Arizona

Active trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims
Comments
  1. Raul says:

    Sweet! Thank you! SJD

  2. Raul says:

    Interesting AZ Order that discusses the state of the law with respect to troll lawsuits and then declines to quash the subpoena or to issue a protective order http://ia600308.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.azd.635492/gov.uscourts.azd.635492.34.0.pdf but does sever the moving Doe from the lawsuit

    • DieTrollDie says:

      That was a mixed blessing order from the court. The judge paints a good picture on the questionable Troll operation, but seems to be fine with allowing them to get the subscriber information via pre-discovery. When motioned to be severed (Doe #6), the judge points out that the date/time between the two remaining Does were weeks apart & severs Doe #6.

      “As the Court held in its previous order, Plaintiff has shown good cause to engage in pre-service discovery. Plaintiff does not allege, however, that the two remaining Defendants
      in this case engaged in the same transaction or series of transactions, and they are therefore not properly joined. John Doe 6 is thereby severed from this lawsuit.”

      DTD :)

  3. Raul says:

    Interesting. This is the first suit that I have seen where a defense attorney has filed a Yuen styled counterclaim. The troll just filed a motion for an extension of time so the plaintiff can finalize settlement with the named defendant who counterclaimed (troll has to probably get the proper approved form from troll headquarters). The allegedly infringed upon work of art was K-Beech’s 2011 “Virgins 4″ which it is rumored to be actually a retitled/repackaged Combat Zone 2008 DVD entitled “Virgins of the Screen 4″)

  4. Raul says:

    Unlike Michigan, a frequent poster to this blog did not get a chance to speak to a Doe defense attorney so he left him a detailed message. So,once again we’ll see what transpires.

  5. Raul says:

    SJD-you are more articulate than I am but someone should do a little write up (Troll of the Week) regarding Weretroll Beth Hutchens and her anti-Troll article in IPwatchdog.com. Let me know if that someone should be me

    • JT says:

      Raul you sound like you understand this issue very well. Thanks for all of your postings. Me and my wife are devestated that this is happening on the date or our isp we were not even home. So we are really confussed. But we now know reading alot of the postings that this is not going to just go away. I have found out that collins has done this in 7 states with 1000s of people one as old as 91 years old. We need to stop this person. What is the best route to begin. Any idea on an att. in the tuson area. I can only imagin how many people he has desroyed. Help and we will help
      Thanks

  6. Raul says:

    More good news today (actually a few weeks ago)! On 3-2-12 in the case entitled Third Degree Films Incorporated v. Unknown Party (case no. 2:12-cv-00108) Judge Teilborg while deciding the troll’s motion for expedited discovery severed Does 2-131 from the action because, in part (the judge cites several reasons)

    “The Court finds that a user participating in the same swarm is not the same transaction
    or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. The Court bases this finding on the
    fact that a particular swarm, including the swarm at issue in this case, can last for many
    months. During those months, the initial participants may never overlap with later
    participants. Additionally, because pieces and copies of the protected work many be coming
    from various sources within the swarm, individual users might never use the same sources.
    Finally, in Plaintiff’s effort to ensure this Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff has included only
    Arizona IP addresses from this particular swarm. However, the Court presumes many users
    from many other jurisdictions participated in this swarm. Because of the ease with which all
    of the various users can be separated, the Court finds it would be inconsistent to find a single
    transaction or occurrence for joinder based solely on Plaintiff’s litigation goals of bringing
    a single lawsuit against the Arizona defendants. In other words, there is no logic to
    segregating the Arizona based members of the swarm from the non-Arizona based members,
    except Plaintiff’s convenience. The Court finds this is not a basis for allowing permissive
    joinder.”

    Great precedent that every AZ Doe can use in their motion to sever and/or quash. The docket and order can be found here http://ia600801.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.azd.670985/gov.uscourts.azd.670985.docket.html:

  7. Anonymous says:

    Troll plaintiff Patrick Collins recent Arizona troll case of 3/31/12 is for that “useful work” Real Female Orgasm 13. It involves 57 Does.

    The lawyer representing the troll adult video business is Wayne Dalley Carroll of Carroll Law Firm PLC.

    The RFC Docket text notes “Documents were incorrectly submitted in the Tucson Division, but the case has now been correctly opened in the Phoenix Division. ”

    The Carroll Law Firm PLC is in Anthem, AZ a suburb of Phoenix. The Tucson court is 2 and a half hour drive away. To get to Tucson by normal route, you would have to drive THRU Phoenix.

