Illinois

Active trolls
Inactive trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims

 

Do not recommend
  • Adam Urbanczyk (torrentlitigation.com)
Relevant posts
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    “Judge rejects copyright trolls’ BitTorrent conspiracy theory”

    “The Friday opinion by James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois is the latest sign of growing judicial skepticism toward the new wave of copyright trolling campaigns. ”

    “Because the copyright holder’s threat is based on the cost of litigation (and risk of public embarrassment) more so than the damages a defendant would face in the event of a loss, innocent defendants have virtually as much incentive to settle as guilty ones do. That’s not how things are supposed to work, and more and more judges are refusing to play along.”

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/judge-rejects-copyright-trolls-bittorrent-conspiracy-theory.ars?clicked=related_right

  2. Anonymous says:

    I recently got a letter with a subpoena for Does 1-75 vs Sunlust LLC. So far from reading everything on this site and others. I’m not sure what do to do? Should I consult a lawyer and see what is my next step? The subpoena isn’t till 4-25-12 for the IP address that they have. I contacted my ISP and they said there is no record of that IP address on the account and that they use dynamic IP so the IP address changes constantly. I’m just lost on what to do now. Can someone please help? I’m trying not to panic, but it is freaking me out now.

    • TrollTrasher says:

      Don’t panic! Lots of people, unfortunately, are in and have been in the exact situation you’re in now. The main thing is to not freak out. Read over this site and educate yourself; if you want talk to an attorney from this list: https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense

      The main thing is that you are most likely never going to be sued. The copyright trolls are trying to scare you into settling with them for at least a couple thousand dollars. The only time you need to be concerned is if an actual court order issued from the state/court shows up, and that likely will not happen. The trolls will send you letters and call you encouraging you to settle, but you just need to sit tight, tell them you don’t know what they’re talking about and hang up. Again, don’t panic, read this site and this one, http://dietrolldie.com/ , and breathe easy. Stay in the know, and good luck.

      • Anonymous says:

        Aside from the general advice, in this case, speak again to the LEGAL department of your ISP. See if you can clarify why the ISP sent you the notice.

        If there is no assignment of that IP address to your account, how was it decided to send you the letter ?

        Also, get a clarification of “IP address changes constantly”. I don’t see how trolls could identify Does or make any clear allegations for ISP’s using dynamic IP addresses. Perhaps some techie reader of this blog can explain or confirm

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address#Uses_of_dynamic_addressing

        Some ISP’s change IP daily, but hopefully the ISP rep really meant changing constantly.

        It is not mentioned much recently on these forums, but sometimes the troll accusations may just be wrong, about the IP address and other stuff, maybe about infringement activity.

        The trolls claim to use software which is not independently evaluated, let alone been judged in court as valid and reliable. It’s a biased software entrapment business. The software honeypot businesses may either have direct financial ties to the troll plaintiff or lawyer tree, or be starting some schemes themselves.

        • Raul says:

          Plaintiff’s counsel is Paul Duffy of the Prenda Law Firm and you will find numerous posts here and at dietrolldie.com about how these guys are a conniving deceitful bunch who seem to eventually get embarrassed by their own machinations. The DVD which has allegedly been infringed upon is “Sunny Leone-Goddess” which they claim has a copyright registration certificate (double check-as the date of the issuance of the certificate (if there is one) and the date of the alleged infringement could be important with respect to their claim for statutory damages and attorneys fees).

        • Anonymous says:

          If these “monitoring” groups that put the honeypot torrents out on sites aren’t legal enforcement authorities, why has noone sued THEM for distributing copyrighted content? Isn’t that semantically equal to the person that uploaded infringing content in the first place?

          secondly, if these groups ARE enforcement authorities, why hasn’t someone charged them with entrapment?

          Third, if they are distributing content with the legal approval of the copyright holder, isn’t that the legal equivalent of gifting?

  3. Anonymous says:

    I checked the copyright date and it shows 2-6-12. I need to check what the date is on the infringement. If it does make the date of the copyright date. What would be my next step to do?

    • Raul says:

      If the alleged infringement occurred before the copyright received a certificate of registration it could affect whether plaintiff can make a prima facia case so as to be able to be entitled to expedited discovery as well as statutory damages/attorneys fees.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I recently got a letter with a subpoena for Does 1-75 vs Sunlust LLC. Spoke to a lawyer and trying to figure out my options. Sad the way this scam is allowed to propagate.

  5. joe does says:

    I have received a subpoena for Does 1-75 vs Sunlust LLC. One of my general lawyer friends suggested if I can get enough people together, we can get a lawyer to file a class action against plaintiff and drop the case.
    Fighting as a group against plaintiff is better than single handed. If anyone else from above cases feels the same way, please leave a contact e-mail or you may e-mail me at:

    joedoes1203@gmail.com

    Troll victim,
    Does 1-75

  6. Anonymous says:

    In response to Prenda’s motion to compel Comcast to release information on Does in HDP v 1-54, Judge Chang’s order instructed Prenda and Comcast to address, among other things, “whether Plaintiff has properly joined the defendants via a defined single swarm.” Next status hearing is not until June 27. Hopefully the fact that Chang recognized this issue, rather than it being raised in a motion by a Doe or ISP (although Comcast may have brought it up at the last hearing), means he is skeptical of the the Troll’s joinder strategy. He also instructed Prenda to provide more information on the geo-location technology, since IPs tied to Does outside of Illinois are still being dragged into the NDIL.

    http://ia601207.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266070/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266070.docket.html

  7. anonymous says:

    i just got this one today from the mail please help me…….should i file an MTQ? its the same as this one om providing in the link….is this legit or the same trolls that you guys have been discussing? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2012cv00656/132021/10/0.pdf?ts=1332497558

  8. anonymous says:

    i think im this one…am i the only one here or are there many of us?

  9. anonymous says:

    Raul i really appreciated your reply thank you so much!

    well first of all i was confused because it states here in the header “US district Courts for the Northern district of Illinois” so i posted here and also in colorado cuz there was also something on the side that says case pending in district of Colorado so i was confused as to where its really located im so sorry for the confusion

    Im really reading about it all night long but still got confused im not in to law but now that this is in my face right now i have to read up on all of it

    what is Prenda btw?

    and also if they got my info if i dont squash it….is it possible that they are gonna see all of the other ones i downloaded? and file complaints for that also?

    thank you so much Raul for replying

    • Raul says:

      It is a standard tactic of Prenda to get permission from one federal court to issue subpoenas and have them returnable to the Illinois District Court so if you file a motion in the permitting district court Prenda will argue you filed in the wrong court. Best to file a motion in both.

      You read up on Prenda here http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/

      • And that’s just another of their sleazy tactics.

        As one good lawyer points out,

        Rule 45 subpoenas – Prenda’s tactic of issuing them from the N.D. Ill. when the case is actually pending elsewhere is a legitimate tactic that is being completely misused. I would use the same technique if I had to obtain testimony from a witness who lived in another state. The federal rules only permit a court to have personal jurisdiction over those persons and entities who are within 100 miles of the court. FRCP 4(k)(1)(B). Where Prenda’s tactic falls apart is that entities, such as Comcast, Verizon or AT&T, generally are registered to do business in multiple states. Therefore, the subpoena could be issued out of the court where the action is pending without prejudicing anyone.

        • anonymous says:

          these guys are sleazy bastards constitution should be rewritten becaus of this LOL………with all of their scam going on..what are my best option for now?..and correct me if im write but if i pass on an MTQ now without knowing my doe # or how many does are involved (and im affraid its just me O_O) the only option for me is to pass my ip address which would still break my anonymous state if the judge wont put a stamp to ironclad or make it privacy like the one that happend on the prenda law discussion board….so should i just wait it out?

