By Raul
Disclaimer: This post in a way constitutes legal advice but is being submitted for discussion purposes only.

Since my last post regarding this matter, Does have been receiving letters from their ISPs and have been raising questions and concerns, which this post will try to address. Please keep in mind: a lot of this is based upon pure speculation and certain assumptions, which may prove to be incorrect, so be forewarned.

Before I start, I want to remind the rule #1: never talk to the troll! You may want to consider the “Richard Pryor Response” advocated by DieTrollsDie, but do it only if you clearly understand the perils, and exercise the utmost caution.

Q. I just received a letter form my ISP. What should I do?

This is a difficult question to answer because it depends upon your particular circumstances. As it will be discussed below, the odds that you will be named and sued in a state court are slim. I do not think that Does’ pro se motions to quash the subpoenas are working at the state level in these lawsuits. Please let us know if I am wrong. So if you are strapped for cash, can withstand some harassing letters, emails and, possibly, some phone calls, just sit tight. On the other hand, if you can afford to retain counsel who can file a motion to prevent or delay the release of your personal identifying information, do so. An attorney by the name of Celestine Dotson, whose number is (315) 454-6544, has appeared on behalf of at least one Doe in St. Clair, I don’t know anything about her, but I hope she is competent enough to make a difference, we’ll see. Likewise, the Electronic Frontier Foundation maintains a list of attorneys offering assistance with these kinds of lawsuits.

Q. What are the chances that I will be named in a lawsuit and served with a summons and complaint?

Very slim indeed. LMC’s Steve Jones has indicated that they have identified 6,500 Does as targets. Obviously, they are not going to sue that many individuals. However, a commenter (presumably John Steele) over at dietrolldie.com has boasted that he recently spent $4,000 on process servers (the people that hand you the summons and complaint). I find it remarkable that none of these served individuals have shown up at this blog or at dietrolldie.com yet. Nonetheless, assuming that figure is true, it means that Prenda has (or plans) to name and serve approximately, at the most, 65 Does or 1%, merely to help spread FUD. Consequently, your chances of being named and served hover at or below 1%. Prenda has associations or affiliations with trolls in FL, IN, VA, DC, TX, and CA. So your risk is slightly increased if you reside in those locales.

Q. In the unlikely event that I do get named and served, how will it play out?

In answering this question I am relying on the assumption that Prenda knows its Lightspeed complaint is largely garbage that will not withstand a careful judicial review, so it will drop those lawsuits in which such a review will occur. As I commented earlier, I think the rough parameters of Prenda’s Master Plan are:

  1. Get Doe info out of both St. Clair and Miami-Dade cases.
  2. Send extortion letters to the 6500 Does.
  3. Name and serve a very small percentage (at the most 1%) of Does in those state courts where Prenda has attorneys to spread FUD.
  4. If a named and served Doe retains an attorney and will not settle, Prenda will drop the lawsuit either before or at the time the Doe’s attorney interposes an answer or motion to dismiss.
  5. If a Doe does not retain an attorney, does not settle and does not put in a pro se answer or motion to dismiss, Prenda will wait 30 days and move for default. Get the default and shout it from the rooftop to spread more FUD. Prenda will have a hard time getting a sizable default judgment because Lightspeed’s damages are small ($40 ballpark plus court costs which would be less than $400 IMHO for a total default judgment).

Q. What is the Statute of Limitations for these various claims?

  • 2 years for the CFAA claim.
  • 1-4 years for the conversion and unjust enrichment claims; depending on the state, with most being either 1 or 2 years.
  • Civil conspiracy is a damages theory that needs to be tied to a wrongful act and the Statute of Limitations controls that wrongful act. In this case the theory dovetails with the conversion claim and the unjust enrichment claim, so the Statute of Limitations would be in the 1-4 year range.
  • 2-6 years for the breach of contract; depending on the state where the suit is filed.
  • The Statute of Limitations is working against Lightspeed and Prenda. This is because in the same ynot.com post Steve Jones indicated that he started compiling the list of alleged hackers back in December of 2010, and for those Does the Statute of Limitations began ticking away as it would for subsequent Does, once their IP address was discovered. So, say, you live in a state where the Statue of Limitations is 2 years for all the claims being asserted in Lightspeed’s complaint, and he discovered your IP address on December 10, 2010, which means that Lightspeed’s complaint against you will be time barred by the Statute of Limitations on December 11, 2012. With 6,500 Does to harass and threaten you can easily see how this becomes problematic as the trolls race the calendar.

    Q. Why do you think the breach of contract claim is especially moronic?

    For several reasons, but the main one is that the complaint alleges that unlawful hackers violated the membership agreements of its websites. The complaint can’t have it both ways: either the Doe is a unlawful hacker or the Doe is a member who breached the membership agreement, but the Doe cannot be both.

    Best of luck to all the Johns and Janes out there!


    ¹Pay attention to the address where deposition is set to take place: this is the official Prenda Law headquarters (a.k.a Troll Central).

    About these ads
    Comments
    1. NHDoe says:

      Excellent summing up of the matter at this juncture! Celestine Dotson indicated to me via email that she is working with “many” of the Does on this matter. I hope to speak with her ASAP, and I’ll post any information here that I think might be helpful.

      • Raul says:

        I think Ms Dotson is being a little short sighted (greedy?). To charge $1,000 for a MTQ and get at most 10 Does as opposed to charging $500 and get at least 1000 or more Does for the same work, more or less? Then there is the public relation angle….took a gamble on an unknown. Sorry Does.

        • Anonymous2 says:

          I have no specific information about Ms. Dotson. In this situation, she may deserve the benefit of the doubt or more. Is the $1000 fee a retainer, for which unused funds are returned to the client ? She may base her fee estimate on filing a motion to quash and further representation for an individual. It could be that she only expected to represent one or two Does and determined fees that way.

          Though I hope she is experienced good troll fighter, she may be spending much time getting background on this case. The password accusation twist in this scam and this irregular jurisdiction may be a lot of work even for a seasoned troll repeller.

          • Ron Mexico says:

            I hired Ms. Dotson, the $1000 was a retainer per the contract I signed. MTQ filing fee was in the neighborhood of $130.

            If you think that $1k was high, I was quoted muuuuuch higher fees from local attorneys, like $4k-$5k to do the same work. I guess it all depends on your perspective.

      • Sword of Damocles says:

        A slightly sideways query…

        It’s been rumored in the national and local press that certain Phoenix pornographers have not been not overly careful about age-checking the “women” who contribute their likenesses to the production of the pornographers’ “intellectual property.”

        What if federal agents were to go to these pornographers’ places of business (their homes as the cases may be) and, after careful forensic examination of the items in their archives, discovered fudged driver licenses and other indications that certain laws dealing with the proper treatment of children are not obeyed equally everywhere, including in Phoenix, Arizona?

        Phoenix is an interesting case in point. There the sheriff is under federal investigation for racist, criminal applications of the law that allegedly constitute violations of basic Constitutional and civil rights. Are these distractions manufactured to permit problematic business practices to continue unnoticed or at least, not investigated? Are the wrongdoings alleged to be taking place in Phoenix involving underage individuals part of a larger conspiracy to protect these illegal types of business activities. Most observers wouldn’t put it past the Phoenix sheriff’s warped sense of fair play.

        Which begs the question, what is Prenda’s or a similar law firm’s liability if it defends the money-making practices of a suspected or known child pornographer? Would claims of ignorance, that they didn’t know they was abetting child pornography, get them off the hook?

        • Raul says:

          If the 18 USC 2257 records are shaky or fraudulent then this lawsuit self-destructs and the class action counter lawsuit begins.

        • UhOh says:

          It would be quite entertaining if “certain” Phoenix skin flick makers got fingered for using underaged girls. It would be an easy thing to prove seeing the dates of filming are fairly well known. Just have to cross ref ages. The problem is Phoenix….It is as corrupt as Chicago. The rumors would have to make their way to the federal level and would need to be more than just rumors.If he did do dat, then he has a lot to worry about, a lot indeed.

    2. jager says:

      is she trying to throw the whole case out because i read in earlier posts that she was trying to get it completely dismissed. NHdoe dude let us know what else she is up to,

    3. jager says:

      Raul thanks man for posting another article…I think it was needed for the new people just receiving their letters. It really helped me out at first and i know there are more of us out there.

    4. Ron Mexico says:

      Have the Does been calling Ms. Dotson or emailing her? Can we still get in contact with her?

      • Ron Mexico says:

        I’m joining the ranks of those lawyer-ing up and hiring Celeste Dotson

        • jager says:

          i contacted her but have not heard a reply back…but any new info Ron

          • Raul says:

            NHDoe got a hold of her today and he reported back. I do not want to speak for him so search for his comment or maybe he will post it again.

    5. Anonymous says:

      can you add in a section explaining that the letter from your isp does not mean that your info will be publicly tied to the case and that this only occurs when and iff you are specifically served, it seems that many of the recent does seem very confused about the subpoena process. and therefore fear that the term “your info will be released” will automatically put their name into the public record of the case, thus adding greatly to the FUD.

      • Anonymous says:

        I was wondering that myself.

      • NHDoe says:

        I understand all this now, but I can’t help wondering — if the ISP releases my information, is there anything preventing the trolls from posting my name online as part of their extortion scheme? Have they done anything like that in the past?

        • Doe says:

          If I saw my name posted on a website for something they hadn’t yet proven that would be the point I got a lawyer. A “cease and desist” letter probably wouldn’t cost that much. I believe that’s the reason Prenda put up thier “disclaimer” that no one had been proven guilty of anything, and it’s still the basis for more than one counter-suit they’re involved in–something I would consider myself if they posted my name. Certainly I’d threaten it.

        • CTVic says:

          They can always name you. They could serve you. They could put your name on a billboard next to “Charlie’s Fifteen Gay Slutholes”. There’s all kinds of stuff they can do, and not all of it is legal. Ask yourself: do they care? They want to scare and humiliate you into a settlement. Period. If you can’t afford legal representation, how are you going to be able to counter-sue them for defamation? If they call your wife at work, are you going to notify the Better Business Bureau?

          If you’re that concerned about your good name, lawyer up. If you care about your privacy, lawyer up. If you want to drop trow, bend over and let them plow your pooper while you waste your hard-earned dollars on a settlement … lawyer up!

          If you don’t care about your name taking top billing with “Horny Teen Love Honeys from Mars”, then put on some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the ride! We’re in year 3 of Copyright Trolling Express, and not a single case has been argued to judge or jury. The trollawyers are still talking a big game, but when push comes to shove, they’re just bullies shaking sticks at people.

    6. Anonymous says:

      A couple of questions… do we know if the 6500 is the total number across all Lightspeed suits? Any idea of the breakdown of number of Does between the IL and FL cases?

      Also, if they are boasting that Steele(?) spent $4000 on process servers, how many cases does that really mean he’s filing? I’m assuming that hiring someone to serve a summons isn’t cheap so are we only talking a couple of new cases here?

      • Anonymous2 says:

        I’ll take the easy part. In Steele’s boast, how far does $4000 go ?

        This web site gives a range of prices, $35 to $100:
        http://www.serve-now.com/resources/faqs#q06

        I’d guess that Steele’s servers are mainly in large cities with higher prices. Going on, Steele would like to have extras for a single process server case, like going back repeatedly when there is no answer. The low end average fee to serve would be at least $50, maybe much more.

        The figure Steele uses represents at most 80 Does, maybe much less. Out of tens of thousands of Steele/Prenda harassed Does. That’s only if Steele is truthfully reporting. His track record of fair representation is questionable.

        • Raul says:

          I arrived at the 1% or 65 Does by making an educated guess that $65.00 is the low end of what it would cost to effectuate service of process where Prenda has a presence. In fact it is probable that it will cost Prenda $75-$100 per Doe (more if the Doe is adept at avoidance) to serve but I wanted to err on the side of caution. The point remains the same, if my assumptions are correct, there is a 1% or less chance that you will be named and served in this particular scam.