    Do you THINK this INCORRECT submission in TUCSON could possibly have something to do with Judge Teilborg of the PHOENIX DENYING PERMISSIVE JOINDER in the Third Degree troll case of 1/17/12.

    Wayne Dalley Carroll of Carroll Law Firm PLC has filed at least 5 cases for Adult Video companies since January 2012. Maybe its only a COINCIDENCE that this filing went to a district that is 115 miles or 2 hours more driving than the Phoenix court.

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/93129/patrick-collins-incorporated-v-unknown-parties/summary/

  8. Anonymous says:

    The copyright registration for the Patrick Collins Arizona troll case of 3/31/12 for Real Female Orgasms 13 says

    “Authorship on Application: PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,…. Authorship: entire motion picture.
    Pre-existing Material: Preexisting Footage.
    Basis of Claim: Compilation of preexisting footage.”

    The unique character and original authorship might need establishing in a real courtroom proceeding. Of course, troll plaintiff has the pattern of using the filings for threatening demands rather than due process.

    Added to other problems, joiner has been questioned by a Phoenix district court judge.

  9. iamjohndoe1234 says:

    I have recently been contacted by my ISP that my information is being subpoenaed for the illegal download of an adult film. Just like most, I was completely surprised by this letter and honestly just want this to go away. I know that most have said that these lawsuits will usually never go further than taking settlements from their victims. I do not want this law firm to ever get my personal information and would consider settling this with just the use of the documented IP address if they agree to retract the subpoena request. Is this ill advised? Has anyone else tried this?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    • Raul says:

      Keep in mind though that if your IP address has been ID’d with other porno downloads your IP address will be tagged as an easy mark by the trolls.

  10. Raul says:

    Your initial instinct was also mine. I wanted to call the troll, protest my innocence, cast suspicious aspirations on certain friends of my offspring and make the whole thing go away with a token payment.

    Thank God I did not follow my initial instinct because I would have been screwed.

    Obviously this community frowns upon feeding the trolls and, thereby, perpetuating their exploitative business model but … .Some citizens find themselves where, for whatever reason, the release of their personal identifying information would be overly stressful at best or career/marriage ending at worst. If you are in this situation hire an attorney to protect your anonymity and, hopefully, negotiate a lower settlement . Under no circumstances do you contact the troll directly because it will back-fire in your face!

    • iamjohndoe1234 says:

      Raul, I do not know your story. Did you simply ignore the troll and he went away?

      After I clear myself of this awful experience I plan to help others who are suffering from this issue, just as you do. I plan to hire an attorney for negotiation and protection purposes. Could my IP be hunted by this troll? Would they continue to try and find me through this. I am pretty confident that my IP does not stay the same for long… Unfortunately I am not too educated on technology or bittorrent.

      Thank you for your input!

      • Raul says:

        What I did was read this blog and that of dietrolldie.com and than I filed a motion to quash/sever in the lawsuit which involved my IP address. The motion was successful in preventing the release of my personal identifying information (in a unique but not unheard of way which I will relay at a later date). I have never been contacted by a troll or their agent and my ISP has acknowledged that this case is closed (how long they will retain my data is anyone’s guess). This rude intrusion has caused me and all members of this community a lot of stress which I hope can be returned to the trolls with compound interest.

        • Raul says:

          Almost forgot, I changed all the info in regard to my ISP account into deadends and told my ISP to update their records to reflect the changes.

        • iamjohndoe1234 says:

          I plan on filing a motion to quash/sever ASAP in an attempt to keep my identity confidential. Did you rely on an attorney for this or did you go through with this motion yourself? Would you be willing to share your letter as a template in hopes that I could follow your format to achieve the same results. (I understand if you do not want to provide this as it may be seen as personal) Maybe you know where I can get a template to help me with this process?

          You have greatly eased my mind and given me hope that I will find my way out of this horrible form of bullying with my wallet intact. Many thanks!

        • Anonymous says:

          did this take place in your locality? the problem some of us are suffering in the IL Lightspeed case is that we are no where near the site of the lawsuit, we’d have to hire a local attorney to file the motion or be able to perfectly construct the motion on our own in a limited time frame. i’m envious of all of you who were able to do so.

        • iamjohndoe1234 says:

          Yes, this did take place in my local area of Arizona. A few things that were previously mentioned in this thread is that multiple Does have been excused from cases in Arizona because some of the IPs identified in the case could not be traced to Arizona and also that they could not prove that all of the accused IPs were sharing the entire file with each other. At least this was my understanding.