    • Raul says:

      David Tamaroff is has filed a motion to dismiss or issue a protective order on behalf of a Doe in your case. He is a good attorney who as done some nice work in FL. http://tamarofflaw.com/

  10. Raul says:

    It all depends on your circumstances. The safest bet is to hire an attorney either to file a motion on your behalf and/or to absorb the harassing letters and phone calls. You should at least consult with an attorney as most offer a free initial consultation or may charge a minimal fee (under $100). On the other hand if you do not wish to hire an attorney, do a little work and make a motion to quash/sever or, in the alternative issue a protective order. The reason to do this is it just might be granted; I have been following the CO lawsuits for awhile and have a strong hunch that the federal judges are almost fed up with this trolling nonsense and are itching to shut it down. Also, such a motion delays the release of your info possibly until the lawsuit is dismissed by the troll.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I have received anISP letter for this same case filed in CO and ISP ordered by court in IL. Can someone recommend a good attorney for advise and to file MTQ. T-T

  12. anonymous says:

    I followed our case docket today and found out a mother filed a motion to quash and plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss…..when does the court have to decide who to side with?

  13. Raul says:

    SJD and DTD, interesting argument about the Declaration of Peter Hansmeier in David Tamaroff’s motion. A pleasure to read.

  14. Raul says:

    In Sunlust Pictures v. Doe 1-75 (case no. 12-cv-1546) Comcast Cable is getting ready to pick a fight http://ia601203.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266096/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266096.docket.html

    • Raul says:

      Thank you, I did see that article and was aware of the underlying order which would be great to cite in a MTQ as this is one of the first times (the first time?) a court has rebuked troll IP address harvesting technology.

  15. DoedbyTroll says:

    Illinios got carpet bombed by Duffy today. All for individual Does!

    • Raul says:

      Looks like Duffy filed around 24 individual lawsuits in a rather feeble attempt to regain some credibility (Bring on the Lightspeed, Douchebag). I wonder whether these are new Does or the crumbs from a previous suit who unwittingly implicated themselves. I have 1k to bet that none of these suits gets to discovery (post answer), any takers?

      • doecumb says:

        n these 24 Illinois Northern District Duffy/Prenda cases, is it known that these are “really” single Doe cases, or will an additional Doe/co-conspirator list be added? I have not seen amended complaints, but the cases are either recent or brand new.

        Time will tell whether these cases are individual cases to ramp up fear and give Steele/Duffy/Prenda trivial evidence for judges that Prenda actually names (not proceeding to trial) individual, as “often” as once every ten thousand cases. Past actions have tried deceptive ways to name many individuals without specificying individuals. DTD noted Brett Gibbs/Prenda trying a different sneak around tactic for one of these plaintiffs, the Rule 27 petition, on 10/28/11.

        http://dietrolldie.com/2012/03/26/sneaky-troll-attempts-a-flanking-move-and-is-denied-in-the-matter-of-a-petition-by-ingenuity-13-llc-case-211-mc-00084-troll-gibbs/

        AF Holdings is the business connected to the porn purveyor Heartbreaker Films, the production company of the porn personality Nina Mercedez and her husband Raymond Balboa. AF Holdings is a St. Kitts-Nevis LLC. The other plaintiff, Ingenuity 13 LLC, is also a St. Kitts-Nevis LLC represented by Prenda lawyers.

    • A better analogy would be not “carped bombed” but “deployed smoke screens.”

      Still no named defendants, been there, saw that. And we also saw that significant percentage of defendants have fought back :) Following Raul’s lead, I also want to make bets: at least one of 14 will counter attack. In addition, it’s not a good timing for trolls: Lightspeed disaster will soon backfire (disclaimer: that’s my prediction only).

      • Anonymous says:

        So these are actually single-Doe cases, not fake-outs like in California Eastern District where the case names are v. John Doe and then the complaint has a list of co-conspirators with the usual mass-Doe BS?

        If these are single-Doe this is fantastic news and likely a sign of desperation and grasping to establish some credibility after Prenda has been called out repeatedly for not litigating. AF Holdings is incorporated in Saint Kitts and Nevis, so it is almost certainly a shell corporation established by John Steele specifically for use in this scam and to keep the prying eyes of US Does and regulators from finding out too much about its principals. If a Doe with some backbone hires an attorney with some ambition they will have a field day with a countersuit and massive discovery requests against AF. Prenda folded in the Wong suit and Hard Drive Productions, Inc. was at least a real, established business before it became involved in the trolling scam. There is no way they will let someone get far enough along to expose AF’s secrets, but if they do it should get really entertaining.

        Five single-Doe suits on behalf of HDP in California netted two countersuits, and in the meantime there have been more Doe-favorable rulings. With AF looking blatantly like a fake company I don’t think it’s overly-optimistic to expect this to end very badly for Prenda.

        Go Does!

  16. Anonymous says:

    There’s nothing in Steele’s background to particularly suggest he has experience in off-shoring business & assets.
    There are some powerful interests who will be upset about bad publicity that troll actions bring. Business interests hundreds of times larger than Steele & all the troll groups put together use St. Kitts-Nevis. The association of pornographers and extortionist with offshore financial transactions will bring worse reputation and unwanted scrutiny to other entities. That’s a problem for trolls beyond discovery and counter-suit.

    • Anonymous says:

      Possibly worth mentioning – I did a quick check on RFC Express and noticed that AF Holdings’ first filings were about a month after the last MCGIP filings, MCGIP being the ill-fated front-company that appeared to be on its way to attempting a Righthaven-style licensing arrangement that would have allowed MCGIP to sue Does without actually holding the copyrights on the works. This was the entity that Nicholas Ranallo outed in an article shortly before all the MCGIP cases were voluntarily dismissed. This conclusion may not be accurate as RFC Express seems to be missing some of the MCGIP cases, but if anyone else was following these guys it would be worthwhile to verify when the activity of MCGIP ended and AF Holdings began, as it appears that AF Holdings did not emerge as a plaintiff until after MCGIP stopped filing.

      I haven’t looked at AF Holdings’ filings in detail but notice many of the dockets list a copyright assignment agreement; it seems reasonable to conclude that AF Holdings is a Steele-owned entity that represents the next iteration of the scam following the destruction of Righthaven and consequential dissolution of MCGIP. It appears they are now acquiring full copyright to films that either nobody wants anymore or perhaps they produce themselves or have contracted out expressly to be used in their scam. Incorporating offshore was an added touch to make it a bit harder for their US-based targets to dox as well as providing some tax evasion possibilities, as Steele can own the whole scam top-to-bottom, send the money overseas and avoid the IRS.

      If AF Holdings is indeed owned and operated by Steele and/or Prenda’s other principals I suspect the failure to disclose this relationship alone would be enough to get the Prenda team in some hot water with the courts, and the potential tax evasion might be of interest to the IRS.

      • It’s ridiculous: absolutely the same text went to spam at your first attempt…

        Anyway, it maybe worth nudging IRS: even if trolls’ finances are OK (which I doubt), investigation itself will impact trolls’ ability to assault the public. No Agenda revelation that Malibu’s 10% == 300K is worth mentioning.

  17. m says:

    Bottomline,
    I received a subpeona letter about the Sunny Leone crap, called Prenda Law, spoke with a guy who told me it could be settles for $3,000 out of court. I hung up on him.
    What exact actions do I need to take? Obviously, it’s bogus.
    Thanks,
    MW

  18. Anonymous says:

    I just got the notice from Comcast regarding the Sunlust Pictures. I noticed here:

    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266096/gov.uscourts.ilnd.266096.docket.html

    that there’s an order to dismiss. What exactly does this mean? Is there any other news from the Comcast attorney?

    Thanks

  19. Thomas says:

    IMPORTANT:

    How can I determine if a karaoke manufacturer has *ALL* the necessary licenses and approvals for recreating an original music recording to a karaoke version (compulsory, sync, etc)?

    If the karaoke manufacturer has a single registered copyright for a full CD of karaoke songs does this mean that they fully complied with all the requirements to copy, sync lyrics, and sell the original work of the song?

    Where can I find a list of ALL the requirements a karaoke manufacturer must meet before producing a karaoke version of an original song?

