Colorado

Trolls
  • Jason Aaron Kotzker
Attorneys who defend troll victims
Relevant posts
Announcements
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    Just got my letter from Comcast ref Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22, Docket No: 1:12-cv-02392. Kotzker is the troll, Hegarty is the judge. Anyone else in the same boat? Any templates for motion to quash the subpoena or dismiss multiple Does for Colorado out there?

    • Raul says:

      Check out the older comments, tons of info there.

      • Raul says:

        Save you some time, dietrolldie.com has tons of templates for anti-troll motion practice. However, Hegarty is an ass and has yet to grant such a motion but defers then as being “premature” so filing such a motion may be a waste of time.

  2. Raul says:

    CO Does,
    Love your state, had a wonderful time in Denver, Boulder and Golden and cannot believe such a great state can tolerate a douchebag like Troll Kotzker. If Celestial Tea Co., made a troll tea it would be named “Jason’s Barely Legal Bullshit Brew”.

  3. Raul says:

    On a slow night this is of some interest. Troll Kotzker files an individual suit which gets initially assigned to M.J. Hegarty but for some reason Judge Babcock reassigns it to Judge Krieger. Hmmm? http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/colorado-district-court/105781/malibu-media-llc-v-brian-wieland/summary/

  4. Anonymous says:

    Tomorrow is D-Day for me in:
    Cases Filed By Thomas G. Jacks Of Chalker Flores In The Eastern District Of Texas
    Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-4 (Case No. 1:12-cv-01963)
    I’d expect calls will start soon but had a question about my phone number. I kept my out of state number since moving here 4 years ago. I was wondering if I should change it now and not leave a forwarding number to avoid some of the phone calls.
    Any other Does try to quash? Anyone have details on this troll? Thanks.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Just got my letter from Comcast ref Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22, Docket No: 1:12-cv-02392. Kotzker is the troll, Hegarty is the judge, I am on this boat, its already 2 of us, on that forum, its another 20. So what i should do should i file a MTQ, should I add something to the MTQ. And I will be anonymous I guess, so what are the chances of dismiss, should everybody file MTQ or…… so I do not know. I talk to John Arsenault lawyer, and he said that he will file MTQ for me for 1500$, but its not for sure, what will happen, or we can do settlement for around 3000$. I dont like both of the options. Is that a criminal case or…… , I mean can I get arrested, if I dont respond. Please help me, let me know if anybody knows something new!!!

    Thank you!

  6. Raul says:

    First off relax this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, you are not subject to arrest. If you check out rfcexpress.com and search either “doe” or “Malibu Media” under CO you can rather quickly grasp how both Troll Kotzker and M.J. Hegarty operate. Motion practice to prevent the release of your personal info to Kotzker is a waste of money as, so far, Hegarty has denied those motions as “premature”. At this stage it is best to keep your head low, not speak to the troll’s agents under any circumstances and educate yourself. Search this and dietrolldie.com for “Kotzker” and “Fantalis”, I would link certain articles but am limitted by my iPad. Also read the FAQs of both blogs and, remember, relax for the time being.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I received my letter today, same boat. I’m going to bury my head in the sand and hope it all blows over.

  8. Anonymous says:

    How do we know what we are charged with? As far as i know, I pay the bill but live with 3 other people, and I haven’t downloaded anything in the past 2 months, and our IPs change regularly. Is there a way to find who did it?

    • That Anonymous Dude says:

      You haven’t been charged with anything. This is civil, not criminal. Your name is on the bill so this concerns you and only you. Please do not go and call up Kotzker and rat out your roommates because I can pretty much guarantee he will still sue you…and he’ll sue your roommates too but not after deposing you. There’s no way to find out who did it unless you ask them and they confess and if that doesn’t work, have their computers forensically examined. So basically you’re gonna have to take their word for it. For all you know, it could be one of your roommates’ friends. Who knows. Someone could’ve broken into your router and stolen your bandwidth, which is a distinct possibility if you haven’t turned WPS off and secured your router with WPA2, someone could break your router’s WPS PIN in a matter of minutes and have full control over it. You speak as though you have multiple IPs. One account, one IP, multiple internal IPs, but only one external IP.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22, Docket No: 1:12-cv-02392ok so should we do something to stop it at this point or …………….

  10. Anonymous says:

    I need a lawer for mtq file. does anyone know how much cost of hire lawer?