          Hello Pirate Hunter!
          Guess what my next post will be about the moment I confirm that just one Lightspeed Doe has been served? That’s right, the different methods of service of process and their ramifications in a troll lawsuit. You know: personal service, nail & mail, sewer service, money judgments and all that mumbo jumbo which most Does need to be (and will be) informed about. After all, knowledge is power. BTW, I hope that you appreciate the fact that I broke the Judge Gary Brown ORR to you first over at DTD because I so enjoy the FUD. Pretty cool that Judge Brown’s ORR has significantly raised the visibility of this blog just when you are launching your summer blitzkrieg.
          In closing, I hope that you have been following recent developments in Maryland. How close is DC to MD? Too bad while you were allegedly kicking ISP ass in DC you could not get over to MD to assist your fellow trolls who just got smoked for the troll behavior you made notorious.

          • Anonymous says:

            Can you please elaborate on what recent developments in MD you are referring to? I am a doe in MD. Thanks

          • Anon says:

            Can you please elaborate on what recent developments in MD you are referring to? I am a doe in MD. Thanks

          • Raul says:

            I’m so sorry I missed your questions awhile back. In MD the judges are severing all Does from troll lawsuits with the exception of Doe 1 and it looks like they are doing this across the board. Check out some of my comments under the Discussions>States>Maryland regarding this activity.

      • Anon says:

        I was wondering the same thing. Remember, there are actually three lightspeed suits with the first one being from November of 2011 in St. Clair.

    7. that anonymous coward says:

      Something else potential Does need to keep in mind…
      Speaking to the troll or associates is ALWAYS a bad idea.
      You might be of the mind that you can just explain yourself, you know you didn’t do this and if you can just tell them they will go about their way.
      Except this isn’t the case.
      As was illustrated in the NY ruling a Doe approached a “Negotiator” (read extortionist) to offer up proof they were at work not home, their computer to be checked, and was willing to bend over backwards to provide proof that they were innocent. The “Negotiator” didn’t care about that at all, they just wanted to know when they were going to get a check to make them go away.

      This is not proving guilt or innocence, this is about getting money from people guilty or not by threatening to cost them more money in court. They know a majority of the people they target are completely unaware of or innocent of the allegations, but its easier to get them to pay than to seek the actual infringers.

      • Raul says:

        Stupid me, maybe SJD will catch this and insert the warning into the post about not speaking to the troll under any circumstance. 6500 Does is a lot of calls though.

        • that anonymous coward says:

          First round is always letters…
          The ones who respond and try to explain get moved to the top of the pile. They are close and just need a little shove.
          The ones who say I did it and you can’t prove it are the very top of the file because they just willingly handed them an admission of guilt.
          The ones who say maybe it was my roommate or a guest get the letter telling them they are responsible for not securing the connection and knowing what others they granted access to were doing.

          There is, I am sure, a fascinating chart that separates the does into handy boxes to be sent the next letter in the series based on response or lack there of.

      • Doe says:

        I would add, though, that the judge in the New York case used an example of a doe being willing to have his computer inspected as another reason to dismiss it–that was part of his evidence that they weren’t actually trying to litigate anything. I admit reading that in the judge’s decision made me question whether it might not be a bad move to offer to have my computer inspected (on their dime, of course, and at my home where I can have someone of my choosing watch what they are doing). It’s an extreme bluff to be sure, but the more you can show a judge you were willing to prove your innocence and that they weren’t willing to listen the better it seems to look for you.

        • Raul says:

          I seem to recall that a Doe tired that with Prenda and it did not turn out well.

          • When? The only case I remember when a guy’s roommate sold him: the guy sold his laptop full of smut to his roommate who gave it to Gibbs without slightest hesitation. Fortunately for her it wasn’t Randazza, that vulture would for sure rob both.

          • Raul says:

            That is probably the one I was thinking about with a remote forensic examination? If so, I withdraw the comment . Sorry.

        • CTVic says:

          I doubt any trollawyer, or one of their hired hasslers would ever take you up on that. Don’t read too much into that statement about how the Doe offered his hardware to the war-dialer/settlement pusher that was threatening him that day.

          It is NEVER a good idea to speak to the trolls. If anything, they’re adaptable. They’ve seen the same report that we’ve all seen, and it wouldn’t take much for them to propose some unacceptable procedure for scanning your hardware, get your voice on tape declining the offer, then twisting it to make it look as if you have something to hide. I’m sure they’d find some way to turn it around and sweat you even harder for a settlement.

          If you’re really that concerned about preserving evidence, or demonstrating that you’re prepared to prove your innocence, have a computer forensics expert flash your hard drive. Don’t do a full analysis unless you’ve got thousands of dollars to toss around. Full analysis takes a lot of time and can cost thousands of dollars. Flashing an image of your drive shouldn’t take more than an hour of labor, and you’ll have a preserved copy of your drives that can be analyzed at a later date if shit gets real.

          A receipt for making a forensic copy of your HDD should count quite a bit to any judge or trollawyer that you’ve done your due diligence and you’re ready to play hardball.

        • juancarlosdeburbon says:

          You don’t want to do that.

          I work with computers a lot and help friends/family regularly. I decided to take a hard drive that was what I presumed empty and ran a recovery utility on it. Not only did I find some of my old data on it, but I also found thousands of additional files from a half dozen people who I helped migrate their data from one computer to the next.

          With a $50 piece of software you too can scour a 2TB drive in about 48 hours and recover some amazing stuff. I was completely blown away with what I found and somewhat worried because if Uncle Bob was a torrenting porno freak, I could be liable for his deleted data on my external hard drive even though I didn’t know about it. It doesn’t cost them $1000s of dollars, and you are handing them evidence you my not be aware of. They could take the unique ID generated by your torrenting software and use that as evidence. Remember, it’s civil not criminal and they don’t have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is much lower.

          Needless to say I am running a 3-pass 0-out erase on the drive right now. Should be finished in another 18 hours.

          Like everyone is recommending, lawyer up. In ANY legal situation ALWAYS lawyer up. Yes, it costs money but all the crap will come to an abrupt halt. Troll lawyers are afraid of other lawyers.

          I am a doe, and I lawyered up.

          • CTVic says:

            Thanks Juancarlosdeburon! An excellent piece of information, that isn’t talked about nearly as much as it should be: second-hand equipment *can* have incriminating evidence plastered all over it, even IF you have been playing entirely by the rules and keeping your nose clean! A hard drive holds data for a *long* time, and is incredibly difficult to wipe clean! If it wasn’t factory-fresh when you first used it, the prior owner’s questionable activities may be passed off as your own!

            Always remember – Copyright trolls want SETTLEMENTS. If you volunteer your equipment to them, they have unfettered access, with no rules or restrictions. They don’t need to find the file they say you downloaded to gather more “arm-twisting” material! If they find evidence of other, unrelated downloads, they can try to make the argument that even though they couldn’t find “Bung-hole slut-bunnies #57″, you have all of this other downloaded material … making you the KIND of person who probably COULD HAVE downloaded “Bung-hole slut-bunnies #57″. Would that qualify for “preponderance of evidence”? If so, they could potentially win in a suit against you.

    8. Anonymous says:

      So here’s a question, I am assuming it is highly illegal for them to contact anyone but the named doe after they discover his/her information? IE if person X is a named doe, their wife or work or whatever can’t be harassed (unless of course their contact information was incorrectly associated with the information the ISP forked over?)

      • Raul says:

        They will send you letters and emails. While Prenda may call hundreds of Does to harass them, they do not have the manpower to systematically harass via telephone 6500 Does.

        • Raul says:

          Except now they do with the robo caller. Damn!

          • Sausages says:

            I wonder if the FCC rules against robo-calling for telemarking and/or soliciting are applicable here. It’s illegal without explicit permission from the person being called. This is different from the ‘do not call’ registry as you have to ‘opt out’ for robo call solicitations you actually have to opt-in

          • I believe it’s state-by-state. Wikipedia has a little, but it gives some feeling that yes, robocalls are treated differently (and less favorably) than live unsolicited calls.

          • Doeeyeddeer says:

            Has anyone recorded the numbers they’ve been called from yet? I’ve been getting a lot of strange calls on my phone lately but Google research shows it as a robo-caller for political surveys/some sort of cruise line scam. I dont have my phone handy but I know the prefix has stayed the same, but the last seven have been slightly different every time.

          • Raul says:

            There is a growing suspicion that the trolls are further monetizing Doe info by selling it to third party marketeering firms as to futher harass and eke out some more nickels.

          • Sausages says:

            Hmm, well it is an explicit opt-in in my state. Wonder if that is why I haven’t been contacted, or to do with the sheer number of names that have been released and it just being a matter of time.

          • doecumb says:

            The troll robocalls as described appear to be illegal. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) only allows prerecorded messages with prior consent or in particular cases, none of which apply for the troll calls.

            http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls
            “Calls using artificial or prerecorded voice messages – including those that do not use autodialers – may NOT be made to home phone numbers EXCEPT for:
            • emergency calls needed to ensure the consumer’s health and safety;
            • calls for which you have given prior express consent;
            • non-commercial calls;
            • calls that don’t include or introduce any unsolicited advertisements or constitute telephone solicitations;
            • calls by, or on behalf of, tax-exempt non-profit organizations; or
            • calls from entities with which you have an EBR[extended business relationship].”
            [capitalization for emphasis added]

            More detail about the TCPA is given here: http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/TCPA-Rules.pdf
            A February 2012 Report & Order by the FCC strengthen the enforcement of this law by specifically including SMS (text messaging) under the scope of the TCPA law. While the FCC Order did loosen exemptions for debt-collection and research/survey calls, the troll (pre-trial, ha! they are all pre-trial) demands are NOT in these categories. Trolls could argue they are debt collectors and should be exempt, but there is no judgement against Does. That’s what makes it a racket. The Order also made clear that “telemarketers must obtain written consent from a consumer before making an autodialed or prerecorded call, regardless of whether they have done business with a particular consumer in the past.”

            http://www.troutmansanders.com/fcc-excludes-debt-collectors-from-strengthened-regulations-on-telemarketing-robocalls-02-16-2012/

            Individuals can collect damages for EACH violation. Does are STRONGLY urged to keep logs and copies of all calls, faxes and text messages. Here’s a link with quick explanations from a law firm. (I have no knowledge of this group and have no opinion of their services.):

            http://www.consumerslaw.com/content/pre-recorded-collection-calls

            As SJD notes, there are state and local laws that may be even stronger. Does should consider contacting their state’s consumer protection and attorney general units.

            (Usual disclaimer: This is not geal advice and is for discussion purposes only.)

    9. Anonymous says:

      Interesting note from this site’s twitter that two Comcast attorneys have entered appearances. (http://t.co/BhdQ8JRZ) Anyone know any more info on what this is about?

      • Raul says:

        ISPs objecting to Preda’s overreaching. That battle was already fought in St.Clair County which is why Does are now getting the letters from their ISPs.

    10. NHDoe says:

      Been trying to make phone contact with Celestine Dotson, bad timing so far but I hope to speak with her soon. Does anyone else have any info on her progress?

      • Ron Mexico says:

        Emailed her, haven’t had a chance to speak on the phone yet, I’m probably out of time to submit an MTQ/D as my discovery date is Thurs

    11. Anonymous says:

      Saw a Motion Hearing scheduled on 5/14/12 in the St. Clair Case. Any ideas on what that can be?

      • jager says:

        where did you see that at? I wanted to see myself and does anyone have any idea what this could be?

        • Anonymous says:

          I actually saw it on the St. Clair Circuit Court Website. When I looked up the case number 11-L-683 and looked at the action list it was there. I’m not very good at legal stuff, so I’m not sure what it could be.

          • jager says:

            yea neither am I..so i was thinking about the same thing. Lets see if anyone else finds anymore info.

      • NHDoe says:

        Just looked it up. I see there’s also an action listed for today (5/8): “ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE DEFEND PRO SE DOE JOHN”

        For May 14, it says:

        “CAL:MOTION HEARING Party type: ADMINISTRATION Party name: csam”

        I have no idea what “csam” means.

        • jager says:

          NH doe keep us posted man on anything that happens today or on the may 14. Have you contacted any attorney yet..any new info or are all still waiting to see what happens?

          • NHDoe says:

            I posted earlier today on this page — I spoke with Celestine Dotson today and I’m debating whether or not to sign on with her. I’m sure her fee is reasonable ($1000), but it’s a lot for me at the moment.