          Unfortunately, with my limited knowledge this is all jargon which is why I may have a local attorney issue the motion to quash. This still does not resolve my concern that my IP is being tracked and will be used against me again for other lawsuits. I believe that an attorney is the best bet for protection my identity and resolving these claims for good.

  11. Raul says:

    Back in my time motion templates were rather primitive but today you newer Does have a smorgasbord of excellent templates to peruse, modify and file thanks to DTD’s tireless efforts in this regard http://dietrolldie.com/motions/

    • iamjohndoe1234 says:

      Anonymous, thank you for this post. In Arizona, the viewing of pornography is not illegal but the filming of pornography in this state is considered to be prostitution and therefore it is illegal. People have tried to used this to get out of copyright cases stating that you can’t have a copyright on an illegal action or on anything that does not better the current standing of mankind. Unfortunately, many trolls will fight these statements and I have yet to see this favored in court. (Not to say that it hasn’t been favored, I just have not seen a case)

  12. iamjohndoe1234 says:

    Would it hurt a case/is it illegal for the same John Doe to submit two motions to quash a subpoena? After sending in my first motion I continued to do research on the troll and found that he filed three different pornography copyright suits on the same date and of course these involved hundreds of Does. I think that this information would be very good information to get to my judge and I think that it may help to shine some light on the trolls game. I want to do anything that I can to get this troll out of my town.

    • Raul says:

      Send the additional in as an Addendum to your motion or wait until the troll files a response and send it the info as part of your Reply.

      • iamjohndoe1234 says:

        Thank you Raul. I will wait for a response and then definitely file this info as part of my Reply. Since the first of the year my troll has opened 6 copyright infringement suits of this nature. It makes me sick to think how much money and livelihood is being taken from his victims.

  13. jdoe says:

    does anyone know how the ISP will know to not release my personal information after I have motioned for to quash the request? i have submitted a copy of the motion but how will they receive the results of this? additionally how will other subscribers of my ISP be protected or other ISPs know that there is said motion in the courts?

    my primary concern is that if the subpoena date arrives and my information is the only information that is not submitted to the troll, won’t they know who has been putting up a fight in the court?

    • Anonymous says:

      When you file a MTQ you also send a copy to your ISP. Once they receive the copy they will not release your information unless the MTQ is denied. Also, even though an MTQ can be filed anonymously it will still identify you by IP address but the only way the troll can know who is behind the IP address is if the MTQ is denied and the subpoena is serviced.

      • jdoe says:

        thank you, great information. but this still does not address my primary concern. if i am the only person to file a motion to quash and my ip is the only one that the troll does not receive come the date that the subpoena information is to be released by the ISP then won’t they come after me directly? does the troll have to request the information again come the date that the subpoenaed information is available to be released? or do the ISPs automatically release all of the information come that date (aside from the ones with a motion in question)?

        sorry, i know that i am asking a lot but i do not want to get myself stuck in a poor situation.

    • doecumb says:

      First question is the easiest: Contact the legal department of your ISP, let them know a motion to quash (MTQ) is on the way, then fax (and/or send) it. Then call to make sure it is received.

      Some ISP’s will hold the information if informed a MTQ is in process (especially from a lawyer), even ahead of receiving it. But confirmation from the ISP of receiving the MTQ is safest.

      The knowledge of other Does about your MTQ is more variable. For Does who track the case on PACER or RFC Express, they may see the listing (if the listing is made promptly). AFAIK ISP’s are not routinely delaying release of all Doe info based on one MTQ.

      The advantages or disadvantages of a troll singling out one Doe, based on IP address and only if trolls win discovery of that address, is a subject of discussion discussed here and other places. The subject will probably be covered in a FAQ eventually.

      What’s sure is that MTQ’s will raise the profile of cases for judges, and possibly take some of the troll’s time, raising THEIR inconvenience.

      • jdoe says:

        thanks doecumb. i just am confused on if the subpoena information is again requested of the ISPs come the subpoena due date or if they will just automatically release personal information on that date if the IP holder has not submitted a motion.

  14. Clueless Doe says:

    I’m one of the Does of 1:12-cv-00656-CMA-KMT and I reside in AZ, my questions are:

    1. Is it true if I want to hire a lawyer to file a Motion, I’ve to hire a DC based lawyer because the letter I received has a letterhead for “Distric of Columbia”
    2. Since Prenda Law has no affiliate office in AZ, the chance for me to get sue is very remote, is that true?
    3. Part of this website suggest in the initial stage, say when receive a ISP letter, do absolutely nothing; panic only until receive letter for court appearance. But I also read a lot of suggestion from this same website about file a Motion, what should I do?

