those who’s comments did not go through: I’m sorry that I did not clean up spam folder for 2 days (usually I do it at least daily): if you don’t see you comment immediately, shoot me an e-mail and I’ll fix it as soon as I can. I do not censor unless it is obvious spam or really gross trolling.

  17. that anonymous coward says:

    You mean this isn’t real and is all just about scaring people into paying?!
    color me so surprised!

    /sarcasm

  18. Anonymous says:

    I love this line on wefightpiracy.com under the “About Us” section.

    “We view our mission as a small part of the overall effort to preserve the creative arts for future generations.”

    Yes because it’s all about the children. I noticed that they took down the “Top 25 Pirates” section, oh well.

    • I also find it amusing that in their sidebar they link to 3 “Resources”, and one of them is Michael Geist’s Blog, who is clearly against copyright trolls. Seeing that, it’s not implausible that they would list “Fight Copyright Trolls” or “DieTrollDie” as well.

    • On2ndThought says:

      The top Pirate list is still there though the number has dropped to 17 from 25. I assume leaving the case list up is intended to try to shame people into settling and to prove to others that people do settle. However, I find it odd that they decided to no longer list cases with “settled” next to them. Best part about the page is how the first listed case(against Philip Williamson) is a case in which Prenda claims to have done a forensic search on a computer that uncovered evidence. And yet….no actual lawsuit. It truly seems as though Prenda’s policy is to try to scare people for as long as possible and then give up once they realize its targets can’t pay.

      • Doe X says:

        Does it say countersued next to Wong and Abrahams?? ;)

        Prenda’s biggest mistake was not leaving California when the tides turned. Gibbs could of easily helped write motions for their other cases around the country once it was obvious that the judges wereon to the scam. Instead they plowed ahead www and will most likely end up with sanctions from the courts and bankrupted by Yuen.

        • Raul says:

          The remarkable thing about all this storm and thunder is that Prenda is not a real litigation firm. In fact every indication is that they prey upon the weak and scared for easy settlements and then run like little children for the hills when a Doe tries to test their alleged “evidence”. These guys are pussies and do not let Mr. Steele’s ramblings fool you otherwise.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, hard to believe they didn’t pull out completely, or at least switch districts before getting cornered into making amazing blunders like admitting to the court that the subscriber and infringer may be different people or that their software doesn’t verify the file in question has actually been transferred, only that there was a connection between computers.

          Then the individual cases turned out to be a big mistake, 2 of 5 of HDP’s in CA have turned into countersuits, and it’s too early to assume there won’t be more, plus additional lawsuits and possibly class actions from Does who settled or even those who were dismissed but still pissed about it. Too funny, because we were constantly goading Steele about how he never actually followed through with suing anyone, and he was so proud of himself when he filed his first batch of “individual” (that turned out to be single-Doe) cases. So satisfying that he took the bait instead of playing it cool, we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for that.

          Now they are in the Eastern district and Gibbs is having trouble making it to discovery of subscriber info:

          http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/22/ca-judge-denies-gibbs-expedited-discovery-of-115-co-conspirator-does-211-cv-03478-geb-efb-first-time-videos-v-john-doe/

          There is some trolling activity now in the Southern and Central districts but it looks like CEG’s boys and not Prenda yet, and too early to tell how things will go. But between Gibbs and Ira Siegel, the disasters in the CAND will likely be remembered as the beginning of the end of the scam in America.

          It seems like the prudent thing for Prenda would have been to cut Gibbs out completely. He is probably a contractor anyway, so why jeopardize everything for the cases on his turf? Getting IPs is easy so there was seemingly no reason to carry on when they could make up the “loss” with additional Does in friendly territory. Unless of course settlement rates have been really bad and they really had to do something to get people scared. I don’t know why else they would have gone for the “individual” cases. It’s one thing to post on the forums and try to threaten and scare people, but to actually go through with it? What dumbasses. Steele is so full of himself that I can’t guess whether he decided to go after individuals because he had to or because he wanted to for his ego, but I would love to know.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Took a look at it today (4 Mar 12) and here is a screen shot. Of course there is a nice little disclaimer statement at the bottom of it. http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/prenda_list_4mar12.jpg

        DTD :)

        • Anonymous says:

          The thing is that those people on the list haven’t actually been named as defendants. They’re still a Doe as far as the court is concerned, so (I’m guessing) that there’s no order of protection in place in any of those cases otherwise Prenda would be in violation of said order. Now that I think about it, it isn’t that much of a stretch that Duffy, Gibbs, or Steele would do something as stupid as violate an order of protection. Prenda should list the two meritorious lawsuits that they’re defending against (but not very well) :)

        • Anonymous says:

          I can’t wait for Spero to weigh in on the fact that Prenda has used the courts as a extortion marketing tool for settlements. Looks Does!! We filed some individual cases, settle now! They only filed that first group of cases and have stalled since November and not filed others. Steele, Duffy, and Gibbs never intended to litigate these at all. This is digusting and blatant abuse of the courts and taxpayer money. I can’t wait to see what Yuen and the judges do to these clowns. I am not a hateful person but I hope these guys pay for the mental anguish they caused so many of us.

  19. Jesus says:

    I am aware of cases filed by shithead Steele way back in 2010 for works that had a “pending application for copyright registration”. Needless to say, those works never showed up on the Copyright Office’s list. Plus Steele’s evidence is worthless since Hansmeier, the guy who “personally” observes the people allegedly downloading the works, is financially interested in the outcome of the cases aka the success of the extortion scheme. When can we expect class action lawsuits against Steele / Hansmeier, and the other culprits, for fraud and extortion?

  20. Raul says:

    Meanwhile, in NJ, troll Samantha Lutzer made a go at “suing” individual Does and Judge Patty Schwatrz essentially told the troll to put up or shut up and guess what the troll did? http://ia700805.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.njd.262229/gov.uscourts.njd.262229.46.0.pdf

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for the Update and good news, hard trying to read what is happening on RFC.

      Keep up the great work everyone !!!!!

  21. [...] isn’t so.  Don’t believe me???  Take it straight from the mouth of the Troll – http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/03/01/prenda-law-makes-the-classified-number-of-actually-served…  That number of named/served defendants is ZERO. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailDiggLike [...]

  22. Anonymous says:

    And, despite this recent revelation… per rfcexpress, Duffy remains busy in Illinois, and even brings in a new plaintiff. Makes one wonder, did they hold off on filing these just so they would not show up on doc 43? Does Prenda think no one is watching?

    3/2/2012 – Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-75 1:12-cv-01546 (NDIL) Paul A. Duffy of Prenda Law
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/91113/sunlust-pictures-llc-v-does-1-75/summary/

    3/2/2012 – Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. Does 1-25 1:12-cv-01535 (NDIL) Paul A. Duffy – Attorney at Law
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/91095/pacific-century-international-ltd-v-does-1-25/summary/

    3/2/2012 – Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-54 1:12-cv-01532 (NDIL) Paul A. Duffy – Attorney at Law
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/91094/hard-drive-productions-inc-v-does-1-54/summary/

    3/2/2012 – First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-44 1:12-cv-01530 (NDIL) (probably Duffy?)
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/91085/first-time-videos-llc-v-does-1-44/summary/

    3/1/2012 – CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-38 1:12-cv-01505 (NDIL) Paul A. Duffy – Attorney at Law
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/91043/cp-productions-inc-v-does-1-38/summary/

    • anonymous says:

      It’s only a matter of time before Duffy and Pretenda are laughed out of ILND, as Steele was.

      • CTVic says:

        Their train’s going over a cliff whether they jump off now or at the last minute. Their job is to get as much cash off the train as possible before they jump.

    • Button says:

      So are yall saying this is just a scam…that prenda law is not legit?

      • Depends on the definition of “legit”. Law is not algebra or geometry, and there is a gray area where some actions, while being technically legal based on a particular law, violate the very purpose of that particular law. And the common law is supposed to be a self-healing organism that patches those areas outlawing abuses.

        Prenda does not violate most of the laws, they abuse those laws. Well, actually they violate a lot, but it is usually very difficult, hence impractical, to prove. For example, they lie on the record and off the record a lot. Also, they balance on the verge of criminal blackmail behavior. So far they manage to stay clear of the law enforcement, but it may change another day.