    Thank you!

  20. anonymous says:

    A new troll, Paul J Nicoletti hast started filing cases in Indiana, Illinois, i addition to the ones already filed in Michigan. His firm is based in Michigan.

    There is some good background on Paul J. Nicoletti.

    http://www.clr.org/Nicoletti-&-Associates.html

    http://www.flippingfrenzy.com/2008/10/17/finally-for-michigan-a-multi-agency-mortgage-fraud-task-force/

    It appears he was sued for legal malpractice, real estate fraud, sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit, etc..

    • Anonymous says:

      And he’s a defendant in several lawsuits as I type this. The guy is just bad…bad attorney, bad person (the two are usually mutually inclusive but not in this case). I’ve outlined a few, well, all of his fuck ups in Illinois cases below.

  21. gerald says:

    i got one too..what im gonna do with this sunny leone waht the F is this…
    can any one help me?

    • ik says:

      I got same letter from Prenda yesterday in NYC, (Sunny Leones file) did anyone in NY got it. Need some help in this situation,based on all above it looks more serious than I thought…Need advise.How much is copyright attorney charges for cases like this if this will go to court? Help!

  22. Raul says:

    No Firefox is available here but in Malibu Media v. does 1-14 (CDIL 12-cv-2159) on June 29 Judge Bakerdenied Troll Nicoletti’s motion to take expedited discovery. I sense a lashing.

    • Looks like Nicoletti filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court…

    • Did anyone notice that judge Baker, the famous judge Baker, whose early firm standing against trolls is quoted all over the country, who first used the phrase “fishing expedition” describing Steele’s scam and authored IP != Person legal meme, possibly reads this blog (or, at least, his clerks do). Look at the footnote #3 of the order.

      • Raul says:

        While you were authoring the above I was reading the opinion on the iPad (could not resist) and was likewise floored. I also love the cart before the horse reasoning and now I understand the appeal. If this determination holds up=death to expedited discovery=death to copyright trolling.

        Nicoletti’s first foray into trolling has opened a Pandoras Box for the trolls. Nice pick from the bottom of the barrel, happy now scumbags?

      • doecumb says:

        Yes! Put on those sunglasses, celebrity SJD!

        Re-reading the Prenda FAQ included with the demand that the footnote links to, it’s more nasty and misleading that I remembered.

        It is great how Judge Baker also notes the filing of the 4 other porn purveyor troll suits in different Divisions of the same District on the same day. Forum shopping, anyone?

        He also writes that Malibu Media “has ascertained through a company based in Germany… IP addresses…”. Maybe judges could ask plaintiff counsel at a hearing to report who is working through who, where the action is initiated, and where collections go.

        Also, $3400 is far from the maximum demand mentioned in porn purveyor troll cases.

  23. anonymous says:

    Hahaha!

  24. The Tod says:

    Congrats SJD!! Educating the world.

    • anonymous says:

      The cases for R&D Films is for a movie called “The Divide.” Yet another crappy film/movie……

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535616/

      • SJD says:

        It’s a mid-size firm with dozens of attorneys listed.

        Drafting a mass letter to them: something to cheer them on Friday. I wrote it in a haste, and if you notice any grammar mistakes, please let me know.

        Dear Sirs and Madams,

        It has been brought to my attention that two attorneys listed with your firm, Todd Parkhurst and Michaelel Hier, have filed a bunch of mass bittorent infringement lawsuits in the ILND on behalf of an obscure film producer.

        This type of cases is dubbed “copyright trolling,” an unethical scheme to obtain personal information from Internet service providers and wrestle unrepresented and uneducated Does into settlement threatening them with insanely high statutory fines. The false positive rate of the methods used by unlicensed and secretive “forensic” experts is unacceptably high — up to 30%, yet the scheme is built to incentivize the innocents to settle rather to fight in court, and this is just a single example of this scheme’s inherent unfairness. To date, almost 300,000 Internet users were victimized by ethically challenged attorneys, and 0 were brought to trial. Why? Because these cases are not winnable on merits. It was never a goal to litigate these cases anyway: once enough innocents and not-so-innocents alike succumb to fears and settle, 100% of these cases are dropped.

        Visit my site for more information.

        We are the community that fights this legal plague, and we made the visible difference over the last year by educating victims and shedding light on the crooks. We believe that we significantly cut the settlement rate, and caused trolls to constantly change their strategies and to invent new sleazy ways in order to sustain their racket. Also, because of our effort, judges got educated and started openly calling this type of litigation “extortion.”

        95% of lawsuits are filed on behalf of porn purveyors. Being not about porn places your firm a bit higher on the ethics scale, but still close to the bottom.

        The counter-actions are on the rise and I predict their number will grow exponentially. I urge you to read this particular counter claim: it describes the entire moneymaking scheme in a way that even an imbecile will understand: only bottom-feeding lawyers with no self-respect are capable of doing this kind of “business.”

        I’m sure you care about the reputation of your firm, and legal profession in general, but I regret to say that we will do everything in our power to publicize your firm’s involvement in what more and more people regard as blackmail and extortion.

        Publicity is a powerful weapon. With almost a million page views, my site is highly visible and searchable. For example, try to search for “Paul Lesko”: despite his prior substantial online presence, an embarrassingly-titled headline appears as #4 in Google search result.

        Think about it.

        Cheers.

        • The Tod says:

          Nice! Jane is educating the willing.

        • I think this letter deserves a post of its own, “in quotes.” I have no doubt that five old guys sat around their mahogany boardroom saying, “how do we drum up some business for the firm?” Whereas the other said, “Let’s sue internet users for downloading copyrighted media!” “A novel idea!” the third said, “we’ll make millions!” [not realizing that this has been done before. Oops.

          As you can see, they have ZERO experience in copyright law: http://www.hsplegal.com/index.cfm/practice-areas/

          This should be interesting.

        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, Paul Lesko’s firm profile comes up #1 and his “Teen Anal Sluts” page on here comes up as #2. Good work :)

        • Anonymous says:

          Back in 2009 Hierl’s license was suspended for 30 days, voluntarily, along with agreeing to attend some seminar (probably about not screwing over your client) put on by the State of Illinois. Here’s a link to the complaint against him: http://www.iardc.org/08CH0066CM.html

      • Anonymous says:

        It would be fairly easy to issue a subpoena for your IP address and name you as a John Doe and sue you for defamation. Every day this posts remains is a republication o the defamatory statement.

        • SJD says:

          Unbelievable douchebagery!

          Whoever you are, you know or should have known that members of these community are not the ones who are easily scared, especially if those threats are based on unsubstantiated, frivolous claims. If you are Meanith Huon (and you may very well be as this trolling “masterpiece” of a comment was posted from a Chicago IP address — 99.132.248.36), I can assure you that any attempt to fulfill your laughable threat will result in a Streisand Effect. Obviously you have no clue how Internet works: any attempt to forcefully remove anything from the Internet always results in wide publicity, and the materials that meant to be suppressed receive 100x more visibility.

        • Raul says:

          Kindly specify the defamatory statement. All the above links point to either news stories based upon police and court documents or the court documents themselves. It would also be fairly easy to counterclaim against you for abuse of process unless you can pinpoint the defamatory statement which I fail to notice.

        • Anonymous says:

          That would be the best thing you could possibly do for this site, and the worst thing you could do for your little scam.

          We dare you.

          SJD, you might consider a feature article about Meanith, and maybe Tweet Raul’s discoveries.

          Trolling outfits are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in their search for attorneys now. Pray this one is really this foolish.

        • Anonymous says:

          Do it.

          It would be the best thing you could possibly do for this site, and the worst thing you could do for your Masters. No way they will let you, BTW.

        • Bob says:

          hahahahahahahaha get a clue

        • Anonymous says:

          We dare you.

          That would be the best thing you could possibly do for this site, and the worst thing you could do for your Masters.