        • NHDoe says:

          I’m very curious about what’s scheduled for May 14. The listing is exactly same as it is for July 20:

          “CAL:MOTION HEARING Party type: ADMINISTRATION Party name: csam”

          To search for the “register of actions” for this case, go to http://www.circuitclerk.co.st-clair.il.us/Civil+Court+Records.htm and click “Company Search,” then enter “Lightspeed.”

          Does anyone have any insight regarding this action on May 14?

          • It’s a typo. Should be “scam”, not “csam”.

          • NHDoe says:

            “CSAM” appears as the “party name” for most of the actions, beginning in January. I see there were other motion hearings listed the same way a few times previously, so I guess whatever is happening on May 14 is probably not all that significant.

    12. Anonymous says:

      Is there a way to view Exhibits A, B & C?

    13. Anony says:

      I live in michigan, does any one else and does anyone know if prenda has a history pursuing cases in michigan? Have there been any cases settled in their favor?
      Also had anyone been identified of them downloading more then one time or is the ill case based on being identified ov being on their site? I don’t have the letter handy but do not recall this being specified?

      Thank you for your input!

      • Raul says:

        To the best of my knowledge, to date, Prenda does not have a presence in MI. You are safe from being legitimately sued. So expect harassing letters,emails and just maybe a few phone calls (doubtful but not certain).

        • doecumb says:

          Let’s be cautiously optimistic. There have been 10 troll cases in total, in Michigan’s Eastern District last autumn, by the porn purveyors Frank Collins Inc., Raw Films Ltd., Nucorp & Third Degree Films. An out of town lawyer was running the show, most likely, and probably Miami-based. The lawyer of record is a Medical Malpractice/Auto Injury lawyer, not a copyright lawyer.

          There’s no indication of Steele/Prenda ties to the state AFAIK. So it’s more inconvenient for the Pretenda network to file there. In a Federal District court, also, irregularities in legal process may be less likely than in counties. It’s best to halt things at the early stage when practical. We hope Pretenda will be busy trying to salvage other sinking cases. As Raul notes, the overwhelming number of “actions” after discovery have been threatening demands by letters, email, and phone.

          • Anony says:

            Thanks guys… So freakin nervous, I’ve never gone through anything like this before.

          • CTVic says:

            Anony: welcome to the club. You’re not alone.
            From what I’ve seen in MI, Raul & doecumb are on the mark. Prenda has yet to step into the Great Lakes … but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t.

      • doecumb says:

        The original complaint is posted on Adam E. Urbanczyk’s (AU, LLC) http://torrentlitigation.com. Scroll down to current cases, select the Lightspeed Media Corp. v. AT&T, et al., Case No. 11-L-621 (St. Clair County, IL) and the pdf is available.

        http://torrentlitigation.com/cases/Lightspeed Media Corp. v. AT&T, et al., Case No. 11-L-62 (St. Clair County,IL).pdf
        The complaint says” “Does in this case gained unauthorized access to Petitioner’s private Website. Does used a hacked password to gain unlawful access to the member’s sections of Petitioner’s Websites. Through these hacked passwords Does consumed Petitioner’s content as though they were paying members. They could even download Petitioners private content and disseminate that information to other unauthorized individuals.”

        The complaint mentions “ Arcadia Data Security Consultants” as their tech entrappers, er, consultants. Arcardia just happens to be down the road from Steve Lightspeed.

        “ Arcadia used forensic software named Trader Hacker and Intruder Evidence Finder 2.0 (T.H.I.E.F.) to detect hacking, unauthorized access, and password sharing activity on Petitioner’s Websites. The individuals committing these unlawful activities are identified by their IP addresses as well as the dates and times they unlawfully accessed Petitioner’s Websites.”

        The complaint says Exhibits B has the IP addresses and Exhibit C has a declaration attesting to Arcadia’s software. It’s likely that Arcardia’s software is proprietary and has not been independently seen or validated. Even if it were validated, there’s the huge issue of I.P. addresses not identifying people. AFAIK no troll software’s have been judged in court.

        • Raul says:

          Especially troll software owned, operated, maintained and commissioned by the plaintiff.

          • Anonymous says:

            Interesting that their “forensic software” is so advanced that it can accurately identify hackers, yet their security software is so porous that it allowed 13,000 instances of unauthorized access in a year.

            Sort of like leaving your front door wide open and immediately killing anyone who enters your home in the name of self-defense. After a few thousand times, you’d think they’d learn to shut the dang door.

        • Anonymous says:

          Has anyone contacted Adam E. Urbanczyk’s (AU, LLC) about this case? If so, what’s his take on it, and has he quoted any rates for service?

          • Anonymous says:

            I spoke with Adam on a different troll case, and his recommendation was to pay $500 for his representation, then settle with the Trolls. An engagement for a MTQ requires a retainer of several thousand dollars, although he and his associates discouraged going down this path. I am not sure if his strategy would differ on the LS case.

          • Anonymous says:

            It’s possible that Urbanczyk’s view about settling has changed, with the setbacks of some troll cases. Of course, the Lightspeed St. Claire case is weaker than the usual trash. The posting of a St. Claire complaint pdf on his site suggests he has one or more clients for this case.

          • anonymous says:

            I spoke with him about l-683 and it seemed he wanted to settle and was arguing the case from their pov.

    14. Doe says:

      Thanks for the help, I’ve been following the site for around a week. I’ve considered talking to DeBlasio Law Group for further advise…was wondering if anyone else had contacted them.

      I’m part of the St. Claire case.

    15. Anonymous says:

      If the “proprietary software” used in this thing is so good, why didn’t lightspeed send ISP’s DMCA notices if they recognized any form of unauthorized access via any any IP? Also, once they noticed that a username and password was being used multiple times via a wide variety of IP’s, why didn’t they immediately disable those usernames/passwords to prevent further “infringement” of copyrighted material? I wonder how long they allowed compromised usernames and passwords to remain active even after they recognized what was going on. The list of IP’s I got from my ISP’s subpoena had 47 entries dated between August and December of 2011. Wouldn’t this “flawless” software be able to quickly notice multiple password login attempts from different IP’s, disable the credentials, do a reverse lookup, and send a DMCA notice to the ISP? If the software was truly designed to protect copyright material, then IMO, that’s what it would do instead. Don’t they have a duty to prevent further “breach” of copyrighted material if they notice or suspect such? Aren’t these all grounds to have this thrown out, especially if it can be proven that they allowed this to go on in order to file suits in lieu of further securing copyrighted material and preventing access once they noticed an issue with any set or sets of login credentials? Could their software and logs be subpoenaed to show this if push came to shove? In other words, do their own records and logs actually hurt their case instead?

      • Anonymous says:

        oddly enough there already is software that “quickly notice multiple password login attempts from different IP’s, disable the credentials, do a reverse lookup, and send a DMCA notice to the ISP?” it’s called strongbox and MANY of the major porn sites use this software. LSM is collecting the data, not trying to stop it, that is one of the major flaws with this case, another is the question of how often they are patching their sites/servers to prevent security breaches that lead to the loss of passwords. if they are not updating the security protocols (which is FREE to do) then they cannot exactly cry when they are breached and anyone that goes the distance would demand their server maintenance logs in discovery. along with the contact info of the original account owners to depose them as to weather they have ever given their pass to anyone. along with a deposition of the creator of the THIEF software creator to verify that he does not have a financial stake in the case….yada yada yada …..the case is full of holes.

      • Raul says:

        LMC has a duty to mitigate its damages by taking steps to curtail the alleged hacking which it clearly failed to accomplish as it was too busy monitoring the hackers who were accessing it’s ancient content.

        • Anonymous says:

          Strongbox,is much cheaper than the proported cost of T.H.I.E.F. ($250K)
          http://www.bettercgi.com/cgi-bin/strongbox/strongbox_order.cgi

          I’m not sure how many sites lightspeed has in their network (I don’t want to click on any links to their sites for obvious reasons), but let’s be generous and say 100.
          At a cost of $200 per site for strongbox + $95 for the addons, all of which could be written off on that year’s taxes, the total cost would be $29.5K before write-off. That’s nearly 10-fold cheaper than T.H.I.E.F. I would think both platforms would need maintenance, let’s assume a wash

          Option A: At 10 fold less cost, the benefits of something like strongbox would be:
          1. password disablement with DMCA notices to ISP’s, which results in
          2. Fewer logins to owned sites with hacked passwords
          3. A proven INDEPENDENT software platform that could be validated in court to prove that you PREEMPTIVELY took steps to protect your copyright interests where you knew of an issue
          4. IP log of the first few logins with any password became compromised before it’s disabled. Supboena these IP’s and you’ve likely nabbed your original “hacker” and his/her first few “conspirators” that did the initial distribution and sharing of said password(s). If you get settlements from just 20 people alone in one year, after paying legal fees (business expense), you’d have paid for something like strongbox while protecting your material.

          Option B: At 10-fold more the upfront cost (if that’s even true…wouldn’t know that until the system is validated in court) to make and use THIEF:
          1. Spend $250K (10 fold more cost) to track logins over prolonged period and NOT disable anything that’s been hacked promptly.
          2. Sue 6500 IP’s, where the vast majority have no knowledge of or correspondence with the original hacker(s) and/or had their wifi hacked.
          3. Estimate on getting settlements from at least 1/6 of the IP’s at an average of $2.5K a pop –> $2.5 mil! It’ll probably be more IMO.
          4. Never go to court beyond default judgement

          Goal A
          If your goal is to protect your copyrighted material that you believe in, thwart hackers/piracy, and seek out the folks who initially compromised your systems to recoup security costs and then some, you’d clearly choose Option A at far less upfront cost

          Goal B
          If you have little/significantly less interest in protecting your content and thwarting piracy and wanted to gather stats to list thousands of IP’s in a lawsuit to get personal information with the goal of achieving settlements, you’d clearly choose Option B.

          Once THIEF is mentioned in discovery or in trial, it’s then open to question and scrutiny. I’m fairly analytical in thought but know little of the law on my own. It didn’t take me long to outline Options A and B . Wouldn’t even a moron of a defense attorney (if it came to it) present options similar to what’s outlined above to the plaintiff and jury, then ask the plaintiff (or counsel) why he/she chose A over B when especially in light of the law in question which requires you to mitigate suspected infringement as soon as it’s known/recorded? Nothing in lightspeed’s actions, IMO, shows consistency with Goal A.

          Can anybody, from either side of the coin with more legal acumen, tell me if I’m on or off, and if I’m off, then why?

          • You are spot-on. This case is a farce and the only reason it still lingers is the impeccable reputation of St. Clair county court.

          • LSD says:

            Don’t forget that THIEF was developed by a data security company with a single consultant, Steve Jones, who just happens to also be the same person who owns Lightspeed Media. Both companies conveniently share the same corporate address as his home in Arizona. The $250k number is more than likely an arbitrary number that he made up to make the software seem more impressive than it is so option B is really more like: 1. write a couple of scripts to parse login information from your web server logs and pay yourself $250k to do it. 2. Leak some passwords to the net and wait for Does to find your site. 3. Sue for profit and fun!

          • CTVic says:

            Arcadia Security has Steele/Hansmeier written all over it. It’s just another piddly little shell company spun off to gain some kind of legitimacy for whatever proprietary bullshit download-tracker the fools in the little secret Hansmeier frat-boy-club slapped together. This way, they’ve got another “big name” that can find somebody to recite a prerecorded “professional testimony” about how great and expensive their proprietary tracker software is.
            It’s all false fronts, and none of it would actually hold up to real legal scrutiny. It’s all to give the impression of legitimacy to scare more settlements out of people.

            Just take a look at their fb “page”: http://www.facebook.com/Arcadia2011
            9.20.11, Arcadia Security founded. 9.20.11, Arcadia Security starts a facebook page. 9.20.11 Arcadia Security shares a link to some DOJ article. 9.20.11 Paul Hansmeier likes the link that Arcadia Security shared.
            9.22.11, Arcadia Security gets around to registering a domain name.

            Liking your own shares on facebook is no different than masturbation. Next time Paul, try to establish a history before you start stroking off to your own favorite articles on piracy. If I actually cared enough, I’m sure that I could follow through some of Hansmeier’s other shell security companies and find them sharing the same articles at right around the same times.