        Ethics is another important dimension. Clearly trolls are far from the border between good and evil, yet it is not a law’s domain. It’s up to their peers, lawyers, to reject these methods, and Britain sent a clear message to their local trolls by disciplining Andrew Crossley and others. US Bar associations have been reluctant to open their eyes and get rid of those who poison the reputation of the legal profession, and I don’t have clear understanding why.

  23. Raul says:

    They have created a beast that needs to be fed but it seems that this beast will turn and feed on them-soon.

  24. Starry Eyed Surprise says:

    You should check out Mr. Duffy’s whining in the DC court: Mr. Gibbs (Prenda Troll West Coast) admits to not naming anybody to the court. ISPs in DC have refused to provide any more names based on this fact. Yet Duffy is complaining that they do name and serve… Who is committing perjury with regards to these facts? Perhaps Daddy Prenda will chime in.

    • Anonymous says:

      Do you have the case number and Archive link for his DC whining?

      If they have cases where they have named and served then their custodian of records was lying with his filing under penalty of perjury in CA, unless they served someone in the last week. They had amended one complaint in CA to name a defendant but still didn’t serve, last update Gibbs was trying to execute a waiver of service, doing everything they can to avoid actually executing a summons:

      http://dietrolldie.com/2011/12/14/named-defendant-in-prenda-law-inc-boy-racer-inc-case-211-cv-03072-mce-kjn-eastern-district-of-ca-ammended-complaint/

      Probably a good time to look for updates on this case, maybe I’ll do it later.

      Their custodian of records already perjured himself in that CA filing, as they left out some of their John Doe … and co-conspirator cases in the Eastern District of CA which are the same old template with a different name, mass joinder, long list of IP’s etc.

      • Anonymous says:

        http://ia700801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.docket.html

        Defendant filed an answer pro se. Very perfunctory, looks like he admits the parts of the complaints that are factually correct (i.e., the boilerplate crap about how BitTorrent works) but denies knowledge of infringing activity. But the answer is so brief you have to compare the complaint and answer line by line to work it out.

        Seems foolish to go this far pro se, but it looks like he’s committed to playing chicken with Gibbs. Since actually litigating a case is exactly what Prenda doesn’t want it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, especially with the recent countersuits, maybe this guy should give Yuen a call, although he should have done that before filing the answer.

        One thing I just realized is Prenda may have an out on a technicality regarding their claims in DC that they name and serve defendants. This filing in California was to satisfy an order that specifically asked how many defendants had been named and served in their mass-joinder cases. Since the “individual” cases were filed against Does that had been dismissed from mass-joinder cases, and were actually new cases with only one defendant (so not falling under mass-Doe/joinder category), Duffy can claim that they have named and served people if they have done so in “individual” cases even if they haven’t named and served a Doe specifically in one of the mass-Doe suits.

        • Raul says:

          It also looks like this Doe allowed Prenda to conduct a forensic examination of his computer in an effort to exonerate himself. Foolish; as a troll will use ANYTHING they can scrounge up against you (thanks DTD, http://dietrolldie.com/2012/03/09/i-like-cake-or-copyright-trolls-cant-cook/ ). Nonetheless, the federal judges are slamming Prenda harder than a hooker at a Shriner convention lately, so I hope this Doe stands firm and he should prevail in the end.

        • DieTrollDie says:

          Raul. Updated information I have is that MAC computer Prenda had examined was previously Mr. Williamson’s – used during the period of infringement. He did not give them consent – they obtained consent from the current owner of the MAC computer. This is the person who was the initial Doe in this case – was the registered public IP owner at the time. I’m sure Prenda put the screws to the roommate to get consent to examine the MAC computer. I bet they told the roommate he was responsible and they would take him for everything unless he helped out. As I still never saw anything from Prenda on the results of the Forensic exam, I doubt they found anything more than they put in the amended complaint. Yes, this Doe should have gotten a lawyer sooner.

          By comparing the amended complaint and the answer to the complaint, it appears Mr. Williamson is admitting downloading/sharing the movie in question via BitTorrent. See his response to Paragraph 24. – “Admits all allegations…..” He also admits to various aspects in the Copyright Infringement section of the complaint.
          Answerhttp://ia600801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.9.0.pdf Amended Complainthttp://ia600801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.7.0.pdf

          I would love some of our lawyer friends to comment on this if possible. It appears that some sort of agreement might have been reached between Prenda and Mr. Willaimson. Just looking at this response – something doesn’t look right. If he wants to admit he did it, why not just settle with Prenda? Why respond to the complaint with an admission? What do you think?