          Do you think suing this blog hasn’t occurred to any other Copyright Troll, considering the amount of settlement money it has cost them over the last year? And yet, as foolish as they are, even the Trolls who have been at this for far longer than you are not that foolish, as they know publicity is their worst enemy.

          We should be so lucky to have found one foolish enough to try, but don’t think for a minute that your Masters will let you get away with it.

        • Porno Doe says:

          Double dog dare you!

          Pretty sure the other Trolls will hate you forever!

          Many others have tried to suppress dissent on the internet and have only made asses of themselves!

          Actually, its easier to find out who you are and shed some light on your actions!

          Stupid Troll!

        • Anonymous3 says:

          There are so many things wrong with the pro-troll-for-Flava comment it’s hard to know where to begin.

          If the commenter is a lawyer or paralegal, it’s sad. If it’s an offense to link to sites that make one person unhappy, the entire web would be litigated for every page.

          Raul’s right-there’s linking either to public documents or summaries of them. SJD is right. Even if such legal action were possible, it would amplify unwanted publicity thousands of times.

          Even beyond the nonsense claim and threat, the details of trying to act on the hollow threat would make it impossible, as well as costly. So Flava-friendly-troll, go ahead , waste lots of time and money.

        • Anonymous says:

          Just sad.

          This is a site by and for people who are being threatened with lawsuits. Did you stop to consider that everybody here has already had their IP address subpoenaed and been named as a John Doe in a lawsuit? Why not try something we haven’t all heard before you stupid idiot?

          It’s very telling that this is what the Trolling outfits have to settle for in recruiting attorneys. The lack of deductive reasoning skills does not bode well for their future endeavors.

        • Anonymous says:

          I see you what you did there. You’re trying to sue someone for defamatory statements when you are using defamatory statements to sue someone. Clever.

        • Anonymous says:

          I put this together too. A guy who is paranoid about his reputation to the point that he is suing people for posting public records goes into the business of threatening reputational harm to people who don’t pay his ransom…

          A normal human being would stop at some point, reflect on this, and have a revelatory experience. But not a sociopath.

  25. Raul says:

    It is official the United States Court of Appeals thinks Troll Nicoletti is brain damaged:

    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    July 16, 2012
    By the Court:
    MALIBU MEDIA LLC, ] Appeal from the United
    Plaintiff-Appellant, ] States District Court for
    ] the Central District of
    No. 12-2662 v. ] Illinois.
    ]
    JOHN DOES, 1-14, ] No. 2:12-cv-02159-HAB-DGB
    Defendants-Appellees. ]
    ] Harold A. Baker, Judge.
    O R D E R
    A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the
    order appealed from may not be a final appealable judgment within
    the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    This action was filed on June 14, 2012, barely a month ago.
    The matter is pending in the district court, and the defendants
    have not yet been served with process. It appears that no
    statutory or case law basis exists to appeal the district court’s
    order of June 29, 2012, denying discovery. See, e.g., Mohawk
    Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009); Ott v. City
    of Milwaukee, No. 11-1541, et al., slip op. (7th Cir. May 29,
    2012). Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED that appellant shall file, on or before
    July 25, 2012, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should
    not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for
    voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) will
    satisfy this requirement. Briefing shall be suspended pending
    further court order.
    NOTE: Caption document “JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM.” The filing
    of a Circuit Rule 3(c) Docketing Statement does not
    satisfy your obligation under this order.

    • Anonymous says:

      Holy shit he actually appealed Baker’s denial to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals…then realized he fucked up, so he appealed to the Seventh Circuit. One of two things is going on. He’s either too fucking stupid to even know which appeals court circuit the venue falls under and thus should not be allowed to practice law. Or he’s too busy filing lawsuits and shit to bother looking up what state he’s in since it’s sure as hell not Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee. In that case, he still should not be practicing law. How big of an idiot does he look for filing an appeal with an appeals court that doesn’t even have jurisdiction?

      He filed a jurisdictional memorandum on the 25th. Wow he really wants this one. The Seventh Circuit should shoot his ass down. Not only do they have better shit to do than look at that some smut troll’s whining about why he can’t serve subpoenas to ISPs, there’s also the merits of his case…of which there are none.

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          No I didn’t notice these.

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Robert Bochnak (1:12-cv-07030) – ILND
          Complaint…

          http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.273584/gov.uscourts.ilnd.273584.1.0.pdf

          “2. Defendant is a persistent online infringer of Plaintiff’s copyrights. Indeed,
          Defendant’s Internet service was used to illegally distribute each of the copyrighted movies set
          forth on Exhibit ‘A.'”

          Exhibit A (the list of the 13 videos infringed upon…siterip)…

          http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.273584/gov.uscourts.ilnd.273584.1.2.pdf

          Defendant IS a persistent online infringer? Oh that’s ripe for a defamation suit. That’s as good or even better as Prenda’s Top 25 Pirates list or whatever it was called. Nicoletti should pick his victims more carefully since Bochnak lives in Naperville…and Naperville is the punch line to so many jokes in Illinois about rich people. Median home value is like $325k and median household income is around $125k/year but there’s plenty of houses there worth tens of millions.

          The Siembida complaint is a carbon copy with the name changed. 8 infringements alleged in this one. He also lives in a well-off suburb, but not like Naperville.

        • DieTrollDie says:

          TAD, thanks for the documents. They make these claims against the defendant in one part in the complaint, and then say “As the subscriber of the Internet service being used to distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies, Defendant is the most likely infringer. Consequently, Plaintiff hereby
          alleges Defendant is the infringer.” & “Defendant is the only person who can be identified as the infringer at this time.” (Sections 23 & 24.) Sounds like they are not sure about who did this.

          I bet there are many more carbon copy complaints like this one. Based on the information in the complaint, there is nothing to support the view the Mr. Bochnak is a “persistent online infringer.” Funny how they show the exact same hash file # for each movie, when the hash file # is really for the .Torrent file associated to “X­‐Art Siterip#2″ (containing the 13 movies). The also only list one date/time of infringement. Makes it kind of hard to claim “persistent” with one date/time (13 Dec 2011).

          DTD :)

        • Anonymous says:

          For this one: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/104092/malibu-media-llc-v-todd-vancamp/summary/
          summon issued (it’s actually in michigan eastern district).

          It seems to be from the same case as Robert Bochnak (site rip).

          One of documents (Exhibit 1) explain how they collect ip’s. It’s basically same statement (IPP blah), but stated by Tobias Fieser from German who is employed by IPP.

        • Anonymous says:

          http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/104092/malibu-media-llc-v-todd-vancamp/summary/

          summon issued for this case.
          It’s also a site rip case like vs Robert.

          In the docket (exb #1), Tobias Fieser (employed by IPP) from German explained how they collect ip (which basically same ipp blahblah).

          Wonder how this will go…

        • Raul says:

          Like the recent filing of individual lawsuits by Prenda, I can’t help but feel that these Malibu Media individual lawsuits are a reaction to judicial and Doe Defender criticisms that these lawsuits are nothing more than a toothless extortion scam. Troll Lipscomb claims these lawsuits are litigatable, I doubt it but we will see.

        • Anonymous says:

          Can anyone tell me what a “site-rip” case is? Obviously I think I know what is is but what do the Plaintiffs claim? That this person used some tool to download the streaming videos from some website? If that is the case then how is everyone under the sun not getting sued when some of these videos on tube sites have millions of views? Also, if that’s illegal shouldn’t the site require some sort of membership before you’re allowed to view the videos? How can they tell the difference between viewing and downloading?

        • DieTrollDie says:

          No, this is the standard Troll BT cases. No streaming involved. All the “Site-Rip” means is that somebody took multiple movies and packaged them into one torrent file. In the recent Malibu Media cases, the number of copyrighted X-Art movies in the torrents have been 14, 15, & 16.

          DTD :)

        • Anonymous says:

          “No, this is the standard Troll BT cases. No streaming involved.”