  15. Anonymous says:

    New troll Steven J. Goodhue,

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/97504/cp-productions-incorporated-v-unknown-party/summary/

    700+ Does are involved, seems many of them do not reside in AZ.

  16. Smells says:

    The lawsuit filed in AZ is brand new, not an old case, and I am wondering if it is a password hacking case. It smells like a password hacking case and not a torrent case. I lost the link but from what I was reading about this case it reeks of set-up passwords being seeded out on password sharing sites for the sole purpose of luring future lawsuits/extortion letters. I* really think this needs to be investigated because I know I am right. I know I am so right that I would be willing to sniff Chica’s panties if I am wrong, and believe me, that is really putting myself in a harbinger situation. At the very least, a sticky wicked.

  17. Smells says:

    I forgot to add a very important adjective to the above post: EWWWW!!!

  18. Anonymous says:

    It is a bit torrent case concerning the video “GH Hustlers – Paige’s First Visit”. It accuses a Doe, with an AZ IP address, as a “serial infringer” located in several swarms and the rest are “his joint tortfeasors”.

  19. Anonymous says:

    it has to be bittorrent because they filed it federal, if it was maricopa county then i would guess pw, as that seems to be the way prenda is doing things.

  20. Anonymous says:

    technically yes, but if you look at the lightspeed cfaa casses ALL of them have been filed in county courts not federal. so atleast as far as prenda is concerened it is not a federal statute. we are still waiting as challenges to venue have been voiced but no one has ruled on them yet (as far as i know)

  21. JT says:

    We are also victtims of The patrick collins scam. we are over wellmond with what we have found out what this scum bag is getting away with. I have found people in 5 different states numbering in the 1000s that this person has gone after. We would like to fight ours too. but have no idea where to start or what Law office in tucson Az to contact. any one have any suggestions?

  22. Kop says:

    First Time Videos (troll Steven J. Goodhue) just filed a new case against an individual,

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/99863/first-time-videos-llc-v-gary-phoenix/summary/

    Anyone knows what is going on ?

  23. Raul says:

    Prenda stooge is now suing a state capital! First Time Videos v. Phoenix (AZD 12-cv-1488) :?

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe that’s why Horne is so pissed off. Jesus…suing a state capitol first, then it’s suing two Fortune 50 firms.

  24. Raul says:

    In CP Productions v. Unknown (12-cv-1183) Troll Goodhue files a complaint against a John Doe and oodles of his “co-conspirators” http://ia601204.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.azd.706031/gov.uscourts.azd.706031.1.0.pdf. Next the troll makes a motion to subpoena the John Doe and the “co-conspirators” identifying info on 6-13. Fortunately, Judge Gleason sees through this bullshit charade and only allows the troll discovery as to the single John Doe which effectively kills this lawsuit. http://ia701204.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.azd.706031/gov.uscourts.azd.706031.9.0.pdf

    Docket is here http://ia601204.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.azd.706031/gov.uscourts.azd.706031.docket.html

    • Raul says:

      “Chica” might now need to work a few stag parties so as to afford the phentermine to get back into performing shape (not me, my kitten “Meow!”)

      • Anonymous says:

        Heh by my very very rough estimation, “Chica” and her husband are both facing 100+ counts of prostitution each and an equal number of counts of up to four different felonies each depending on who runs the show. If they both do, bam, 400+ felony counts related to prostitution per individual. HDP would be even worse. Even if there’s an investigation going on, no porn stars will wanna come do shit for HDP because they could get charged with prostitution, which would basically shut their site down.

  25. Anonymous says:

    i just wanted to throw this out there, but arizona’s house bill 2549 makes it illegal to

    “Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, 5 intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend;”

    this includes phones. so copy right trolls be careful how you call. this will be great when people start using it against trolls. i think it is an overreaching bill, but still gives you something to think about.

    • SJD says:

      What? AZ residents won’t be able to troll the troll? :(

      • Anonymous says:

        no it makes it illegal to use the phone to threaten or intimidate, so that troll call that is DESIGNED to threaten and intimidate potentially innocent people is now ILLEGAL in Arizona. if you get a troll call and they threaten you then file a criminal case against them for using an electronic device to threaten and/or intimidate you.