          • Anonymous says:

            The fact that Steve Jones is listed as the sole Manager/Member of Arcadia should be grounds to throw this out. Just saved a screenshot of that record just in case.

          • CTVic says:

            Hahaha!! I thought people were being facetious when they said Arcadia was owned by Lightspeed. It seemed too ridiculous to take literally! Haahahaaaahahahahaha!!

            So in a nutshell, Hansmeier frat-boy-club builds the shell, sets up a false internet presence first on facebook, then registering a domain, before selling it off to Steve (lightspeed) Jones to register as his own a week later. Nice.

            A retarded, poorly-castrated bulldog could chew that to pieces in court. Just that much more evidence that Lightspeed/Prenda/Steele/Hansmeier has ZERO intention to litigate.

          • Anonymous says:

            I’m not a party to this thing, but it just stinks of being an entrapment / honeypot scheme.

            If I were a betting man, here’s where my money would be on how this went down on Lightspeed’s end:

            1) Steve Jones (or one of his lackeys) creates a bunch of likely looking “accounts” for his”service”.

            2) The login credentials for these accounts are leaked to various porn forums, etc.

            2a) Note that such a hacked login can be disguised as a very ordinary looking hyperlink on a webpage, with the supposed “hacking” hidden within the address. Did you know that a username and PW can be embedded directly within an URL? Clicking a single innocuous looking link would be sufficient to implicate you in the next step, even if you do nothing else but close the window / tab that opens as a result.

            3) The “THEIF” software collects the IP addresses that use the above leaked account details. Since these are faked accounts, there is no danger of reeling in a legitmate user of the account because THERE ISN’T ONE. This supposedly high tech THEIF software probably consists of nothing more than a few lines of Perl code that filters the server access logs looking for logins using the leaked accounts, and rejecting those that don’t come from ISPs in the USA.

            Why do I think this is how it probably happened? Because, if it didn’t happen like this, it would be virtually impossible for Lightspeed to guarantee that they don’t implicate one of their actual paying customers in this scheme. Any given hacked account has an actual bona fide legitimate user. Yet that user can have any number of IP addresses that change over time for any number of reasons. If these supposed accounts aren’t faked, then some number of ligitimate users are almost certainly among those whose info is being sought in this effort; which if it got out would be VERY bad for business. A variation of step 1) would be for Jones to keep alive hacked accounts of legit users after they would otherwise have expired, making those users into “hackers” if they dared attempt a login after the term of their subscription. This seems unlikely since most users probably only know when their their time is up by trying to login and being denied, so calling that “hacking” is entirely indefensible.

            So, in conclusion, this is almost certainly a honeypot scheme for extorting multi-thousand dollar settlements from IP account holders who are either entirely innocent (many) or who may have “hacked” into Lightspeed’s server with no more intent than simply clicking a link labelled “hot girls” or somesuch, providing the leaked credentials and ensnaring that IP in this mess.

            IF this is true, and they are even remotely successful in this endeavor, then this “business model” will spread:

            1) Create fake crappy website with a tiny amount of licensed content.
            2) Leak fake credentials to a porn formum in the form of a clickalbe link.
            3) Collect IP addresses.
            4) Profit.

            The way out? Do not pay. File a countersuit. Through discovery, subpoena the “stolen” account details that each given IP address supposedly “hacked”, including the real name, address and credit card details of the original legitimate account holder. Oh wait, you won’t get this far, because there are none; instead settle so that their scam isn’t revealed, because if it were, there would be prison terms for extortion and racketeering and fraud.

            Before you pay these scum a thin dime, read what I’ve said above again, and really think about it.

            [sjd: this message was filtered by the spam guard, sorry about that, but this is something beyond my control. I do not pre-moderate, and a comment should be really gross or illegal to warrant its removal. Therefore, if you don't see your comment appear immediately - shoot me an email. Or wait: I check the spam folder 1-2 times a day.]

        • Raul says:

          Good thing you saved a screenshot because someone is messing with my first Lightspeed post. There used to be a hot linked “Steve Jones”(below the aerial of the mansion) that took you to Acadia Security’s website which advertises the THIEF software, etc.,etc. Someone changed that link to images of Steele and Steve! I could not find the site so they must have taken it down because it makes Steve and Prenda look like complete idiots.

          • anomymous says:

            I posted the above comment that was spam filtered via Tor (as I am this one). I wonder if that triggers a spam review all by itself…

            Here’s a scenareo that illustrates why these supposedly “hacked accounts” almost certainly aren’t real, and are instead intentionally leaked traps.

            Let’s say you are a sucker and you actually paid $30 (or whatever) for 1 month of Lightspeed porn access. A week into your subscription, your account gets hacked (there dozens of ways this can happen through no fault of your own.) However, you don’t know this yet, and so you keep using your account, which Lightspeed hasn’t killed, because as soon as they see multiple simultaneous logins, or more than some number of IP addresses per hour/day/whatever, they flag the account as “hacked” and start collecting the offending IPs.

            Problem is, you choose this moment to go on a weeklong road trip and visit your mom, and then your college buddy, and then your sister, who live in three different cities. Because you’re a perv, you like a little wank before bed, so you hop on the WiFi from the guest bedroom at each of these locations and settle in for the evening. But remember, you don’t know your account has been hacked. The “THEIF” script is happily logging your ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE access as “hacking” coming from the IP addresses of your friends and family. Also, when you return home, your home dynamically-assigned IP address has been changed by your ISP. You log in and now implicate yourself as well, since Lightspeed literally has no way of knowing that this newly IP belongs to a valid subscriber.

            The above two paragraphs illustrate the complexity of just suing any IP that uses a given login once the account has been determined to have been “hacked”. And this is why it almost certainly didn’t happen this way. These were not real accounts. This whole thing is a giant honeypot, and there was no “hacking”. Just people who got duped into clicking a link on a porn forum (or someone using their WiFi who did it without them knowing).

            The other reason I believe there was no hacking? Because by all accounts, the Lightspeed “content” is so old and low-res and generally crappy that no self-respecting hacker would likely waste 3 minutes on it. Seriously, if you are a porn site hacker, is this steaming pile of websites where you are going to spend your efforts? Nope.

            Be strong. Give the Richard Prior response. Do not settle. If you have the means, lawyer-up and fight back. This kind of B.S. will ruin the Internet for everyone if ordinary people like you don’t stand up and reject the troll’s “business” en masse.

      • Sword of Damocles says:

        This presumes that Lightspeed didn’t set up a private sting as a way of hyping “illegal” visits to its website. Why not presume that it did, that the software didn’t fail at all. It was used as the digital equivalent of a traffic camera, merely documenting behavior — much or all of it induced by Lightspeed — that could later be cited as reasons for the inevitable complaints to follow.

    16. Raul says:

      Youtube, Mitch Stoltz of the EFF discusses Judge Gary Brown’s ruling and the current state of porno copyright trolling in the USA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USbVKJuRpl8&feature=related

    17. NHDoe says:

      I just spoke with Celestine Dotson, the lawyer in St. Louis who is representing a number of people in this case. Basically, her plan as I understand it is to file motions to quash for everyone she’s representing. She expects those to be rejected on July 20, and she then plans to file an appeal. The fee to sign on with her is $1000, although she is open to a payment plan. It would be very difficult for me to pay that, so I need to sleep on this for a day or two before I make a decision. I will probably try to talk to another lawyer or two, but it seems like it would be a good strategy to be in with a lawyer who is representing a number of Does in this case.

      • jager says:

        oh disregard what i said earlier about what new info she has…i guess i may have to hire her too..it is alot of money but we have to do something.

      • Anonymous says:

        Did she mention how long the appeal process would take? If the MTQ is denied on July 20, does the appeal prolong the release of info beyond July 20, or is the info released immediately on July 20, and then she appeals? If it’s the latter, then what good would the appeal do?

        • NHDoe says:

          I didn’t ask how long an appeal might take. I did ask your second question, and she said the info would not be released if an appeal was filed.

    18. Anonymous says:

      looks like one of the john doe defendants appeared and answered pro se today according to st. clair docket. Thanks and good luck John!

    19. Anonymous says:

      anyone else caught up in this situation, what course of action are you taking? some advice would be very helpful. currently i am considering getting a lawyer to quash the subpoena, are there any reccommended lawyers? and is it true that the lawyer has to be from st clair IL to quash the subpoena?

      • jager says:

        I don’t believe they have to be from St. Clair county but they do have to have a license to practice In Illinois.

        • doecumb says:

          Generally, a current state license is enough. There is an option at the court’s discretion to allow an out of state lawyer to work on an individual case. The general term is pro hace vice. This practice has been allowed at many levels of court in many locations.

          Does may consider this when in-state representation is not feasible but where there’s a relationship with a knowledgeable out of state attorney, working pro bono or at flexible fees. Obviously, it’s not the same as a good attorney on scene. Denying such pro hace vice motions repeatedly by a court give interesting perspective for that judge/ jurisdiction.

          Illinois law has a provision for it:
          “Rule 707…. Pro Hac Vice
          Anything in these rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an attorney and counselor-at-law from any other jurisdiction in the United States, or foreign country, may in the discretion of any court of this State be permitted to participate before the court in the trial or argument of any particular cause in which, for the time being, he or she is employed.
          Amended June 12, 1992, effective July 1, 1992; amended October 2, 2006, effective July 1, 2007.”
          http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/art_vii/artvii.htm

          This is not legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

    20. Anonymous says:

      So if one hypothetically lives in DC does that put them at a higher risk of getting served due to the connection with Prenda that you mentioned? Or are the majority of the Does from the Prenda footprint? Thanks in advance, this site is a huge resource as I’ve never heard of any of this before.

    21. Anonymous says:

      I emailed Bill O’Reilly the facts of this case with the hopes he takes up the story. (say what you will about him, it seemed like a topic he would find interesting and he has a large viewing audience) I urge others to send similar emails to other opinion/news outlets such as 60 minutes/etc so that these abusive practices may be brought to light.

      It’s worth a short, in any case.

    22. NHDoe says:

      I just called one of the attorneys listed for as a defense attorney on the case. Turns out he had represented an ISP earlier, but he’s no longer involved and couldn’t say much. But he did tell me that all letters from Prenda to the Does, once Prenda has gotten their contact information, are supposed to go through the court for review. I thought this was very interesting!

    23. NHDoe says:

      I’m confused about something. Looking at other threads on this site, it appears that Paul Duffy was a lawyer for Prenda. But on this case, on the St. Clair County site, he’s listed as an attorney for defendant. Can someone clarify this for me? Did he switch sides, or is he some kind of decoy or something?

    24. marble says:

      the loss/damage issue is the one we (the does) keep bringing up, there have been several posts about this, and is one of the main reasons why these cases will never go to court, because the opposing counsel has to know that this won’t stand up. infact i think that it was the first flaw with their cases that was posted on these boards.

      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/lightspeed-password-hacking-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-7996

      the lawyers know about this and are only using these cases to generate FUD and settlements. it’s a manipulation of the system, plain and simple.

    25. Anon says:

      Here is something that I don’t understand, if Arcadia Security did not exist until September 21, 2011 then how can they attempt to sue people before that date? Am I missing something? How can that be?

      • Raul says:

        Steve Jones probably commissioned the creation of the forensic software THIEF prior to December of 2010 so as to harvest alleged hackers. Steve created Acadia Security to market THIEF in September of 2011 in all likelihood hoping that the notoriety of this lawsuit would bring him customers. Pretty stupid as it makes this evidence inadmissible or, if admissible, so tainted as to be next to worthless.

    26. Anonymous says:

      While there might be some good arguments here it’s kind of simple. They didn’t just pull 6500 IP’s out of a hat… if thats what they wanted to do there would be more. Are the IP’s guilty… you bet, either they did it, someone they know using their connection did it, or they had an open WIFI connection and someone they don’t know did. No matter how you slice it that IP is guilty and the person that pays the bills owns it and the problem. I talked to a couple lawyers familiar with this case. First thing I was told is they are being relentless with this one. So the question is whats the cost. 1: Quash – Probably not going to happen and it is temporary anyway. 2: Dismiss – Unlikely 3: Let them get your name, this one gets tricky. a: They make your name public, and bug you to death until you cough up some money. b: It gets to be public and they file against you and you find out how much it costs to defend… most likely 5 to 10 grand. 4: Settle.. probably going to cost 2 to 3 grand depending on the arrangements the law firm has already made with them if you choose one of the better ones but you name is never given and your IP leaves the list for all past violations against them and any afilliated companies. Any other companies that may have been violated from your IP may still come after you, but they can no matter what road you choose. I had an open router… I’m stupid and I’m settling.. cheapest way out.