          Have end users who have only viewed/streamed content on sites like YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion, or even the XXX ones like YouPorn and YouJizz ever been sued? I’m not talking about the people who uploaded the content to begin with or people who tried to download the file to their computer for their possession or later distribution. I’m talking about the end users who randomly find and view via a stream.

          It seems like that would be a more time consuming and more difficult road for trolls to even try to sue random viewers of content via streaming, assuming the “viewer or streamer” never signed up for an account. They’d have to first subpoena the streaming site (Vimeo, etc) for the viewer’s IP address, and if they even maintained logs of the IP addresses of non-account holders that viewed the content in question, then they’d have to take those IP address from the streaming site if and when they get them, THEN subpoena the ISPs with that info. And all of the above would have to all occur before the ISPs retention logs expire or get purged.

          It seems as though the original uploaders of copyrighted content to streaming sites like the ones above would be the easier targets, as they’s have to sign up for an account (with personal info) on those sites to upload to begin with, and that would be potentially accessible with the first subpoena, assuming that site even has an obligation (depending on its location) to even recognize the subpoena. I guess that could also apply to casual viewers who have accounts and are signed in at the time of viewing.

          Just the thought of all this makes me want to stay away from ANY audio or video content on the internet, be it free or copyrighted. I don’t have the time to research the status of anything and everything I could potentially view or listen to.

          These trolls are making the internet a potentially scary place, even for legit purposes!

        • DieTrollDie says:

          I know of no law suits against viewers of tube sites. As you point out, it would be a pain for the copyright owners to do. Also, as many of the copyright owners uses these tube sites as free advertisement. They put up smaller low-res versions of their movies as a teaser with links to their pay site. Many viewers don’t know if a copyright protected movie was put up by the content owner (legally) or a by a user (illegally).

          Many of the content owners really hate the tube sites because they do allow users to upload copyright movies. These content owners claim the tube sites do not take enough steps to monitor and take down the copyright protected movies. The content owners claim the tube site owners allow the illegal content to stay because it gets them more visitors and generates more revenue for them. As long as these tube sites abide by all the DMCA requirements, they are given “safe harbor” status (can’t be sued).

          DTD :)

  26. SJD says:

    A pro se defendant seriously attacks Prenda’s “expert” P Hansmeier in many ways, worth reading pp 11-14. Good job! http://ia600805.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.263629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.263629.31.0.pdf

    • doecumb says:

      Yes. Even the “surface” inconsistencies of Mr. Hansmeier are flagrant. It raises more doubt about “underlying” (pun intended) validity of troll technology.

      I wonder if any “actual” information about troll so-called technology was presented by Ms. Leemore Kushner on behalf of porn purveyor plaintiff Malibu Media, in response to Judge R. Gary Klausner’s order in California Central District:

      “Plaintiff is to submit further briefing, of no more than ten pages by Friday, July 27, 2012 addressing the geo locating tools or other relevant technology it has used in the present cases to identify the location of the IP addresses belonging to the unrepresented Defendants and the accuracy and reliability of such technology.”

      I’ve seen no sincere troll response to questions about this in other cases.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well here’s Duffy’s response

      http://ia600805.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.263629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.263629.32.0.pdf

      And the gems I found:

      “More importantly, declarant Peter Hansmeier continues to monitor BitTorrent swarms on behalf of digital copyright holders. He is simply associated with a different company: 6881 Forensics. Second, Movant challenges the merits of Mr. Hansmeier’s declaration. (Id. at 12.) The merits of Plaintiff’s claims and associated declarations are not at issue at this stage of the litigation so Movant’s arguments are premature.”

      So, it’s OK to perjure yourself in a declaration to the court, just as long as the case hasn’t reached litigation. If it reaches litigation (which it will not) then uh oh, according to Duffy at least.

      Then he goes and states:

      “Hansmeier’s declaration was made under oath, is accurate, and provides proper support for Plaintiff’s claims. Any personal attacks on Mr. Hansmeier do not provide a basis for what is stated in the relevant declaration.”

      So, Mr. Duffy, did he lie and is it no big deal or did he not lie and it’s…still no big deal?

  27. Mike says:

    I got one of these subpoena things from comcast for illinois….. not sure what I should do now…. I heard Comcast wasn’t complying with the subpoena’s but is that true?

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh how I wish they’d have fought Duffy on my subpoena. Anyway, it depends on the case. They may have fought it and lost. May have not even bothered because of so few of their subscribers implicated. I don’t know how they decide when and when not to fight. Google the case and you should be able to at least see the docket.

    • dj says:

      I also got one from comcast for illinois (Nicoletti).. very confused.. any news?

      • Anonymous says:

        Nicoletti is either grossly incompetent or has too many irons in the fire. He can’t keep track of anything since he began filing Illinois and Indiana. In your case, there’s a chance (slight, probably) that he fucked up on either the complaint or the in his motion to take leave for expedited discovery. In Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, he was denied expedited discovery so he appealed (most attorneys would call it a day) and accidentally filed his appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when he should’ve filed it with the Seventh Circuit. It took him almost three weeks to find out, probably after the Court told him that he fucked up. Illinois falls under the jurisdiction of the Seventh while Michigan (the other state where he practices) falls under the jurisdiction of the Sixth.

        Other Nicoletti fuck-ups (that I’ve found, and I guarantee there’s WAY more):

        Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-13, he forgot to sign the complaint, they gave him 14 days to rectify, court hasn’t kicked the case yet but will when the next hearing occurs since it’s been a month and a half since the judge issued that order

        Patrick Collins Inc. v. John Does 1-9, he forgot to sign the complaint, they gave him 14 days to rectify, court hasn’t kicked the case yet but will when the next hearing occurs since it’s been a month and a half since the judge issued that order.

        Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34, he fucked up and originally submitted the complaint for Patrick Collins v. Does 1-9 but the judge allowed him to amend the complaint

        Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-55, we have this entry on the docket: “MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:Status hearing held and continued to 9/12/2012 at 9:30 AM. Memorandum regarding joinder issue is due 8/15/2012″

        Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-7, Mr. Nicoletti must’ve not read the docket because the judge ordered some sort of alternative dispute resolution at the next status hearing before allowing the case to proceed and that “each party must attend the hearing” well that’s gonna be hard since the other parties are Does. So, instead of reading this, Nicoletti has submitted TWO motions to take leave for expedited discovery, both ignored by the judge.

        • Raul says:

          For laughs and giggles, if you have not already done it, Google his name.

        • Anonymous says:

          Oh holy shit no I hadn’t Googled him but I did about 10 min ago and WOW. Then I did some further research wondering if he’s still being a bad boy? Short answer, maybe but no huge suits against him or his firm or sanctions that I came across. He’s being sued by another attorney, the last docket entry is from the 9th. He was sued by a title insurance company earlier this year, disposition was a few months later. He still appears to still be party to that Apollo lawsuit, which was originally state, then removed to federal by a third party, then remanded back to state court. There was a lawsuit I couldn’t find anything on, CLD Inc. v. Nicoletti & Associates filed back in 2004, order granting summary disposition in 2005. One of the defendants was dismissed prior to disposition and as usual, Nicoletti mounted a pro se defense. No idea who won that one.

        • Anonymous says:

          Hot damn, he just pulled some Houdini shit and filed 4 more in CDIL:
          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-9 (1:12-cv-01280-JES-JAG)
          Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-7 (1:12-cv-01281-MMM-JAG)
          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 (2:12-cv-02211-HAB-DGB)
          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-7 (3:12-cv-03211-SEM-BGC)

          Which brings me to more fuckups, which is even worse because I’ve been drinking.

          Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-7 (CDIL), the demand is $1.05M…or statutory damages times # of defendants…he could’ve just said $150,000 per infringer.

          Malibu Media LLC, v. John Does 1-9, the demand is $1.35M…see above

          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 CDIL, more multiplication of statutory damages…in fact I’m done pulling dockets for his latest cases because he’s probably done it on all of them

          Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-4 (Older case), Judge Kendall entered a notice (and mailed it) ordering the two parties to attempt to settle…well that’s a problem, yet Nicoletti keeps pounding the pavement with motions like motions for early discovery, twice. Judge Kendall…JUDGE KENDALL!?