  11. Anonymous says:

    it wont help most likely, and cost 1500$

  12. SJD says:

    Christina Saunders gives an interesting (I’m sure!) presentation this Thursday in the CO bar: Pirates, Trolls, and Pornography: A Look at the Substance, Procedure, and Ethics of Mass BitTorrent Protocol Lawsuits.

    I hope she will make the thesis available soon after the presentation.

  13. Anonymous says:

    did anybody file MTQ for John Does 1-22, Docket No: 1:12-cv-02392, should I file one?

  14. IPlawforIPaddresses says:

    A MTQ will be filed for at least one John Doe in that case (2392) in addition to other relevant motions. There will also likely be a motion to sever filed on the joinder argument that is separate from the quash motion.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Are the above motions available to view/download so they can be sent to Comcast to prevent the release of our personal info, at least until the motions are ruled on?

  16. SJD says:

    It’s is not a news that Colorado judges ruled inconsistently regarding joinder. Judge Krieger followed Beryl Howell’s decision allowing early joinder. This got complicated when Judge Martinez began severing the cases resulting in a spit in precedent.

    It appears that Chief Judge Wiley Daniels, citing Judge Martinez’s decision, issued an order to show cause why the defendants shouldn’t be dismissed.

    In other words, Chief Judge has chimed in to fix the split, and it is not a good news for Kotzker and Lipscomb.

  17. AC says:

    Kotzker just contradicted his assertion that their IP address identification techniques never produce false positives. That is, in his discovery answers provided to Fantalis, Kotzker asserted that every IP address identified by IPP is an infringer.

    From his October 12 Memorandum:

    “Second, Plaintiff will often not pursue its claims against many Doe Defendants. As an
    example, once receiving discovery Plaintiff will learn that some Doe Defendants are active duty
    military, a coffee shop or hospital with an open wireless Internet connection, or have some other
    circumstance that would prevent Plaintiff from pursuing its claims.”

    Active duty military – subscriber is not infringer
    Coffee shop – subscriber is not infringer
    Hospital – subscriber is not infringer

    Jeff Fantalis – subscriber is not infringer

    • Raul says:

      There is so much in that filing that is remarkable either because it is a shading of the truth :/ or because it gives some insight into why Hegarty is bending over backwards (forwards?) for Kotzker. In the final analysis it is just sad, Kotzker should follow his bible and move on before it is is too late for redemption. #irony,

    • anotherCOdoe says:

      What memorandum is that? Which case? That would be good to read.

  18. Raul says:

    In case you missed SJD’s twitter feed, big news in CO! In Sunlust Pictures v. Doe (12-cv-656) plus 1,385 “joint tortfeasers” Tamaroff & Tamaroff made a successful motion to have Judge Tafoya reconsider her earlier determination that the joinder of all the non-named “joint tortfeasers” was proper and expedited discovery could proceed. Upon reconsideration the judge found joinder improper and quashed the subpoenas as to the “joint tortfeasers” and directed Troll Anderson to cease any further contact with those individuals. http://subpoenadefense.com/2012/10/magistrate-judge-tafoya-rejects-expedited-discovery-of-joint-tortfeasors-in-sunlust-pictures/

  19. John Doe Fore says:

    I noticed Combat Zone has put forth another case in Colorado and am curious to find more info about it (Case No. 1:12-cv-02587)
    I have a Pacer account but I couldn’t find anything about the title or IP addresses. Should I be looking elsewhere in Pacer?
    Thanks

    • Anonymous says:

      Hello everyone, anybody in case 1:12:-cv-02392.I do file a motion to quash, which was denied from the District of Colorado. Also I receive a letter saying I should re- file the motion to the issuing state, which is New Jersey. Well I will do that, but I am wondering should add another motion.Is it gonna be me the same court case number, who is the judge ?

      Well if anybody has any information about case like that please help me out!

      Thank you!

  20. SJD says:

    As Kotzker began running out of creative ideas how to dodge discovery, he got an unexpected boost from the people of Colorado! Expect really interesting reasons not to answer simple, direct, no-nonsense questions.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Malibu really didn’t learn. They just filed 7 more suits in CO. And Patrick Collins filed 2.

    All of them filed by Kotzker. Looks like the pot hasn’t hurt his productivity just yet.

  22. John Doe says:

    Has Kotzker abandoned his CO Malibu Media cases?