          I hope Mr. Willaimson doesn’t take it in the shorts too bad. especially for downloading/sharing a movie from a $20 a month subscription site.

          As far as what I have said all along – the Trolls have @#$! for evidence UNLESS you tell them something incriminating or like this poor guy, someone else throws you under the bus. (http://dietrolldie.com/2012/03/09/i-like-cake-or-copyright-trolls-cant-cook/)

          I may have to change the following picture to read, “0.001%”.
          http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pshirt11.jpg

          DTD :)

        • Pure Adrenaline says:

          DC Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH. AF Holdings v Does 1-1058. Comcast answered the court with a refusal to execute the request in the subpoena. Stating undue burden and lack of jurisdiction, in addition to the lack of defendants actually being named. (Very loose summary)

          Duffy replied with a couple of apparent lies that have caught him and his buddies and other jurisdictions: We don’t know how to do a IP-Geolocation search and can’t tell if the jurisdiction is proper until we have the name and address of the alleged extorted.

          Oh, and we name Does. There was John Doe and John Doe and Jane Doe… Oh have you checked out our top 10 list… (or whatever it is today.)

  25. Raul says:

    If the the past is any predictor of the future I hope Duffy has purchased a gallon of lube; as he will need it for the inevitable reaming.

  26. Raul says:

    DTD-Ooh boy did our Doe boy self screw himself. Crap! I will try to get to a legal breakdown of this case (opinion only) by Sunday because this dude needs some help in serious way. Everyone else, please weigh in as we are all in this morass together.

  27. Raul says:

    As an initial matter paragraph 21 of the complaint reads:

    Plaintiff has applied for and received a certificate of copyright registration for the
    video POV−Punx from the United States Copyright Office (Reg. No. #PA0001739402)

    Yet I could not locate either the title or the registration number at the U.S. Copyright Office’s website!? http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

  28. NewVictim says:

    This is great news obviously but what does it mean to the current set of cases Prenda is filing in FL? Does it mean that even if they get your contact information that they have no intention of actually taking it through to trial? That they just want your info so they can scare you into settling?

    • Anonymous says:

      In a word, yes. They have ZERO intention of litigating. Which is why I just sat back, let the Lutz calls go to voicemail, ignored those assholes, and ended up being dismissed without paying a dime. Lutz will call you, threaten you with legal action, tell you that they “have more attorneys,” etc. That usually means they’re on a deadline with the judge and are a couple days from dismissing the case. At least, that’s what happened to me. Now Lutz is still calling after I’ve been dismissed and I have a threat letter dated more than a week post-dismissal.

  29. Raul says:

    Analysis is as follows for Boy Racer v. Philip W.: unless Prenda has made up a copyright registration which seems possible as I could not locate a copyright registration for “POV-Punx” on the internet site for the U.S. Copyright Office using the tile and, when that did not work, the alleged copyright registration (Reg. No. #PA0001739402), it is time for Mr. W. to meet with a bankruptcy attorney.

    The forgoing does not constitute legal advice but is posted for discussion purposes only.

  30. Raul says:

    Crap! I stand corrected. Thanks.

  31. Raul says:

    What is interesting is that if you look at some of these porn producers copyright records you will find that some of them neglected to file copyrights for a majority of their works until last year. So I suspect that they and their trolls are calculating the cost/benefit analysis for 2011 and, if in the black, they are going to unleash a second wave of these lawsuits which will be much more massive in scale and further jam up our federal judiciary.

  32. Somebody says:

    EFF just stepped in in defense of the ISPs and Does for the AF Holdings case in DC. Duffy responded much the same way he has in the past. Prenda just dismissed an AF Holdings case because they don’t want to burden the court… now they do? I don’t get there… stupid? Further more a does lawyer is playing chicken with Mr. Meier’s in his Third Degree Films DC Case (Oct’11). Just demanded the trial… This should be interesting.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Great news for the remaining 19 Does in 5:11-cv-03336 in NorCal (AFH v. Does 1-135). Judge Lucy Koh has issued an order dismissing the case for failure to serve pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 4(M).

    http://ia600707.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.242877/gov.uscourts.cand.242877.docket.html

  34. Anonymous says:

    By the way, case 11-cv-03478 (caed) was *NOT* disclosed on Gibb’s famous doc 43 admission in AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-135, Case No. 11-cv-03336 (cand) that Prenda & it’s predecessors have not served a single defendant.

    http://ia600707.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.242877/gov.uscourts.cand.242877.43.1.pdf

    “First Time Videos, LLC, v. John Doe (+115 Co-conspirators)” is the SAME thing as “involving multiple joined John Doe Defendants.”