      • Good luck, you are an ideal “client” in the eyes of geniuses who invented this extortion scheme: pure math based on a false dichotomy (either-either: either pay or spend money defending oneself), exaggerating the perils of the third way – just to stay strong and ignore extortionists. They won’t “bug you to death”, they don’t have neither resources nor real power to do that. They are bullies who run away when confronted.

        • Raul says:

          They will barely be able to get 6500 extortion letters out the door, never mind being able to systematically use the telephone to harass Does. Shit they cannot even do that at present.

          Veterans of this blog all have different stories. Mine? Filed a MTQ, never received a call/letter or email and didn’t pay a nickel to the troll. Case is now dismissed.

          I try to help others in this because I know how stressful it can be but if you do not stand on your conviction that this is criminal/evil, where do you draw the line? Every day SJD, DTD myself and others put considerable time into advising Does and screwing with Trolls (launched a guerilla attack today against Troll Kotzker today by way of example-he is on the run and it would be nice to keep him running).

        • Porno Doe says:

          uh uh uh this is Mark Lutz of Prenda Law. Our client has made a billion offers to settle and we can see you are not interested, and that is fine. We now have plenty of attorneys….

          bla bla bla bla bla!

          I miss you already Mark! Why did you stop calling? Is a certain government agency tracking your phone number? Time will tell!

      • Dough says:

        Obvious troll is obvious.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, can’t believe anyone bought that. The big giveaway:

          “I talked to a couple lawyers familiar with this case. First thing I was told is they are being relentless with this one.”

          Absolutely no indication of that from available evidence, so no reason to believe it. But guess who needs people to believe it? If he gives the names of the lawyers so we can follow up and find out what they know, maybe I’ll reconsider.

          Additionally, not settling and then never getting sued is cheaper than settling.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yep. The big giveaway:

          “I talked to a couple lawyers familiar with this case. First thing I was told is they are being relentless with this one.”

          Absolutely no evidence of that and we’ll maybe start believing it when someone actually gets sued. He’s free to give us the names of the attorneys though so we can confirm with them and find out what they know.

          But we do know who wants and needs people to believe that.

          BTW, not settling and then having absolutely nothing happen is cheaper than settling.

      • Doe says:

        There is a lot wrong in your post, but the biggest is assuming that a judge will agree with you that “that IP is guilty and the person that pays the bills owns it and the problem.” In fact, there are a couple of recent big decisions where the judge completely disagrees with your assessment (or their lawyers assessment–which of course they are going to say that). So when they get around to filing individually on 6500 does I figure the odds are at least a dozen or so file counter-suits. This should be fun to watch…Hopefully these won’t end in undisclosed settlements like the one in CA did, since reading how much Prenda has to pay would be loads of fun.

      • CTVic says:

        And the Anonymous Troll once again gives us the between-the-lines decision that’s been the lynchpin of the CopyrightTroll scam since the very beginning: You can either fight and pay tons of money, or settle and pay a little bit less. It’ll hurt even more if you fight. Just relax and cooperate and it will all be over soon. Sounds to me like something you would hear from a rapist.
        Fortunately for us, these people aren’t real, and their threats are hollow. They’ve demonstrated, time and again, that as long as you don’t bend over for them, they are powerless to do real harm.

    27. Arcadia Insecurity says:

      It’s ironic a “security company” can’t even secure their own websites!

    28. anony says:

      So as a resident of none of the states with Prenda ties mentioned, my best bet is to ignore this? I’m not worried about phone calls, letters, or emails, but I’m not thrilled with my name being made public, or is it just made known to Prenda? Forgive me, I’m still working through a panic attack.

    29. gay love pornographer says:

      Steve Jones, who brands himself as SteveLightspeed hasn’t updated his sites in probably about 8 years. He cycles content off and back onto his sites to make it appear his sites update with new content. His content is about 8-10 years old, so his pictures and videos are incredibly low resolution. The dummy or genius to his porn bros doesn’t even know how to embed a video. His sites are outdated, yet he charges a premium fee to join of $35-$40. He is overprotective of this outdated content which he obviously thinks is worth gold. This guy has become so focused on his witch hunt, he doesn’t see he may better serve himself actually improving his sites, shooting new content, and actually securing his sites like all other porn sites have. Instead he has ruined an already stained reputation by being a dickhead and shoving his head up some greedy lawyer’s ass. This is a guy with kids, and a wife if he is not divorced. He likes to threaten people with lawsuits and sooner or later someone is going to bash his fucking head in. This guy should be protecting his children, not his lame ass porn sites.

      • Raul says:

        Agreed it is sad. Steve is making so many enemies at present that I shudder.Most alleged porno pirates are first time offenders who should get a small fine and a warning, not financial ruin. Certain lawyers, of course, see matters differently;

    30. NHDoe says:

      I just spoke with Yasha Heidari, the lawyer in Atlanta who was mentioned on another page on this blog in a very positive light in relation to a similar case. He was more than happy to discuss the case with me at length, and I’m very impressed with his knowledge of this case and the copyright troll world in general. He is already representing two other Does in this case. I’m leaning toward signing on with him very soon. I’ve also pointed him to this blog and it’s my hope he may post something here. His contact info is at http://www.heidariplank.com/contact-us/yasha-heidari.

      • jager says:

        i might hire him too any info on the rates NHdoe is he charging the same as Dotson and what is his game plan regarding this case? I know you mentioned Dotson had a plan, but she is a little too expensive.

        • NHDoe says:

          Similar strategy to Dotson, but he can’t make a firm commitment at this point regarding what he’ll do if all motions to quash are denied. He will consult with his clients and may file an appeal depending on their wishes. He wants to see how things play out until then. His rate is a little lower than Dotson, and he explained that it includes $150 to file the MTQ. I very strongly suggest that you give him a call. He’s easy to talk to and very well informed.

      • NHDoe says:

        I’m right on the verge of lawyering up with Yasha Heidari. His fee is relatively low ($750 plus $150 for filing a MTQ). If there’s an appeal later, there could be more fees. I can’t afford any of this, and I’m tempted to go the “sit back and see what happens” route. But I’d be much more comfortable with legal representation, and I don’t want the ISP releasing my info if I can possibly help it.

        I guess I keep hoping against hope that this case will be dropped somehow, but it seems unlikely.

        • Ron Mexico says:

          Celeste Dotson’s retainer of $1k + MTQ filing fee included her services through the appellate courts. She even mentioned that in an appeal the filing fee might even be $0 as i’m currently a “co-conspirator” on the 11-L-0683 case, not even a Doe

          • NHDoe says:

            Yes, Ms. Dotson made that clarification in terminology when I spoke with her, too. Before I pay Mr. Heidari, I want to clarify the appeal fee question. He really knows this case and similar ones inside and out, and he doesn’t want to commit to a course of action down the road. He wants to see what develops and what his clients want.

    31. Anonymous says:

      In looking at some of the cases that the trolls filed for discovery of Does, they’ve often included a list of IP’s (1000’s in one I saw), where they’re sorted by ISP then by date and time within the ISP and entered as Exhibit A,B, etc. I can’t seem to find the post in this followup, or in the original chain, but it seems like the earliest date of accused infringement was in July of 2011 for this case, but it was filed in Nov/Dec. I also noticed that the exhibited lists seem to only contain IP’s from the very large ISP’s. Based on the above:

      1. Do trolls only seem to subpoena only the large ISP’s, or can anybody confirm if smaller local ISP’s are often included? I guess they get more bang for buck by staying with the large providers by being able to include multiple IP’s on the same subpoena?

      2. Given the july to dec timeframe, it seems that they don’t go after any suspected “infringement” that’s more than 6-months old at the time of filing for discovery. Is that because of ISP’s dynamic IP retention policies or the statute of limitations on the CFAA claim? Or both? Although 4 years old, this link seems to suggest that Comcast, for example, no longer has access to dynamic IP assignments after 6 months. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9797632-38.html

      3. In general what are the dynamic IP retention policies of the major ISP’s? If they’ve been subpoenaed once for an IP related to your account within the retention window, does that flag them to typically hang on to all IP logs related to your account after they get the subpoena, or do they only act on the one IP and timestamp in the subpoena and the policy remains intact otherwise?

      Basically, I suspect that my wireless has been piggybacked by someone via unsecured wifi. If it’s now secured beginning on “day 1″, and if I’m sure nobody within the home is accessing porn of any kind, and if my ISP’s retention policy is 180 days , does that mean that I essentially have another 6 month window to worry about potential ISP subpoenas if someone outside of the home was piggybacking and accessing porn via hacked passwords up until day – 1? Or do I have to worry about such surprises beyond the 6 month window in this example? Do the trolls know and use these retention windows to maximize names collected and not waste time on names unlikely to be collected? Or am I overblowing the ISP thing and is this all driven by the statute of limitations on the CFAA claim?

      I’d likely negotiate a settlement if I knew something like this wouldn’t happen again.

      • juancarlosdeburbon says:

        Never, EVER, settle. Fight it and win once, and then if you’re contacted again, send the troll the information that you’ve already won one case and you’ll never see them again.

        I suspect that this bullish!t will be over before the end of the year. I am in the process of writing my state, the FL state, and the US attorney generals to complain about the abuse of the court system. My local attorney had lunch with Supreme Justice Ginsburg and mentioned these cases to her. So the sh!t is about to roll downhill in a serious way against the trolls.

        Additionally, the cases in FL are being sat in on by representatives from the Department of Homeland Security. Several of the plaintiffs are actually off-shore companies. The government is very keen to know where all the settlement money is going.

        So, IMHO, NEVER SETTLE, and the days are numbers for the trolls and their lawyers. I have a feeling several attorneys are going to be sanctioned or disbarred.

        • Raul says:

          Bravo! When Steve Jones remarked that he started off with a list of 13,000 potential Does and whittled it down to 6,500. I figured they were following SOP and discarding politicians, servicemen, coffee shops, colleges,etc., to get to the final number of victims. But with an initial figure of 13,000 and Prenda being Prenda, screw-ups are likely. So the chances that Steve/Buffy step on the wrong toes with this lawsuit and incur the wrath of someone in power cannot be casually dismissed.

          • marble says:

            there are actually several colleges that got subpoena’d in atleast one of the il cases. one of those has a top 15 lawschool attatched to it. so they are not the brightest people in the world.

          • NHDoe says:

            Forgive my ignorance, but if they have nothing but a list of IP addresses with no identities attached, how can they weed out the politicians, servicemen, etc.? I feel like I’m missing something here.

          • juancarlosdeburbon says:

            There’s one thing the trolls forgot, and it’s going to end really, really badly for them–the RICO Act. That’s the next thing in the pipeline they’re about to get hit with.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Where_RICO_laws_might_be_applied

            There are also anti-SLAPP laws that will be thrown at them aggressively. And of course there is this (folks in California need to take notice of this, it’s very important): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

            From the article:

            * California Penal Code Section 158: “Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

            * California Penal Code Section 159: “No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.”

            Yeah, oh yeah, these are going into the letters to the Attorney Generals. I’ll post a template for this site when I’m done. It’s time we sick the legal system on these bastards. They’ve already laid the groundwork to get a hot poker up the can, may as well oblige them.

          • Anonymous says:

            The California barratry law is very interesting indeed. Bad place for that law to be on the books, for the trolls.

            Off the top of my head there are three CA cases where Brett Langdon Gibbs of Steele Hansmeier now Prenda Law filed cases asking for statutory damages even though copyright registration had not taken place or took place after the alleged date of alleged infringement.