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/colorado-district-court/106056/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-37/summary/

    “10/19/2012 Plaintiff shall file a status report within five (5) days of the date of this order, then on the tenth day of each month thereafter, informing the Court of the status of service in this case. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/19/2012. (mehcd) (Entered: 10/19/2012)”

    No status report for December, and it’s the 23rd.

    Here’s another one:

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/colorado-district-court/109347/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-28/summary/

    No status report in either Nov or Dec.

    Lots of other CO cases have no activity for months, yet are not dismissed. Yet Kotzker started a couple more cases in Dec against new Does. Seems like he is becoming more blatant in his strategy to not actually litigate cases.

    • John Doe says:

      Assigned to Judge William J. Martinez–expect him to rule as he has before and declare joinder improper.

  23. John Doe says:

    Some action here in a Colorado MM case. Can anyone RECAP?

    RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Counterclaim 17 be granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 18 be granted in part and denied in part. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/15/2013. (kfinn, ) (Entered: 01/16/2013)

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/colorado-district-court/100578/malibu-media-llc-v-ryan-geary/summary/

    • Anonymous says:

      I see that there was a status conference to be held on 1/28, but that it said “The Status Conference may be vacated if the settlement agreement is accepted.”

      So, it seems the defendant reached a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed. This is my assumption.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Do you guys think the statement by judge Otis Wright of

    “To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence.

    What is more, downloading data via the Bittorrent protocol is not like stealing candy. Stealing a piece of a chocolate bar, however small, is still theft; but copying an encrypted, unusable piece of a video file via the Bittorrent protocol may not be copyright infringement. In the former case, some chocolate was taken; in the latter case, an encrypted, unusable chunk of zeroes and ones. And as part of its prima facie copyright claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants copied the copyrighted work. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). If a download was not completed, Plaintiff’s lawsuit may be deemed frivolous.”

    is a good base for a motion to dismiss?

    • TrollHaters says:

      YES. that entire ruling (among other good rulings….) should be entered/referred to as part of any answer/reply/motion going forward. a fed judge showing great understanding and reasoning ability in stating how lame and weak and corrupt the entire troll industry is should carry significant weight in most any fed or state court (except maybe the dc court where (a) certain jurist(s) lack the ability to recognize personal bias and prejudice and then recuse oneself……)

      The Otis ruling needs to be put into the case records of ANY AND EVERY troll case possible.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sure. The ruling is not binding precedent, but it still represents another federal judge’s reasoning behind the decision he made when scrutinizing one of these cases. Unlike many other perfunctory dismissals Wright did his homework and spent a lot of time filling in the details behind his reasoning. Trolls count on ignorance from all parties involved, starting with Does who are ignorant of the legal system but they also take advantage of judges who are not familiar with technology, have likely never used a BitTorrent client, and who are unfortunately not skeptical enough of attorneys claims. Most judges do not have the time or motivation to do extensive background research on a case and so the troll lawyer often has the first and last say regarding the workings of BitTorrent and the quality of their “investigations” unless and until one of the Does files an MTQ, counterclaim, etc. Having the opportunity to read the opinion of one of their own who has already done the homework for them is something most judges are likely to appreciate.

  25. pissed off Doe says:

    Kotzker troll changing tactics yet again, Noe MM cases are against John Doe subscriber assigned IP address ….. ” Interesting to see how this will play out, as IP addresses change constantly.

  26. trollbite says:

    New Doe here. Everyone here has great comments but I’m still trying to figure out what to do. Comcast (in Colorado) sent me a letter last October saying they would release my name to this Troll. They did and now I have a letter from him with a Reference Line: Patrick Collins, Inc. v. {my name}.

    Dear {my name}

    Your ISP, Comcast Cable, identified you as the subscriber in control of IP Address x.x.x.x, blah blah blah.

    We are currenting reviewing your matter for purposes of determing whether to pursue our client’s claim of copyright infringement against your through further litigation. Included herewith is a form which allows you to convey to us any evidence which you beleive makes it less likely that you are the infringer. etc, etc.
    Should you fail to return the form or call us within ten days, then we will assume you have no exculpatory evidence. Jason Kotzker

    Should I actually fill out his questionnaire?
    Should I bury my head in the sand?
    Is this a personal lawsuit since it mentions Patrick Collins, Inc. v. {my name}?
    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    • Don't Feed the Greed! says:

      It sounds like this db is trying to trick you into incriminating yourself. Do NOT fill out the questionaire or contact scumbag Jason.