          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-7 (1:12-cv-01189-MMM-JAG) CDIL – Nicoletti entered two motions for early discovery, one right after he filed suit and another after he didn’t “hear from the judge for a while”

          Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-14 (1:12-cv-04675) NDIL – For not following rules (he didn’t) but even worse, he didn’t bail on the case when it was assigned to Judge Shadur

          I REALLY love his exhibit on how the bittorrent protocol works using screenshots from Wikipedia. For the record, this doesn’t apply to my first bachelor’s because I’m old but when I was working on my second bachelor’s and in grad school, we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source even if we wanted to make a statement such as “The United States is located on the North American continent.” Why should a court allow it at all?

          Oh and everyone is REALLY gonna love this one. Lipscomb AND Nicoletti are co-counsel for plaintiff in a trademark infringement case over scrubs in NDIL, Walrus Brands, LLC v. Peaches Uniforms, Inc. docket number 1:12-cv-04892 and even better, one of the defendant’s attorneys is an equity partner and all three of them specialize in, well, shit way over Nicoletti’s head, which is probably why he brought in Lipscomb pro hac vice…two idiots are better than one.

        • Anonymous says:

          Any news for Nicolettie case in illinois? I heard that comcast denying revealing information of subscribers, but didn’t hear anything on the following case:

          http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-central-district-court/98137/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-34/summary/

          Does it mean Comcast not doing it anymore?

        • Anonymous says:

          In Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34 (1:12-cv-01188-JES-JAG) Magistrate Judge Gorman granted Nicoletti’s ex parte application to serve third-party subpoenas to ISPs on 8/1/2012. By my count, 27 of the 34 Does are Comcast subscribers so Comcast might intervene in this one but it’s been 13 days since the Order was entered and nothing has appeared on the docket. They have 30 days to produce or object.

          Docket:

          http://ia600407.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331.docket.html

          Amended Complaint:

          http://ia600407.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331.3.0.pdf

          Gorman’s Order:

          http://ia600407.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331.6.0.pdf

        • Anonymous says:

          Anyone know about forensic software they used (iptracker v 1.2.2)? I couldn’t find any information about it.

        • Anonymous says:

          You couldn’t find any info on the troll’s software? Color me surprised! That’s because their “software” is likely uTorrent or some other client with logging enabled and then they just use a filtering script to filter out the IPs, dates, times, hashes, etc. So, this “iptracker v1.2.2″ likely does not exist or is some bullshit filtering script.

          Real time IP monitoring would suck bandwidth and system resources like a Hoover vacuum. With the volume of traffic that they allegedly monitor in real time, they’d need a dedicated trunk line or very fast cable connection not to mention a ton of computing power (e.g. rack mounted dedicated server(s)) to support their trolling operations.

        • Anonymous says:

          If we (and judge) don’t know how troll get all this ip’s, how come this happen? I thought that’s the first thing everybody need to know since that’s all this things start…

          These days, gathering ip numbers and checking it’s isp and location are so easy..
          If someone who sue does with ip as evidence doesn’t need to tell how they collect ips, it’s really good business model…

      • Anonymous says:

        one of does in IL filed motion to quash 8/28:

        http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-central-district-court/98137/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-34/summary/

        I recapped it but not sure how to make the link of it.

  28. Anonymous says:

    It is also quite easy to move to quash any subpoena trying to seek the identities of persons engaging in anonymous free speech. Besides an anti-SLAPP motion, based on CDA immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act), would result in any plaintiff who sues this site running to the bankruptcy court due to the imposition of mandatory attorneys’ fees. Even tugboat Randazza might take that free speech case.

  29. Drifter says:

    Another shitty B-movie making film company with movies nobody has ever heard of jumping into the copyright troll game.

    TriCoast Smitty, LLC filed three mass Doe suits in the Illinois Northern District Court on August 13th.

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/101971/tricoast-smitty-llc-v-does-1-80/summary/

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/101957/tricoast-smitty-llc-v-does-1-50/summary/

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/101955/tricoast-smitty-llc-v-does-1-13/summary/

    The trolls are Todd S. Parkhurst and MIchael A. Hierl.

    • Anonymous says:

      Those two are very experienced and reputable IP attorneys and a legitimate law firm that wants to be involved in trolling and bastardize its reputation? Something smells funny.

      Parkhurst has very high peer ratings. He is also ancient. He got his JD back in 1966 from Penn. He was head of the IP department at a Holland & Knight, LLP’s Chicago office then left back in 2008 and joined Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. The catch is that he has ZERO experience in litigating these types of cases as he specialized in trademark and patent infringement, but not electronic copyright infringement.

      Hierl is also rated highly by his peers. He’s been practicing IP law since 1980 but again, has zero experience in copyright law. He specializes in patent and trademark infringement. I should also note that he was hauled in front of the IARDC back in July of 2008 for failure to properly withdraw from representation subsequent to discharge by client. Basically, the client fired his firm (Olson & Hierl…before he left to work at his current firm) but Hierl just acted like nothing happened, didn’t transfer any of the documents involving the case to the (former) client’s new counsel, billed (former) client for fees incurred for services after being discharged, even after discharge he still argued the case in front of the USPTO, and a bunch of other shit. He eventually consented to a 30 day license suspension (would’ve been much worse if it was adjudicated), ordered to attend a seminar on professionalism, and ordered to reimburse an IARDC fund established to compensate those who have lost assets due to attorney misconduct and cannot recover from the attorney or insurance.

  30. DDoe says:

    I live in IL and got some subpoena from Duffy. Has anyone gone completely through the entire process? Not exactly sure what to do, I run a record label, we have many many people using our internet. This is quite bizarre.

    • Anonymous says:

      No one has gone through the process because Duffy won’t let them. He will pull his usual “here’s a list of IPs of infringers on this porn movie compiled by our expert (who isn’t really an expert but I won’t get into that now), we need names and addresses NOW your honor,” judge grants his ex parte application, subpoenas ISPs, ISPs give Duffy subscriber info, Duffy’s firm harasses and tries to scare people into paying them $3400 or be held liable for $150,000 in court (that’s absolute max, which would never happen). He then waits til 30% of Does have settled or til it seems as though the judge is growing tired of his antices, then he dismisses. After that, morons from his firm harass those dismissed with individual lawsuits.

      What I did was ignore them. I’ve never answered when they call, never responded to a single letter. Eventually Duffy dismissed, but not after receiving settlements from others. They tried to settle with me after I was dismissed…why the fuck would I do that. Then they called twice a week for over 7 months to tell me they’re suing me…again. In my experience, you don’t tell someone you’re gonna kick their ass. You do it. Same concept applies. To each their own, but completely ignoring them worked well for me.

      These cases don’t go to trial simply because their evidence is shit. An IP address is not a person and a subscriber is not necessarily the infringer. Just think of the logistics of litigating a case with 30 people or so. 30 different defenses, so basically 30 different trials. It’d be a mess and it’d be expensive as hell.

    • Raul says:

      DDoe I took down your identifying information as copyright trolls do lurk here and at Dietrolldie.com. Here is the link where Does discuss these pricks. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/ Take the time to read around this blog and at dietrolldie.com and you will become empowered to deal with this extortion scam.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Got a call this week from Prenda after about three weeks of silence and they have changed up their message a bit. The troll now is including the fact that they have “been generous enough to extend my offer due to their client being backed up filing lawsuits against individuals”. Checked their website and most cases listed are hacking cases, not bit-torrent. Any thoughts on whether this is accurate or just another way to change things up enough to scare more folks into settling?

    • Raul says:

      I’m sure SJD will chime in here but it looks as if Prenda is filing more individual lawsuits to spread FUD but then they just sit on them without moving most of them forward. The first batch are in the process of being dismissed for failure to timely prosecute. In the meantime, Prenda is juggling major problems in IL and FL or to put it in Buffy’s words “fun”.