            Hard Drive Productions Inc. vs. Does 1-188, 3:11-cv-01566-JCS, (Amateur Allure – Erin)

            Hard Drive Productions Inc. vs. Does 1-118, 4:11-cv-01567-LB, (Amateur Allure – Samantha Saint). This provoked Seth Abrahams vs. Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

            Hard Drive Productions Inc. vs. Does 1-48, 3:11-cv-01957-JCS, (Amateur Allure – Jen). This provoked Liuxia Wong vs. Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

            Surely there are more. In the heady days of the first wave of Copyright Trolling Steele | Hansmeier didn’t even care about minor details like copyright registration. It was only after they hit some resistance in the courts that they began to do bare minimum of work on these cases.

            No way filing these can be argued away as mistakes or oversights. With both the complaints and extortion letters citing statutory damage amounts, it was basic professional responsibility and due diligence to read the applicable laws they were suing under. Those lawsuits were frivolous, as they had no legal support for their claims.

            We should have a special section of the site for cataloging cases that were pursued without registration, as the frivolous nature of those lawsuits makes them the perfect spear to drive through the heart of this scam. Three already seems like a great start, if we can make that number grow, and get together template letters for bar associations, DAs, AGs, etc…

          • juancarlosdeburbon says:

            At this point I may contact my lawyer and ask him to retract my MTQ. I’d rather get named and get a phone call. It’s worth more to me now. I’d LOVE Prenda to name me. I’d BEG them to put me on their web site. I’d make 3x damages and probably more in a class action against them.

            I worked for West Law for six years and have many friends in the legal field. When I explained what was going on I got a response of, “Really? And no one has gone class action?” as a response.

            This is an open and shut RICO case. And the morons left a litany of cases in the wake of their own disaster. I am popping popcorn and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

            Have you noticed that Prenda or any other trolls have stopped posting to this blog? Yeah, they know the end is near and at the end of the road is a fist full of class action cases. Steve Lightspeed was an idiot registering so many businesses to his home address. It’ll be easy to pierce the veil of corporate protection and go after his personal assets now. Yeah, I’ve been researching how to go after his personal coin, and it’s going to be very easy even with a bankruptcy.

        • Raul says:

          I am a tech Moran, so take the following with a single grain of sand: I assume certain IP addresses can be identified as being linked to public institutions for example. Am I wrong? It stands to reason that Prenda would be crazy to charge off and potentially subpeona the IP address of the son of a federal prosecutor or state senator.

          • Anonymous says:

            Of course they can, but assuming

            1 – these IPs are legitimate infringements- what’s the likelihood of said son being at home versus being at dads office? Further, what’s the likelihood of someone ‘hacking’ into a porn website on a public wifi (if it so existed) in a federal/state office. Tracing an IP to a location is kind of like triangulating telephony , you’ll get a radius of the last ‘hop’ but not an definitive address, unless its a named building like a federal/state office, a company, etc. and the location/ip is public knowledge (a la google.com’s address, etc)

            2 – this is complete horse shit – assuming the 13,000 figure is correct, whats the chances of them having competent assistants or being competent enough themselves to systematically crunch the IPs of all 13,000 or to read the logs output by the esteemed T.H.E.I.F as to each location (known or not).

            My guess is they got a list of X number of IPs off a simple parsing script, or made them up, or a combination of those things, checked them against a list they already had of known bad IPs, and called it a day, I doubt any manual effort was exerted on the list itself. 6500 (or 13,000) is a lot of people, the chances of them ‘tagging’ someone with a lot of money or influence is probably more likely than them actually suing someone.

          • Anonymous2 says:

            I agree completely that the 13000 number is not trustworthy, since nothing else the trolls do is trustworthy. Some of the lists presented as Exhibits in troll case complaints have IP addresses with a university or other institution listed as the ISP. The vaguely competent trolls would cross those off the list.

            NHDoe-
            It’s not that the soldiers and celebrities are known before discovery, except institutions that can allegedly be identified. After discovery and the release of contact information, the troll agents will realize things in trying to demand & collect.
            It’s not easy to shake down senators or active military. They’ll back off if the police charge them with harassing an undercover cop, It’s probably hard for trolls extort from dead people. These heroic trolls will drop those cases.

          • marble says:

            the way they probably weeded out the does is the “who actually dl/d content” vs “those who just streamed content” alot of their case would be lost on those who merely streamed their content as it has been ruled that streaming is not infringement because you don’t actually copy the data. it would stand to reason that a significant of curious people that clicked through to get into their site merely streamed content out of curiosity. the people that they have the best chance in court against are the downloaders, so this is more then likely their only screening process.

          • Anonymous says:

            I don’t think they can really distinguish between downloading and streaming web content. For example, if a web page has an embedded video on it they can see in the web logs that you visited the page, but not that you saved the video to your disk once it loaded. The same goes for pictures. Any images that are loaded for a webpage can easily be saved to disk.

          • marble says:

            they can if they have a sepparate “download” link next to the embedded video. it would be very easy to track that way.

          • Anonymous says:

            Not necessarily. I can easily right-click on a link like that and select open link in a new window and view the video in a new browser window. There is no way they can know on the server side how you choose to consume that content. Additionally, I don’t think they can even tell if you downloaded/watched the whole video or if you simply watched a couple seconds of the video and then stopped the download.

    32. anonymous says:

      Relentless? In the last month I got two phone calls and a letter.

      • Anonymous says:

        Is this for the lightspeed password case? If so can you approximate the settlement amount?

    33. NHDoe says:

      Just looked at the “Register of Actions” for this case on the St. Clair County site. For today, it says, “DOC:SPECIAL LIMITED APPEAR,” Party type: ADMINISTRATION , Party name: aven. Anyone have any idea what this could be? There’s no other line in the register similar to this.

      There’s also a motion hearing on Monday, wondering if that could be significant.

      • Anonymous says:

        There’s also more defendant appearances and answers being filed yesterday and today. Seems like some resistance is happening, hopefully some of which will knock some sense into the judge.

        • NHDoe says:

          Lots of activity in 11-L-683 the last couple of days — motions to quash and other stuff. I’d love to get more detail.

    34. Anonymous says:

      Interesting article about the CFAA :-)
      http://swipreport.com/a-narrow-view-of-loss-under-the-cfaa/
      Seems pretty relevant re the $5K thing. Only loss that comes from documented disruption of service can be counted towards the $5K. Also notice the last comment re the state claims.

      If I’m not mistaken, there’s no such thing as statutory damages when it comes to the CFAA, even though O’Malley claimed them when he filed in St Clair.

      Now if Prenda initially files in state courts, read footnote 6 of this article
      http://web2.customwebexpress.com/ganshore/UserFiles/File/July%2028,%202009%20Article.pdf
      Regarding the question of lost revenues, foornote 12 suggests that can only be added if interruption of service can be proved. If there were an interruption of service in this case, wouldn’t it have to be proven to be due to the specific unauthorized login? Wouldn’t LS Media have to show system logs correlating downtime at the specific time while projecting how many new members typically sign up over that course of time, which would mean disclosure of business logs and transactions?

      Besides, is the CFAA something a state court even want’s to touch, especially given the porn connection in this case?

      I have to give the Prenda folks the benefit of the doubt in that they’ve, like it or not, earned JD’s and can research and understand the law better than myself. So, my only conclusion is that they know this won’t hold up and have motives that fall short of litigation.

      • doecumb says:

        Here’s a brief reminder excerpt from U.S. Judge Harold Baker’s ruling a year ago about the VPR Internationale case in Illinois:

        “Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be…great, the legal system…daunting….”

    35. Anonymous says:

      Using sophisticated and flawless geo-location software aka http://www.ip-address.com. I entered in several of the IP addresses on the list I received from my ISP and none of them were located in St Clair County Illinois or even remotely close to St Louis.

      • Ron Mexico says:

        of course not, they’re abusing the courts to obtain info so they can extort money

        doing it the right way would be to use the geo-location software to identify which IP addresses go with which states, then file suit for EACH address separately in the respective state

        but we all know why they’re not taking that approach

      • NHDoe says:

        I did the same thing, and they were all over the U.S. — but none in St. Clair County or close.

        • marble says:

          it actually makes sense to focus on IP address OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the venue they file in. it makes getting court doccuments and forming a defense that much harder for the does. if they had filed in my home state i would have gone to the courthouse and waited all day to get copys of the doc’s, scanned them, and posted them online within 48 hours of my letter from my ISP. it actually suits their purposes best to make sure no one, or as few as possible, does are actually living in the area where they file. since they are all “co-conspirators” all you really need is for doe #1 to reside in that jurisdiction.

          • marble says:

            infact if you geolocated every IP in the list and did indeed find that only doe #1 resided in stclair county/miami dade county, and that all of the ip addresses for stclair were on the florida case’s list and vice versa, then you could easily argue a conspiracy that they are purposefully and knowingly not filing in the appropriate jurisdictin thus establishing that they absolutly have no intention to move forward through the legal system but rather are just trying to extort $$ from the owners of those ipaddresses while making it financially dificult for them to defend themselves. this could possibly open them up to a class actionable lawsuit, and they are already established in stclair county, the class action capital o the country….

    36. Anonymous says:

      Got a letter from Prenda via USPS recently. No where near St Clair County Illinois… Probably just going to ignore it.

      • Raul says:

        Sit tight, I might need to reassess matters in 2 weeks because on inaction in the Prenda Camp and proffer an apology for assuming Prenda would make a necessary business decision. Maybe they are just idiots?

    37. FYI says:

      The address listed for Steve Jones is not his home address, it’s his business address, where he collects IP addresses to pass on to his greedy lawyer. He, his wife, and children reside somewhere else in the area which has not been disclosed as of yet.

      • The Tod says:

        Which address?

        • facts says:

          Based on some facebook pics I saw, I think his business addy is his home addy

          • FYI says:

            If that’s the case, he’s a bigger idiot than I thought.

          • Flashlight says:

            As an earlier commenter has observed if you Google “Jordan Capri pool” you can see a video of the backyard and pool area of Steve Jones’ home/corporate headquarters.

          • The Tod says:

            Correct, he and his wife Shannon are filming porn at their home where their two children live. Within a distance of 1,000 feet of Hopi Elementary school.

          • IndianaDoe says:

            Wonder what the zoning is at that location. Wish I lived in Glendale so I could complain to the city council board of zoning.

          • doecumb says:

            IndianaDoe-

            There are ways to further inquire about this, only a few clicks away.

            http://library.municode.com/HTML/13944/level2/PTIICOOR_CH21.2SEORBU.html
            http://www.glendaleaz.com/planning/zoning.cfm

            You could express concern as a non-resident. Alternatively, you could find a Glendale resident or organization to express concern to the city. If you enter Glendale AZ into google maps and search nearby for churches, there are dozens of listings. It’s a good bet some church members would be quite concerned to know that a porn purveyor has activities there. The bad actions of Lightspeed Media beyond the usual porn purveyor business may also be concerning. Turn legitimate grievances into constructive responses.

          • FYI says:

            As far as I know he hasn’t shot porn there in 5-10 years.

          • Anonymous says:

            LMC is an adult oriented buisness and arizona zoning statutes state that an adult oriented buisness cannot be within 1/4 mile (in a straight line) from any school, church, daycare, or a few other things. the actuall rule was posted in the original pw hacking post but can be easily found via google. glendale’s zoning statutes for adult buisnesses might be even stricter than the arizona statute but cannot be weaker.

    38. Anonymous says:

      Question? Even if I file a MTQ to supress the ISP’s release of info using a lawyer an it gets denied, will they see that as a sign that you’re willing to lawyer up and defend yourself, or do they view you as someone who maybe has at least some assets so they name you right away in a suit in your state once they get your info. Or do they still force settlement first? In other words, if you feel you can bite the bullet of the MTQ via a lawyer, does that help you, hurt you, or have no net effect overall?

      • Anonymous says:

        no one knows what makes them single out one person over another. sorry but there is no scientific method to their madness that they have revield thus far.

    39. IndianaDoe says:

      The use of state presuit discovery mechanisms has promise as a way to avoid the catch-22 of federal pleading standards. In cases in which they are applicable, state presuit discovery mechanisms ought to be used more robustly by plaintiffs who fear that their complaints would otherwise be dismissed under the federal plausibility pleading standard.

      Just read this.