    This is not a technicality. Hey trolls, how long until a judge decides you lied to the court?

  35. Raul says:

    When the Judge commanded Gibbs to release the names of the Does that were actually served for Bit Torrent copyright infringement in federal courts, she probably could not have conceived that Prenda would be suing Does in state courts regarding federal statutes (Copyright Act and CFAA) because the federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction (never mind that the judges who should know better are playing ball). I wonder what a federal judge would do to an attorney if she were to learn about the FL pure bill of discovery suits regarding copyright infringement and the FL/Il CFAA suits?

  36. Raul says:

    It would be the state judges who are playing ball in the above post

  37. [...] Prenda Law makes the classified number of actually served defendants public [...]

  38. Thought everyone might like this little gem that just came out yesterday:

    IN THE CIRCUIT COUNTY
    FILED ST. CLAIR COUNTY
    TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS

    APR 12 2012

    ORDER
    Case called for hearing on pending motions to quash subpoenas: parties present through counsel, arguments heard IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
    1) All pending motions to quash subpoenas filed by the ISPs are Denied.
    2) All ISPs shall comply with plaintiffs outstanding subpoenas (consistent with the court’s order entered 12/16/11) as follows: ISPs shall issue any required statutory notice of this order to their subscribers and shall produce all client subscriber identifying information (including but not limited to name and address) on or before 6/12/12. (By agreement of plaintiff and Comcast, Comcast to produce 80% of its compliance on or before said date with final compliance to be completed by 6/26/12.)
    3) The 18Ps shall provide the following notice in substantially the following form to their subscribers:
    “we have been ordered to provide your identifying information to Prenda Law pursuant to a court order dated April 12,2012 in the case Lightspeed Media Corp. vs. John Doe, case number l1-L-683 in 81. Clair County, Illinois. The court has ordered that any motions filed relating to this order will be heard on July 20, 2012 at 10:00am. No other dates will be set to hear any motions relating to compliance with outstanding subpoenas. All Non-Attorneys are prohibited from directly contacting the court in any manner other than in writing.”
    4) In the event one or more ISP subscribers file a motion of any kind relating to the release of their private information, that ISP shall delay production with respect to the moving subscribers only and shall not delay the release of the information of any other subscribers.
    5) All pleadings objecting to the release of information must list the IP address associated with the person objecting. The ISP that has the subscribers information shall preserve all information until the court rules on the objecting motion.

    Let me summarize it for those of you who are not used to using more than one brain cell, or one hand, at a time: The Master Troll came out from under his bridge and taught Comcast, Verizon, ATT, BellSouth, WayPort, Qwest, Cox, CenturyTel, Embarq some law! (After typing all those ISP names, I know what your right hands must feel like!). So for the 6500 pirates (that number is not a typo) in this case who were gloating that your ISP’s were protecting your crimes, get ready. There are some eager people that have been waiting for this day for some time. I know what your thinking, most of the crap written on this site is not true, how do I know this is accurate? Here is how you can tell. In the next ten days, a little bird has told me that the first 100 individual cases against NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#. If you see your name in lights (or the names of 100 of your pirating buddies), maybe, just maybe, they are really are coming after you thieving criminals.

    PS. I am so glad Prenda is getting to the point where they are going to start wholesale naming people. Its tiring to hear people say that they will never do that. WE WILL ALL SEE . . .