    • Anonymous says:

      When you say “Checked their website” what website, where on the site, etc.? I’m curious to see hacking vs. BitTorrent.

      • Raul says:

        WARNING: if you check out Prenda’s website be certain you are using an anonimizer foil. If you do not know how to do this, do not go there.

        • Anonymous says:

          I assume you’re talking about something like hidemyass.com?

        • Raul says:

          Yup, though there are better ones but for a brief check in it should suffice.

        • Anonymous says:

          Can you name a decent anonymizer? On one hand it makes it look like I have something to hide. On the other, after reading this site I’m scared to death to go to my church website with my real IP address. Now I’m paranoid that everyone is watching me.

    • Anonymous says:

      Morons. I wonder if they’re aware of the Hobbs Act. If not, they will be eventually. Filing individual lawsuits against people…uh huh. More like defending their asses against AT&T and Comcast and handling this Guava clusterfuck. How many Prenda attorneys does it take to lose against Bart Huffman? Four. They’ll just sit on the case until the judge kicks the case under Rule 4(m). Then you’re immune from any further federal lawsuit…for that porn movie.

      Well I don’t see my IP up on their list (I used an Asian proxy) or my name…so much for “we’re filing a lawsuit with your name in it” 3 times a week for 7 months. Lots of IL state cases, that’s no good.

      Oohhh I like this:
      “Unfortunately, due to space limitations, we are unable to list and provide the link to every individual we are currently suing on behalf of our clients.”
      Based on my experience, that is a bald faced lie. They’d happily list everyone just to add to the public shame. And they say feel free to call to inquire if you don’t see a particular name up there (and would like to have it added?).

      • SJD says:

        Unfortunately, due to space limitations, we are unable to list and provide the link to every individual we are currently suing on behalf of our clients.

        Oh yeah, when someone sits on a train rails in the middle of a plain, I always ask this person to kindly move a bit so I could seat too.

      • Anonymous says:

        Completely agree that they are full of it in terms of space limitations…how much space does it take to put up a link to a pdf?

        And while it looks like a lot of cases, (and I haven’t clicked on all of them), it seems that roughly half of those are hacking cases. Given the number of cases on their page vs the number of IP’s their going after for hacking (6600 IL + FL…if those are different from IL + GUAVA = anywhere from 6600 to ~20K), the percentage of cases their naming is almost zero (Given worst case, 50/6600=0.8%). The cases are strictly there for FUD and so they can tell judges their actually “litigating.”

      • Anonymous says:

        I just took another look at their site. Under “Suits Against Mass Does” we have this gem:
        “Groundbreaking Litigation

        At Prenda Law Inc., we pursue groups of people that work together to steal our client’s copyrighted works. Typically these infringers use peer-to-peer tools such as BitTorrent, or illegally obtained passwords to steal our clients content and commit other crimes.

        On August 19th, 2012 we expect this list to be up. Stay Tuned!”

        On top of that being complete bullshit, there’s numerous punctuation errors that I spotted right away. No commas where there should be a comma, commas where there shouldn’t, possessives, apostrophes, no apostrophes, yada yada. Such as, “…steal our client’s…” as in they have one client. Should be “clients'” but who cares, they only draft documents submitted under penalty of perjury, why should we expect attorneys to know how to use an apostrophe correctly when misuse completely changes the meaning of the entire sentence. The second “clients” should be “clients'” again, otherwise in this case the sentence makes zero sense since..ah shit I’m done with being an English teacher and I’m burnt out so I probably made some punctuation errors too. Now to go work on my car…AGAIN. Eighth time’s the charm!

        • Raul says:

          Noticed a rather large typo on the header, should be “Our Death Knell Litigation”.

        • Anonymous says:

          The overall quality of the site’s artwork and layout are horrific. I’ve worked for a couple companies over the last several years that either redid their website or put up their first one and just buying a template off the shelf, or paying someone to do something basic, got better results than this. This really looks like Steele is trying to learn web design himself, or they are having a clueless friend or relative do it for free. It’s all stock photos and terrible background and logo images. At least they got rid of all the Lorem ipsum placeholder text, that was kind of embarrassing… Again anyone with a clue would be doing the work on a test machine and only put it into production when they were finished.

          You also have to love how they have gone fully shameless in the “Giving” section of their website. For Wounded Warriors and Toys for Tots:

          “For years, Prenda Law Inc. has been a proud sponsor of the men and women of our Armed Forces. ”
          “For years, Prenda Law Inc. has been a proud supporter of our nation’s underprivileged children.”

          Not bad for a corporation that has been incorporated for just over 9 months.

        • Anonymous says:

          Keep in mind that this is their redone website too heh. That nationwide network of attorneys claim, then the disclaimer that they don’t have a nationwide network of attorneys. Well, that’s kinda confusing. Like 90% of that site is total bullshit. Gotta love how they only put up the news that benefits them. “Prenda Sues AT&T and Comcast” yeah ok, but not “Prenda Law is Now Bart Huffman’s Bitch” or “Prenda’s Emergency Motion for Early Extortion…err, Discovery is Denied.” Breaking news: “Prenda Law Signs Own Death Warrant.”

          Duffy also claims to be providing pro bono legal counsel for the elderly and disabled…nope. Those other charities he claims to be affiliated with, I can’t tie him to any of them.

  32. Dragon29 says:

    SJD or Raul, need your advice. I filed a motion to sever and dismiss pro se in the Patrick Collins case in the CDIL(thanks to DTD for all the great info out there that made this fairly easy to put together). I followed up with ISP, who received my documents and stated they would not release my personal information for now at least. I also checked the document tracker on RFC express and see that they received and filed the motion and gave plaintiff opportunity to respond. However, I used a fake address(since sending my address defeats the purpose of the motion) and the last entry states, “REMARK: Mail returned “undeliverable” as to John Doe at address provided. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2012)”. Is there anything else I need to do here, I gave them an email address but haven’t heard anything through that. Again, looking for your advice…

  33. Raul says:

    Try contacting the Clerk’s Office and ask if they have a Pro Se Office you can consult with and if they do not ask an employee of the Clerk ‘s Office as to whether you need to submit a letter for the judge to place “under seal” (so the troll cannot see it) with your identifying info or whether the email address is enough.

  34. Anonymous says:

    In Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34 (1:12-cv-01188-JES-JAG)

    One of Doe filed nice motion also motion to Litigate Under Pseudonym.

    Does it mean he decide to fight back or just something else?

    http://ia700407.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55331.docket.html

  35. Raul says:

    In Combat Zone v. Does 1-75 (ILSD 12-cv-890) Troll “Anal” Lesko gets a setback by virtue of Judge Murphy:

    “Full docket text for document 12:
    Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge G. Patrick Murphy: Motion Hearing held on 9/6/2012. DENYING [3] EX PARTE MOTION filed by Combat Zone Corporation. Plaintiff shall give Notice to the service providers, and the court will proceed after proper notice has been given. (Court Reporter Molly Clayton.) (lmm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.”

    Not sure if this means the ISPs need to be given notice before the motion is heaer or if, pardon the expression, Lesko is shit out of luck.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not going to take Judge Murphy long to see the similarities between Lesko’s bullshit and the lightspeed bullshit, which is essentially a mass doe copyright suit disguised as a CFAA suit. Huffman and Siever point this out in their motions to dismiss. Now Judge Murphy will see the parallels first hand. This judge struck me as a real stickler for detail and proper procedure. Remember, he made Steele, Hansmeier and even Siever redo the pro hac vice applications before the emergency motion last month because they weren’t signed and submitted properly ;-)

      From Combat Zone v. Does 1-75 (ILSD 12-cv-890) was [3] EX PARTE MOTION docket document #3 where Lesko asked for early discovery? It is missing on RFC express. It goes from 1 to 2 to 4, skipping #3.

      http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-southern-district-court/101836/combat-zone-corporation-v-does-1-75/summary/

      “Not sure if this means the ISPs need to be given notice before the motion is heaer or if, pardon the expression, Lesko is shit out of luck.”