      Seems like this might be what the trolls are up to so they don’t get the case dismissed in Federal court.

      • Anonymous says:

        What does this mean….That they’re going to avoid the fed courts altogether and file against every doe in their respective state courts before offering a settlement?

        • IndianaDoe says:

          This post is for discussion purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.
          This was a scholarly paper out of William and Mary. Basically it suggested using pre-suit discovery in a state venue to gather evidence to make a case that meets the pleading standards of a federal court. In this case they are using pre-suit discovery to grab a list of names and addresses so they can start an extortion campaign. There are still a ton of holes in this case. There is still the rather large issue of the security software and whether or not Arcadia Security may be considered unreliable expert testimony. No one will be able to learn that without a motion for discovery, especially since Mr. Jones has redirected all traffic to Arcadia Security LLC to a google search for gay porn. If you want to look up what corporations he actually owns in the state of Arizna there is a free look up service at the Arizone Corporation Commission website http://www.azcc.gov/. I am already researching counterclaims if he decides to name me.

    40. Anonymous says:

      If you want to be over and done with this, what’s the downside of having one’s attorney negotiate a settlement anonymously before ISP releases info?? The settlement would need to release doe ### (and any dynamic ip’s associated with him/her) from any/all suspected infringements prior to the date of the settlement. Has this been done before?

      • The downside is for the society in general, which has to deal with this kind of abuse because this scum is sustainable. But who cares what’s going on next to my loan, right?

        • doecumb says:

          What possible drawbacks are there with an attorney negotiated settlement ?

          -You’re out several thousand dollars that you may not need to pay. If $4K is pocket change, you’ve probably hired a lawyer to handle this and are not a reader of this blog.

          -You’ve fed the trolls. You’ve paid money to nasty greedy people and underwritten their future scamming. If there are many settlements in your jurisdiction, the trolls have extra incentive to prey again on your community specifically, and Does across the country.

          -You may not get the relief you’re hoping for. The same troll plaintiff (Patrick Collins Inc & K-Beech) may still file allegations for another video technically under a different business name. The same troll lawyer group (Prenda/Steele, Lipscomb & Eisenberg, Mike Meier, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, etc.) could file against the same I.P. address for a different plaintiff. You may feel like a chump if: the case sinks, Does who do not settle are released, judges in your state make their courts unfriendly to trolls, the whole scam fails widely (bound to happen eventually). Just knowing you’ve supported an immoral troll bluff may bring less peace of mind for a while.

          • Anonymous says:

            SJD/Doecumb:

            Thanks for the input. I am a reader, and $4K is not pocket change. I’m also in one of the many states where breach of implied written contract is 6 years, and that’s a long time to deal with potential harassment to be done with this, but maybe I’m missing something???

            Actually, according to this link, the minimum statute of limitations in any state for the contract claim they’re filing is 3 years and goes as high as 15 (OH, KY)!
            http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.html

            I was doing pretty good with managing this in my head, but Raul (who is awesome, BTW) made a short, cryptic comment on 5/11 about sitting tight, assessing matters in 2 weeks, and possibly needing to “proffer an apology”. As knowledgeable as he is, that post gave me the jitters. I ope I’m reading it wrong.

            Thank you for your help/thoughts/comments, I really do appreciate!

          • Although I’m clearly against settling (so pardon my emotional replies to commenters discussing an easy way out), I don’t have moral right to tell people what to do. In many cases a mere association with such a case can be unacceptably harmful to a relationship or a job. In this case there is only one solution: hire a lawyer and negotiate lesser settlement.

            Yet if you can withstand harassment and don’t care much about a small chance that your name will be publicly associated with porn hacking case (giving all current and future publicity such an association means almost nothing for anyone who takes his time to look into the details), paying $4000 for a pleasure not to be blackmailed is a bit high price tag in my opinion. Let me be clear: that’s all you are paying for. All the talk about insurance against possible targeted lawsuit is nothing more than a discussion about paying a million dollar insurance premium for an old car — it just does not make any sense. This case is so weak, that any litigation based on merits is simply impossible.

            Think statistically. Let’s assume that the probability of being targeted individually in a way that requires lawyering up is about 0.1% (this is not a random number, it’s my estimation based on historical data, and in reality it is even lesser: 0.1% means that 250 individuals were pursued in 2011, and we know it is a gross overestimation). Now, let’s assume that legal fight will cost you 30K (again, overestimation, given this case weakness). So expected out-of-pocket expense in case you just wait out is 0.1% * 30K = $30. And you are trying to pay an insurance premium of $4000 for this? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

            You may say that risk averse people want to be sure 100% that nothing bad happens. It’s a common misconception: people in the golden third (moderately risky folks) spend MUCH less on average on accident management PLUS contingency payments (if something bad happens) than risk averse people. Think about it.

          • Raul says:

            First off, I did not mean to give anyone the jitters regarding an apology. The apology was referring to the fact that I am reconsidering my speculation that Prenda is actually going to name and file against less than 1% of Does. They may not name and file against anyone; that is what I am waiting on to prove me an idiot for assuming Prenda is not idiotic. Secondly, the statute of limitation may be 6 years in your state but the cause of action in this case, if litigated, will be dismissed as being nonsense as I indicated in my above post. Thirdly these troll lawsuits typically resolve or blow up in the troll’s face in under a year. RELAX

          • juancarlosdeburbon says:

            You don’t have a contract, so don’t worry about the statute of limitation. Additionally, they won’t file in your state; they won’t file anything.

            If you are contacted, send the attorneys a nice letter stating that if they contact you again regarding the matter that you will consider it harassment and extortion and will file according charges in your state. Send the letter certified, return receipt. You won’t hear from them again.

            You too can use the same legal system against the trolls. They know they cannot file and win. With the judgements to date and the general angst building against the trolls in the legal system, there is virtually nothing they can do to collect anything from you.

            Yes, they can be a pain in the ass in general, but at the end of they day they are nothing but extorting windbags.

            And if they do dare attempt file in any court, your lawyer should immediately file a counterclaim.

    41. Doe says:

      I’m a doe on 11-L-0683 – got a letter from my ISP about this, have until May 31st to respond. This is all such BS. I want to relax, but am concerned about where all of this may lead. I have a couple questions:

      * Anyone know whether MTQs for this case are being accepted? I’m considering filing one, but trying to weigh options. Not really excited about paying for a lawyer to write one, but don’t think I could do it without one.

      * I’m trying to figure out how the hell I ended up here, as I most certainly have not downloaded anything like this, and certainly not from their site that I’ve never heard of. I’ll check my router for improper access (certainly possible), but is it possible something found its way to my computer I’m not aware of? Would it be worthwhile to simply wipe my drive (with something that truly wipes it) or even trash my old drive and get a new one just to be safe? Or does that make someone possibly look guilty or look like destruction of evidence if it somehow goes to trial?

      I’m curious to know what other news there is on this case. If it turns out my info is released I’m all for the Richard Prior Response, but I’m worried Prenda is getting more aggressive and might actually serve more in the future. Anything indicating that might be true?

      Thanks for any help/advice given out there. I’m really glad I found this and the DTD blog.

      • juancarlosdeburbon says:

        Hire a lawyer and file the MTQ, IMHO. When your lawyer does that s/he will alos contact your cable provider. Because you are contesting it in court, they will withhold your information until the course processes all of the motions and such. There is a chance that the statute of limitations will pass and Prenda will not be able to bring additional charges/legal harassment against you. More than likely, Prenda will voluntarily dismiss because you’ve hired a lawyer and that shows them you’re not messing around. Unfortunately, very few people hire attorneys and become the “low hanging fruit” that Prenda goes after. If you don’t want to deal with that, lawyer up.

        • D'oh! says:

          I’m in the process of hiring Yasha Heidari to file a MTQ for me in this case. He has told me that if it is denied and my information is eventually released to the plaintiff, they will be required to go through him rather than contacting me directly.

          I held off on this because I hate to spend my hard earned money on something as ridiculous as this, when there’s virtually no chance of actually being taken to court. But for me, I finally decided it’s worth it for a little peace of mind, and because we have to stand up against the trolls.

          Yasha is in Atlanta, far from where I am, but I decided to go with him because of his very thorough knowledge of copyright troll suits. His fee is $900 ($750 plus $150 fee to file MTQ). See http://www.heidariplank.com/contact-us/yasha-heidari for contact info if anyone’s interested.

    42. Anonymous says:

      Does anyone have the address for the St. Clair County case to file motions? I cant find squat on their website. Getting ready to Quash this/.

    43. IndianaDoe says:

      This article gives a nice picture of the corruption that needs to be overcome in this case.
      http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/226994-omalley-presided-over-st.-clairs-vioxx-litigation-dozens-of-cases-brought-by-lawyers-hell-work-for

    44. IndianaDoe says:

      Here is the body of an e-mail I just sent to the Illinois Civil Justice League: ICJL.Org

      I recently received notice from my ISP that all of personal identifying information has been subpoenaed in connection with my IP adress having allegedly violating the CFAA among many other charges. According to information from the St. Clair county Clerks office no less than 6700 John Does have been subpoenaed in connection with this case. With the notice of the subpoena I was provided with a list of IP addresses, where mine was highlighted. Using readily available internet resources I checked the geographical location of the approximately 100 IP addresses that were provide on my notice, none of them were in St. Clair County Il or the greater St Louis Metro area, only one address was in Illinois. I reside in *********. The Plaintiff in the case Lightspeed Media is an online pornography business registered in the State of Arizona. The Plaintiff Mr. Steve Jones has hire a Forensic Data Recovery firm called Arcadia Data Security to provide him with the data that alleges that the IP addresses were involved in “hacking” into his protected adult content. This security firm is also locate in Arizona and is registered as being owned by Steve Jones. I believe this creates a clear conflict of interest and clearly contaminates the “evidence” that Mr. Jones has collected. Finally the Plaintiff has retained the “Hon” Michael O’Malley from Carey, Danis, and Lowe to represent him. I am sure you are aware that there has been some controversy regarding Mr. O’Malley’s ethics when he resigned his position as a Judge in the 20th circuit court to work as attorney for the defense in cases that he was hearing as judge. I believe that this lawsuit is nothing more than a “fishing” expedition to obtain the names, addresses and phone numbers of thousands of American citizens in order to harass them into pre-litigation settlements or else have their name and reputation be expose to connection to computer fraud, and “barely legal” pornography. I would like to request that someone in your office please look into this flagrant abuse of the legal system in the State of Illinois.

      Thank you,
      **************

      • IndianaDoe says:

        i ALSO SENT A COPY OF THE SAME LETTER TO THE iLLINOIS aTTORNEY gENERALS OFFICE

      • Thank you!

        I also tweeted to this organization a link to the original Rauls’ article.

        • IndianaDoe says:

          I just spoke with someone at the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform explained what was going on and gave him the blogs web address. He said the case sounded “interesting” and was going to write it up for someone to look into.

          • D'oh! says:

            I’m looking forward to the movie version of all this — “Indiana Doe and the Temple of Trolls.”

          • IndianaDoe says:

            SJD has said it before and Norse legends instruct the same thing. Trolls are scared of noise.

            I can’t do a whole lot else, but I can at least make a few phone calls.

          • That what ants do. Every single ant carries just a couple of straws, and in a week there is an anthill hard to miss. Please not merely thank Indiana Doe, but follow his example.

          • Raul says:

            Thank you!

          • Ron Mexico says:

            Very interesting e-mail you’ve wrote IndianaDoe. Well done. :)

          • IndianaDoe says:

            On the phone with the Chamber Legal Reform organization I went into more detail about O’Malley, Pfizer, and Judge LeChien, which ironically is French for Dog.

    45. kzw says:

      Just got an interesting tidbit. My lawyer got a copy of Verizon’s MTQ and it contains this gem, “In response to that letter, Paul Duffy of Prenda Law, Inc. contacted counsel for the Objecting ISPs to advise that Plaintiff’s principal and owner had passed away.” Has anyone heard anything related to this in other documents? Is this just a stalling tactic used by Prenda?

      • Sounds intriguing, if you do/will have more information, please share.

      • D'oh! says:

        Maybe Stevie has faked his own death this time, instead of one of his models. Very strange.