    • Drifter says:

      As Admiral Ackbar would say “It’s a trap”.

      You should not reply to the request for exculpatory evidence from the the trolls, as it just an information phishing expedition on their part to get you to revel information that they will use to imply or claim that your are the infringer because they have nothing except an IP address associated with your Internet service account, which as courts have increasingly noted is not sufficient evidence to prove that the account holder is the infringer. As they are aware of the weaknesses of their claim against you, they send out these letters to do the opposite of the would they claim, they want you to hand over your personal information in the hope something you say can be used against you.

      I would ignore it, but if you feel must reply, just tell them in the most polite way possible that you didn’t do it and to go fuck themselves. If they choose to file a named suit against you, I would higher a lawyer and let them handle any communication with the troll. Never voluntarily give them any personal information, as they will twist and misrepresent anything you say or revel to suit their extortion scheme against you.

      This is not legal advise, just my personal opinion.

      • SJD says:

        Exactly. As I mentioned it elsewhere, it’s like trying to honestly answer a yes-no question “have you stopped beating your wife?” Any answer can and will be used against you.

        • trollbite says:

          So basically just wait for a lawsuit to be filed against me? Just got this letter yesterday – kinda freekin out.

        • Yeah, just saw one of these letters the other day. Not too sure what advice to give the guy that has it but it is an interesting tactic. He had Kotzker nail him to a case last March, so he did a MTQ and Kotzker ended up tossing him off the case. Now a year later here comes a new letter and he’s all freaked out about it because it has his name on it. It’s funny that there’s all these new “movies” that are named on the letter that were never brought up previously. Same as Trollbite with the question, should he just sit and wait until a lawsuit is filed or should he at least make a denial call to this joker? I was telling him it’s bullshit but Kotzker seems like he a bit risky with some of his cases so I’m seeing what everyone else has seen so far.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I received a letter identical to the one trollbite referenced the other day. It was forwarded from my old address in CO to my new address out of state, via the postal service. I agree probably no good could come from returning the form but I wonder whether I can be sued out of state. Since Kotzker mailed the letter to my my address in CO should I just do nothing or inform them I live out of state… What difference if any does it make to being sued etc? Any help is greatly appreciated!

  28. pissed Off Doe says:

    9 more MM single ip addreess cases posted yesterday. To date, rfc has 554 cases from Malibu Troll. How big can this scam grow before Lipscum will start making Steele type errors. Maybe someone needs to drag Colette from her county club lifestyle to courtrooms to face angry federal judge.

  29. InnocentBystander says:

    A general legal question. In observing the Malibu Media cases filed in Colorado I notice they follow a different legal strategy than other trolling cases. In other cases, the troll represents that they have evidence that their clients copyright has been violated from a particular ip address and want a subpoena to identify the ip subscriber in ORDER TO IDENTIFY who may have infringed. They admit the infringer could be a spouse, child, roommate, etc., but say they will investigate in order to identify and name the infringer. In Colorado, they immediately name the infringer as the subscriber and seek a subpoena to better identify them. My question is how can a judge believe they properly fulfilled their section 11 obligations in naming the defendant, excluding the spouse, child, roommate etc. IF THEY need a subpoena to identify the subscriber. “Yes, your Honor, I can certify that the defendant is the Infringer. I’ve investigated the spouse, child, roommate and neighbor and examined the home of the defendant, I know the pattern of each persons internet usage, but I simply can’t find the defendants name…

  30. Anonymous says:

    Now don’t get my wrong i love getting on everyday and reading about the down fall of prenda. But it seams as this goes father on it’s getting father away from trolling is bad and more to prenda is dumb? unlawful? just bad?. however you want to say it, it comes back to talking about prenda and not about trolling.

    Now that i got that off my chest, i write this more of a note of asking for help here in Colorado.

    Kotzker is just as bad of a troll as prenda however he does it more by the book. Now he does make mistakes and a few people have gotten out. However he also has a VERY troll friendly judge. The last time i was in court with them he had missed a timely filing deadline, mind you kotzker did not even know, the judge had to tell him about it. Then says it would be fine if he filed by the end of the week….

    now i’m not a lawyer, but is not kind of like YOUR JOB to know your deadlines. maybe if it was a pro se defendant.