      My gut is that it’s the former rather than the latter. I think he’s requiring that Lesko give the ISP’s notice of the motion upon it’s filing. So, I think he denied Lesko’s initial motion on what he saw as a technicality because Lesko just filed it without giving the third parties (the ISPs) notice. This judge is a real ball buster which is good IMO. It makes the trolls work harder to get even the smallest of details right upfront with no guarantee of success. We know how sloppy trolls can be! But if you’re a legit lawyer, stick to protocol, and have your work and your motions wired down tight (no problem for guys like Huffman, Booth/Sweet, etc), then you should do OK in his court. Just my best guess (with a little of my $0.02).

      • Raul says:

        I think you are quite right but wanted to try an anal joke nonetheless. If anyone is wavering as to the notion that the trolls are bombarding the federal judiciary with their BS note that the docket for LMC v. Smith is 12-cv-889 and Lesko’s Combat Zone is 12-cv-890. It’s not a coincidence it’s an inevitability.

    • Raul says:

      To answer my own question it means Troll “Anal” Lesko is shit out of luck as he drops the lawsuit on 9-21

  36. Anonymous says:

    I just found out somebody left voice message today.
    Guess who it’s from Bill Higgins.
    It’s the exactly same message one that I found from someone’s post in Indian:

    “Hello this is ___________ [worth noting, though it’s a Nicoletti case, there is no mention of his office, the number is from LA], I’m calling in regards to a federal case you’re involved in right now, [cites case number, first “official” time this has ever been referenced to me in any communication], this is a federal case in [my district]. We’re just a little bit concerned as we’ve not gotten any correspondence from yourself or representing council. I do need to hear from either you or an attorney representing you as soon as possible [goes on a little more about this]”

    Anyone get this one yet??

  37. Anonymous says:

    Nicoletti filed three more Malibu Media cases in Norther Illinois today for a combined total of 107 Does. They showed up in rfcexpress if anyone is interested.

  38. Anonymous says:

    I have a question regarding the Pacific Century vs. Does 1-25 in the Northern District of Illinois. I found the move in full length on google for free. Doesnt that mean anything? How can it be illegal to download but free to view at any time?

    • doecumb says:

      The short answer is: it may mean something, especially in cases for named Does, but probably does not mean a lot for the discovery cases for groups of Does.

      Remember, porn purveyor copyright trolling has always been about the remote possibility of an actual case in the future, not actually getting a ruling on infringement based on small and shoddy evidence. When a less informed court is inclined to permit discovery by the trolls, clear and strong counterarguments are needed.

      Most of the allegedly infringed on porn videos in the trolling cases have either large portions or the entire length of the video on non-torrent internet sites (such as tube sites). If it could be shown that the porn purveyor studio granted permission for the video to be freely posted at an Internet sight, that might be a strong argument against an infringement charge.

      Unfortunately, the porn purveyor or their troll attorneys allowing or not actively interfering with internet distribution is different from granting legal permission. There’s reason to believe that in some cases porn purveyor content has been seeded onto torrent sites, basically for entrapment of does.

      In allegations against a named doe, we could argue that with the same film freely available films also gave does the idea the “work” was freely available. Even if infringing happened, there was no intent. Without the potential for a statutory award, the reward for actual damages wouldn’t even cover a plaintiff attorney’s postage.

      Wide availability of free copies of much or all of a porn film can be evidence of a troll not making good faith efforts to protect copyright. You raise an interesting topic, occasionally mentioned in other discussions. But aside from exceptional cases, the troll so-called evidence is already flimsy. It’s nice to poke another hole (pun intended) in the porn purveyor trolling. It’s certainly a point to mention in motions to quash/sever/dismiss.

      (Usual disclaimer: This is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.)

  39. Anonymous says:

    Any news on Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-13 3:12-cv-03160-RM-BGC? The last record of anything happening was 6/26/2012

    TEXT ORDER: According to Central District of Illinois Local Rule 11.4, all documents filed in a case must include an electronic signature. The Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed without such a signature. According to the information received by the Clerk’s Office, a Deputy Clerk has attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel three times (twice by email and once by voicemail) seeking to rectify this issue, to no avail. Counsel for the Plaintiff is Directed to contact the Clerk’s Office staff within fourteen days to address this deficiency. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 06/26/2012. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2012). Just wandering what the possible outcomes of this case would be.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is the lastest from 9/25/2012

      NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Malibu Media, LLC. (Nicoletti, Paul) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

      Does anyone know what this means for the John Does in this case? What is the likelihood that they will be gone after again? If anyone has any thoughts or information on this I would appreciate it. Thanks.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Ok so I just received a letter from comcast about Patrick Collins v does 1-47. I am doe %$, Is it better for me to just ignore everything, or should i motion to quash. What are the realistic chances i get brought to court? This is such bull crap I dont have time for this.

    • That Anonymous Dude says:

      Realistically? Mind you, this is my opinion, but I believe that chances are very very slim unless you talk to the trolls when they call. Nicoletti is an idiot and has been in so much trouble in the past it’s not even funny. Well, it is funny actually, but not for you right now. Just Google Paul Nicoletti, the good stuff is #4 on the results. After reading that, you’ll wonder how he managed to keep his law license.

      All that being said, I don’t believe that filing an MTQ is prudent at this point for two reasons. First, I believe motions to quash (or any motion) draw attention to Doe defendants and the trolls single them out once they eventually get personally identifiable information (“PII”). Second, I don’t know anything about Judge Amy St. Eve except that she’s rubber stamped every single (3) copyright troll case that she’s presided over. After doing some data mining, I’d bet than an MTQ has next to no chance with this judge, who’s not used to seeing these cases appear on her docket. When the motion is denied, your PII is released and God knows what Nicoletti will do when he matches the your IP to the PII. In the end, it’s up to you to file an MTQ.

      Between 2011 and now, she’s seen exactly 3 of these porn troll cases, two of which are in front of her right now and one of them was a John Steele case that was settled after 7 months and the Doe was never named and served (Rule 4(m), name and serve w/in 120 days…7 months > 120 days, should’ve been chucked). Rubber stamped discovery requests each time, no questions asked. Maybe she doesn’t believe that they’re worth her attention? Maybe she believes in hard-line copyright enforcement? Who knows why but she has presided over some pretty big cases like the Conrad Black case and the Rezko case. She’s also apparently presiding over that lawsuit against a bunch of Chicago cops for practicing a “code of silence” to protect the cop who beat the shit out of that woman in a Chicago bar like 5 years ago.

      Usual Disclaimer: The above is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only

  41. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for the reply, very helpful. where is the best place for me to follow the happenings of this case??

  42. Gman says:

    I may have asked this but I cant find my comment and havent looked back here in a while. For one of the Pacific Century cases there is a link you can find the work on google streaming in full version for free? Can they still sue for copyright infringement even though the work is available to the public for free. Secondly – does anyone know the duty or obligation for preservation we have? I lost my laptop a while ago and the letter I received says that could be spoliation of evidence.

    • Gman says:

      Nevermind I found my original post. Is it okay to use our real names here? .

      • Raul says:

        @Gman-I changed your name as trolls do troll this blog so it is best to comment using a fictitious name. If you wish to comment using your name I can revert the comments.

    • Anonymous says:

      I am about to send a MTQ to the Northern District of Illinois court. When I called the Clerk’s office, I was told to submit a Civil Cover sheet and Appearance form as well. Are these necessary, to submit a MTQ and doesn’t it defeat the purpose of one? Any instructions in submitting one? I need help quickly as the deadline is approaching.

  43. AC says:

    Illinois Northern District Court

    1:12-cv-07869

    Flava Works, Inc. v. John Does 1-293

    Flava Works is a gay porn studio

    Plaintiff counsel is Meanith Huon

    Google his name and read the first jezebel article.

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