  26. Duncan says:

    Has anyone heard anything about this case (12-CV-00668) Media Productions inc vs unknown parties filed on 3/29/12? Or anything on the lawyer Wayne Carroll?

  27. Anonymous says:

    In Third Degree Films v. Unknown (12-cv-108) Judge Teiberg made the following Order yesterday:

    “ORDER (TEXT-ONLY) – On June 25, 2012, the Court ordered that service be completed on Defendant 1 by August 27, 2012. No proof of service has been filed. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that on Wednesday, 9/12/2012 at 9:45 A.M., Plaintiff shall appear before Judge James A. Teilborg (Courtroom 503, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003) and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the remaining Defendant. Entered by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/5/2012. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.”

    Seems that Troll Carroll takes out summonses but never gets around to serving them.

  28. Anonymous says:

    i am curious if there was a response from cp prod’s to the isp’s motion to remove the order forcing them to store doe info

    http://ia601204.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.azd.706031/gov.uscourts.azd.706031.docket.html

    it should have been up by now (14 days after the 18th is the 2nd) i know az is not being kind to trolls so i am curious how goodheu responds.

    • sharp as a marble says:

      there was some action on the docket from http://ia601204.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.azd.706031/gov.uscourts.azd.706031.docket.html i have not gotten my pacer log in in the mail yet, so if anyone is willing could you recap the docket? looks like some shit went down. response to the isp’s motions, an order, and the a pro hac vise admission (probably from an attorney from the isp’s) leads me to believe that the isp’s did not win their motions, still should be an interesting read how godhue responded to them.

    • That Anonymous Dude says:

      Bart Huffman was just admitted pro hac vice, that’s about it.

      “MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Bart W Huffman on behalf of BellSouth.net, Cellco Partnership, CenturyTel, Embarq Corporation, Qwest Communications, SBC Internet Services Incorporated, and Verizon Online LLC. (BAS) (Entered: 10/10/2012)”

      “ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 24 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court’s website at http://www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/10/2012)”

      BellSouth, Cellco, CenturyTel, Embarq, Qwest, SBC, AND Verizon…holy fuckin shit hahaha.

      • sharp as a marble says:

        thanks TAD, yea i am watching this case because of how many isp’s are involved against the plaintiff.

  29. Kop says:

    Prenda filed at least 12 individual lawsuits today in AZ. Wonder whether the attorney general is going to look into these cases.

  30. Anonymous says:

    one thing that many individuals may not be considering is this lil fact. if all 28 of these individual cases in az fought then it would easily overwhelm good ole godhue (prenda’s scum lawyer in az) he is already having to fight a couple of LSM cases where people did not roll over. imagin having to litigate 30 cases all at the same time. if everyone fights then the trolls WILL lose. there is no doubt about it.

  31. SJD says:

    I hope we’ll hear some interesting (rather good) news soon.

    My take on the audacity of filing 28 cases in one of the less troll-friendly states? Steele is pissed, acted irrationally, and did it out of outrage.

    Which means that Sekora’s case progresses well, not according the plan scumbags have hoped for. Far from it.

  32. SJD says:

    Phoenix-area investigations reveal shadowy porn industry.

    The article tells about someone named Jacob David Deakins who lured underage girls to his home to shoot porn clips. Then the author proceeds to discussing the legality of porn production in Arizona and mentions CP Productions and Hard Drive Productions. He even talks about copyright trolling lawsuits, that, despite the questionable legality, these companies are “not shy” in the federal court.

    I smell the crackdown on pornography production in Arizona, or at least a related public campaign, which is not good news for out “friends” CP Productions, HDP and Lightspeed in any rate. Funny thing that Prenda’s and the said pornographer’s combined greed brought this heat upon them, and although I refrain from discussing the legality of pornography production in US in general, I really want that that this heat melts these particular companies beyond repair.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Anybody knows what’s Sekora’s case number ?

  34. Anonymous says:

    Paul Ticen, who is Adam Sekora’s attorney in the Maricopa County Lightspeed case, is now representing the unknown doe in Goodhue’s Federal Guava Case

    http://ia601503.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.azd.732425/gov.uscourts.azd.732425.docket.html

    • BK145 says:

      Is Wayne Carroll (firm) Still trolling in AZ for CEG TEK? I don’t see too many currently by them, also goodhue seems to have slowed a bit. Does anybody here have any input as to whether AZ is a “hot spot” so to speak for trolling? I see most places have dozens of cases except AZ, NM, and a few other states.

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