  31. qiffphelle says:

    I just received a letter through Kotzker and Malibu Media… What should i do? I dont want to give the troll any money. I dont really want to get an attorney. Should i contact the troll? HELP and advice from people who have dealt with this would be great. Thanks

    • Raul says:

      Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you need to retain a lawyer unless you have a plausible reason why you were tagged (like being overseas). Do not speak with or otherwise communicate with ANYONE from Malibu Media. The odds are very good that this will not go away. The sooner you hire one of the reccommended attorneys at the top of this page the better.

      • qiffphelle says:

        Raul,

        What do you think is the worst possible outcome for me here? I’ve reached out to the attorneys, but i dont have that much money in general. am i just screwed or is there any way out of this?

        • Raul says:

          This gang demands $750-$1000 per downloaded flick to settle. Most of these cases involve multiple downloads so the settlement demand is usually steep. Worst case scenario is you ignore the lawsuit and they take a default judgement against you which could range from a few thousand, inclusive of attorneys fees and costs, to in excess of $100,000. I have not seen a default judgement for these types of lawsuits in CO but elsewhere they are typically in the $3,000-$5,000 range but there have been notable exceptions in the higher range.

          Look around and see if you can get pro bono legal representation.

        • Anonymous says:

          A default judgement means you didn’t respond to the court so the plaintiff’s claims are accepted by default. The lowest figure the law allows for intentional infringement is $750 per title so with Malibu’s usual long lists of accused downloads it would be quite a bit more than the $3-5,000 that the single title trolls have typically come away with.

          So whatever you do you need to respond to his filings and make sure that doesn’t happen.

  32. qiffphelle says:

    Thanks Raul.

    Do you know what the situation is like if i downloaded something on 1/17/2013 and online it ways it was copyrighted on 1/25/2013? Can that work be omitted from their claim?

  33. qiffphelle says:

    So i have 21 days to respond to the subpoena that Malibu Media sent me. do i write a document or is there a for i fill out to deny everything.

  34. Clanzo125 says:

    Howdy… just got one from RDK Films LLC. Does the amount of a settlement depend on the lawyer?

    Totally confused. I was told by an attorney that early settlement is usually the most cost effective route if not the least satisfying. Thoughts?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Got a letter about Malibu wanting to subpoena my name and address a bit ago. I wrote a motion myself and filed it- doubt that will do anything but I wanted to try.
    My question is, I am not part of a mass joinder lawsuit- only my address is specifically named. Has this happened to anyone else? Is this more “serious” than the mass joinder ones?

  36. Mark E says:

    Mr. Arsenault represented me in a John Doe claim made by Malibu Media in 2013. He did a great job and I want to pass on my highest recommendation. He worked for a fair fee, negotiated a settlement before my name was released, and was overall very pleasant to work with. The whole system isn’t fair, but if you are in Colorado and hit by a John Doe suit, John Arsenault is a great option.

  37. anonymous says:

    Got a letter from ISP about case ‘Power of Few’, filed by the evil Scott Kannady. He seems to be specializing in this kind of harassment now; taking cases to court and then dismissing them after a few months. Doing a lot of research, consulting with computer expert pals and lawyer pals (always good to have those). I’ll file a motion to quash next week before deadline on 18th, and plan to pursue this, since I’ve never heard of this movie, and searched high and low for the alleged bittorrent…not anywhere on my computers. Let them look, if it comes to that… though it never does. I have some papers relating to case that were filed with the court; I don’t know how to post them here. If anyone knows of a counterclaim brewing, let me know. I think the courts in Colorado are wearying of this sort of case tying up their time, based on recent rulings.

    • SJD says:

      Best wishes to you! Trolls multiply as roaches, but if you are clean AND are willing to fight back, you will prevail. Your neighbor Jeff Fantalis most likely got seriously paid by the troll when he pushed back too hard (he signed an NDA, so we will never know for sure).

      Again, good luck and keep us posted,

  38. e-cigarette shop Colorado | Fight Copyright Trolls

  39. ThisIsWackMalibu says:

    I have not seen any updates or postings for Colorado. Can anyone share their experiences and such thus far with Malibu?

  40. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone dealt or been dealing with the subpoena from Dallas Buyers Club LLC in Colorado? If so, what has been the outcome and what are the recommended steps to take. I recieved a generic letter from COMCAST stating my IP address was recognized downloading the movie and that they would release my information in roughly a month. The Judge granted the subpoenas based strictly on the associated IP addresses.

  41. I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor of his site, as here every material
    is quality based information.

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