        I was googling for info on the owners of Lightspeed and I found an interesting page where Lightspeed Media is advertising as a marketing/consulting firm with no references to porn. Many of you probably know about this, but I didn’t. See http://ls-media.com.

        Interesting lines from the site: “You feel that the energy you are putting into your business is not turning into sufficient sales/profits. Your current resources could be more appropriately targeted.”

        • Raul says:

          I had the same idea that kzw is having fun with us. If not, this is difficult to verify as death records in AZ are not public documents but are restricted to family members and the like. If Jones did, I’m fact, pass away his Estate would have nothing to gain and jepardize Lightspeed’s lawsuit by disclosing this fact.

          • kzw says:

            I really wish I was, I’ve been trying to verify this as well since my attorney came back to me with the information that is in the Verizon MTQ. From what I gather, it came up in discussions between the attorneys, but one of Duffy did put it in an affidavit or something along those lines. I finally did get a copy of the MTQ if anyone is interested in looking at it.

          • If you wish, send it to me, I’ll upload and link to it.

          • I confirm: Steve Jones’s death is indeed discussed in the motion(s). Will be back with more info one way or another.

          • Raul says:

            kzw,
            Seeing how SJD confirmed that Steve Jone’s passing away has been discussed in Verizon’s motion papers, could this be his obituary? http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Steven-Jones&lc=4642&pid=155536896&mid=4963554 Does it fit within the dates in Verizon’s motion papers?

          • Steve Lightspeed is much younger than 61 :) He is < 50 (although his mental and psychological age is of a four grader as arcadiasecurity.com redirection shows).

          • Raul says:

            I thought that guy was a little too old but the name fits including the middle initial.

          • Anonymous says:

            So if he is dead… what’s that mean with the lawsuit crap, his wife becomes the plaintiff? If steve jones wasn’t such a horribly generic name it might be easier to search for..

          • Anon says:

            If it’s really true that this piece of garbage is no longer sharing the same air as all of us my day just got much much better.

          • The Tod says:

            kzw & sjd,
            Sorry, the whole sounds fishy. Is it possible that this document was altered? And who is the attorney?

          • kzw says:

            I agree it sounds fishy, I sent the MTQ over to sjd and she should be posting it sometime soon. Granted, the MTQ came to my attorney from an attorney in Illinois that is familiar with the case. It seems a pretty crazy claim to make (above and beyond everything else that has they have claimed).

          • Donald Duck says:

            kzw,

            Please don’t take offense, it’s just the paranoid nature of this site, but faking a death is in lightspeed’s wheelhouse. It reeks of something he would do to mess with this site. I really think it needs to be confirmed by multiple sources until then everyone should probably assume it’s a fake.

            I’m not saying Steve Jones is kzw, just saying I would not put it past lightspeed to fake a document, comment on the site, and then send the proof to sjd. All for a good laugh.

            I haven’t found anything on the internet that confirms it, I’ve searched plenty of places.

          • Donald Duck says:

            Furthermore:

            Lightspeed was healthy enough to mess with redirecting his site as of last week. I doubt he was dying of any terminal illness and spending his time doing that.

            So a death of someone his age would have to be something of the nature: car accident, suicide, murder, something news worthy. It didn’t make the news.

            Sure, maybe he had a stroke or an aneurysm but the odds of him faking his death are higher than him falling to any of these sudden non-news worthy deaths.

            Suicide would be the only likely cause of death for Mr. Lightspeed, and he strikes me as to cocky and dumb to do the world a favor.

          • kzw says:

            None taken, I totally get that he would do screw with the site in this manner. Once sjd decides what she wants to do with the doc and everyone has seen it, I’m interested in what everyone thinks about the reasoning and tactics behind the claim. Believe me or don’t, it’s the Internet and people make unsubstantiated claims all the time.

            On another matter, has anyone actually been called or had a letter from the Illinois case yet? Today’s my “final day to file a motion” before my ISP releases my information. Just wondering what to expect as far as a timeline.

          • I double both suspicions and apologies of other commenters. No matter how contradictory it sounds, we assume both things at the same time: that this document is a fake and that you have nothing to do with this suspected forgery :) Until some new information dots all “i”s.

            I’ll publish this a bit later tonight or tomorrow – I have some long overdue stuff to do: writing a post about Prenda’s adventures with Florida’s Bar, something that never saw the light of day yet.

          • One of the obvious ways to verify it – to contact the one who wrote it – Verizon’s attorney. Any ideas who represented ISPs or how to get this information?

          • Raul says:

            Das wahre Problem ist, daß es keine Möglichkeit gibt sicher herauszufinden, ob er die Wahrheit sagt.

          • Braindead says:

            If I am not mistaken, Steve is 46. If he was really dead all his bros on GFY would be crying.

          • Raul says:

            My many apologies to kzw, today I found out that Paul Duffy had reported to other attorneys that Steve Jones was dead. Those attorneys did in fact put that representation in their motion papers. However it turns out that Duffy, once again, had his head up his ass. It was Steve Jones’ father that had passed away.
            ______________________________________________________

            Steve Jones,

            I hate what you are doing at present but I know what it is like to lose a father so I most sincerely extend my condolences to you and yours.

            Raul

      • D'oh! says:

        Check this out –

        Actor – Steve Lightspeed Falls To His Death In New Zealand.

        THIS STORY IS STILL DEVELOPING…

        Actor Steve Lightspeed died while filming a movie in New Zealand early this morning – May 19, 2012

        Preliminary reports from New Zealand Police officials indicate that the actor fell more than 60 feet to his death on the Kauri Cliffs while on-set. Specific details are not yet available.

        The accident occurred at approximately 4:30 a.m. (UTC/GMT +12).

        Additional details and information will be forthcoming.

        http://steve.lightspeed.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_new_zealand.php

        (The Internet Movie Database has no listing for an actor named “Steve Lightspeed.” Hmmm…)

        • D'oh! says:

          Turns out the “Steve Lightspeed Falls to His Death” story has been around for a while. This thread is pretty funny (NSFW) – http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1004986. My favorite post – “The spirit of Tawnee haunted him, and finally drove him mad.”

          • Raul says:

            KZW,

            Not wanting to mess with SJD’s efforts regarding this on other fronts, I just want to ask you a simple question as one American of German heritage to another: Why does your email name that is attached to the purported Verizon MTQ translate in German to “Clever/Sophisticated Troll”?

          • kzw says:

            Raul:

            Fair enough. Honestly, I lived in Germany for a couple of years during my college years and I’ve had this handle for years. I always thought the the word Zwerg (dwarf as I always translated it) was funny (immature, I know) and used it in a bunch of handles at the time. I never thought of it in the context of troll, but I also did not anticipate being listed on a subpoena for password hacking in a case by a bunch of copyright trolls. Take it or leave it, I’m dealing with this case like other Does.

            Btw, I sent SJD a full complaint including all of the IP addresses that my attorney provided to me. Could be helpful in the long run.

            kzw

          • Thanks, uploaded and linked from the Lightspeed page. It’s a scan, so impossible to copy, and quality is bad to run OCR software on numbers.

          • Raul says:

            kzw,

            Thank you for explaining the name. I hope you understand how something like that would send up a red flag for someone who is as paranoid about trolls and their tactics as myself.

          • kzw says:

            Raul,

            It’s not a problem, I really didn’t think about the name and your response makes total sense given the tactics they have already tried. Onwards and upwards against them, though.

            My name supposedly got released yesterday and my lawyer is chomping at the bit for some sort of action, since he thinks the whole case is as ridiculous as the rest of us. Unfortunately, I am not in one of the states where the trolls have a presence, so I don’t know how far it will go once they realize I have representation.

            Has anyone had any contact from the trolls for the Illinois cases yet?

            kzw

    46. Having an interesting fight on Avvo. Pity they deleted my first comment, and I did not save it.

      • Raul says:

        Good Morning Jane,
        Good for you to call out the attorneys whose brilliant legal analysis of this lawsuit concludes with the advice advocated by Prenda. Just lazy. Likewise, the attorney who suggested that this blog risks exposure to a defamation lawsuit for the use of “extortion” and “scam” must have missed the law school lesson on the First Amendment and the metaphorical use of words.

        • The Tod says:

          In there defense Raul, they are not that smart. Additionally, they probably did not get that far down the list of amendments.

    47. DieTrollDie says:

      While doing a little geek reading, I came across this article dealing with Insider Threats. “5 Ways To Lose A Malicious Insider Lawsuit” – http://www.darkreading.com/insider-threat/167801100/security/news/240000436/5-ways-to-lose-a-malicious-insider-lawsuit.html

      While reading it I could see so many areas that show why the Lightspeed case will never go anywhere OR it will be kicked in the junk by the judge.

      According to Davis, judges tend not to be very sympathetic of a case against an insider for stealing trade secrets when the information in question was left unprotected on company systems.
      – “If you do not take reasonable action to protect it and limit access, a court very likely may find that you didn’t treat it as a secret,” he says. “And if you didn’t treat it as a secret, the court is very likely to say, ‘We’re not going to treat it as a secret, either, and we’re not going to give you any remedy. If you didn’t care enough about it to protect it, then we’re not going to help you protect it after the fact.'”

      The content on the Lightspeed site isn’t a “secret,” but it still was controlled by user name/PW and limited to paying customers. The same general rule applies – take steps to protect it!

      Organizations that take their sweet time filing legal paperwork against a malicious insider tend to find it difficult to foster sympathy from judges once filings cross their desks, Davis says. As he puts it, the longer you wait, the less likely the court will be to help you.

      “The court’s going to say, ‘If this was such an emergency, why did you wait two weeks to come down here and file a lawsuit?'” he says. “Especially if it’s sensitive data. If you find out that data has been taken, you need to gather the evidence immediately, get an attorney and get a lawsuit on file as quickly as possible and try to get a temporary restraining order from a judge to stop the person in their tracks, before they further copy it, further disseminate it, or share it with a competitor.” The quicker you act, the more likely you are to get the relief that you need, Davis says.

      DieTrollDie :)

      • This case is a champion regarding the number of single points it should be thrown away immediately. I don’t see any other reason than brazen corruption allowing this case to linger.

    48. anonjohn says:

      How extensive is the harassment? Will they try to locate and contact my employer? I would rather keep this private even though it’s a scam.

    49. Sausages says:

      Posted this over on the Lightspeed page but will repeat it here..

      The case for 11-L-0683 seems to have changed from lightspeed v john doe to lightspeed v john doe 6. Is there any significance to this? Any of you lawyered up folks willing to spread some information to us freeloaders :P

      • According to the information I possess, assuming that the ordinal is from the list of IP addresses in the Exhibit 1 (entries are not numbered explicitly) #6 can be either

        107.10.12.200 – Akron, Ohio
        107.10.196.154 – Livonia, Michigan

        (depends on if you count the “main” defendant as a doe or not)

        Neither makes sense (as if anything originated from the St. Clair corrupt butthole does…)

        • Sausages says:

          hmm… as of 12:54 est it seems to have changed back to just v john doe.. A glitch in the system or just something weird going on?

    50. anon says:

      Here’s the latest RERGISTER OF ACTIONS activity for the past 2 days with May 24th being a cut-off date for alot of Doe’s before their info will be turned over to the trolls. I’m not sure what all this legal talk means, but does anyone have an idea how many of the 6500 Doe’s in the case have filed MTQ’S so far or how we can find out? Also my letter from Comcast stated that July 20th, 2012 is the date that a hearing is set to rule on the filed MTQ’S, but the RERGISTER OF ACTIONS also has some sort of hearing scheduled for June 14th, 2012. Anybody know what that’s all about??

      07/20/2012 CAL:MOTION HEARING ADMINISTRATION csam
      06/14/2012 CAL:MOTION HEARING ADMINISTRATION csam

      RERGISTER OF ACTIONS
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/22/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 DOC:BRIEF ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION FOR LEAVE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ATY FOR DEFEND HEIDARI YASHA
      05/21/2012 MOT:MOTION TO QUASH ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ORD:ORDER ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ORD:ORDER ADMINISTRATION csam
      05/21/2012 ASM:ANSWER/APPEARANCE FEE ATY FOR DEFEND PARKER ROSEMARIE
      HEIDENREICH

    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