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Big deal John. Talk Talk Talk. Zero Zero Zero. We have all dealt with the various courts eventually releasing subscriber information, especially in the jurisdictions friendly to you. Funny how you can claim the 6500 pirates are not a typo, but your firm can’t get the correct number of cases you have filed and NEVER served a single defendant into a court document in CA. Wow, you are going to name people and put them on your Web site. Please, go ahead and make it easier for the people who actually file counterclaims against your Plaintiff. Can’t wait to see how your two CA cases turn out. Bottom line Master Troll - your evidence (public IP address) is weak and you know it. You will no doubt get some people to settle, that is the nature of this game. Be warned as you try to be more forceful, more lawyer on the other side will see a chance to take your Plaintiff for everything they have. Can’t wait to see your technical experts get tore up.
      DTD :)

    • Anonymous says:

      10 days and counting! Or are you busy saving your buddie’s ass in DC?

      FUD! FUD! FUD!

      • Anonymous says:

        And busy writing a response for Wong v. HDP.

        I’m looking forward to that. Yuen covered a lot of ground, it must be taking a lot of time for Buffy and Gibbs to make up an excuse for each allegation.

        • Raul says:

          Yes, HDP’s answer will be quite interesting because Yuen has the documentation to support almost all his allegations. How Buffy and Gibbs are going to dance around that without incurring Rule 11 sanctions will be entertaining to say the least.

      • Anonymous says:

        I like how this idiot pretends like naming a defendant in a lawsuit is some unprecedented step. The vast majority of lawsuits since the beginning of history have been against a named defendant, that is perfectly routine. The fact that he makes it out to be the orgasmic culmination of a year of buildup just goes to show what an amateur he is.

        And his clients are tort victims, not crime victims. Did he really go to law school?

    • Jdoe says:

      Hi, I have a question for you. I was served with this letter but have never downloaded any adult materials. I am not a torrent user either and did not ever use a password to an adult website. I cannot however afford a lawyer to defend myself against these allegations. Can you please elaborate on what your comment implies regarding those of us who have received this subpoena?

      • Oz@msn.com says:

        There are many different posts. Steele/Prenda has harassed tens of thousands in many jurisdictions. Are you referring to the Lightspeed Media Corp case(s) in St. Clair County, Illinois ?

        If so, may be better to post the question under this discussion:

        http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/lightspeed-password-hacking-cases/

        The alleged password hacking cases are even more flimsy than the alleged torrent cases. Read further on that topic and consider posting under that discussion.

        Naturally, avoid speaking to the trolls.

  39. [...] against peer-to-peer users who allegedly share copyrighted pornography movies. This outfit has no desire to progress their cases to the actual litigation. Misleading courts around the country, crooks obtained tens of thousands names of suspected [...]

  40. Anonymous says:

    Unbelievable. Lutz is still calling w/ the same script as last time threatening to move forward with filing against individuals soon. This case was dismissed for all Does on 3/28. Has any other Does been receiving these post dismissal call too? Does anyone know if there is any recourse available since this is essentially harassment? I guess Prenda isn’t learning from getting knocked around by the current countersuits in CA.

  41. AnotherJDoe says:

    Stupid Question: If someone gains remote access to my network, aren’t all bets off? I mean, can’t they browse, download, etc. etc. if they’re remotely connected? Doesn’t this make any attempt at associating any traffic through an IP address with it’s owner highly tenuous?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It depends on how your network and systems are set up and configured. BUT – The Troll doesn’t care what your excuse is, no matter how valid it is. If they let one person off the hook, then it starts an avalanche of people claiming the same. AND until it goes into the discovery phase, it isn’t going to matter. Go ahead and tell the Troll that someone hacked your network/Internet connection. They will likely say, “Prove It,” and it doesn’t matter because your were negligent in your control of the network/Internet access. The use of the public IP address is tenous for all these cases.

      DTD :)

  42. [...] impeding.” Every Doe is eventually threatened with a personally tailored lawsuit. Less than 0.01% of these threats are fulfilled (with fanfares of [...]

  43. [...] Given the history of Prenda Law (as well as any other troll), out of 300,000 targets, not a single person was found [...]

  44. Mike says:

    I just got one of these subpoenas in illinois… it is from pacific century Internationale…. do i have to worry? I am not sure what I am supposed to do….

  45. I just could not go away your website prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the usual info a person provide for your guests? Is gonna be again often in order to inspect new posts

  46. [...] eventually people caught on that JOHN STEELE WAS NOT “NAMING” ANYONE AS A DEFENDANT, and no doubt his cases lost any credibility the might have had. Even judges started calling his [...]

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