Illinois

Active trolls
Inactive trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims

 

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

    How do trolls check for you assets, is it public info? I rent and don’t have anything, I am curious as how can they find out about a car or something?

    • That Anonymous Dude says:

      They can ballpark it based on your age, value of your home, occupation, etc. For example, they’re not gonna go after someone who works a blue collar job when they can go after a VP at a Fortune 500 corporation or even a professional such as a doctor, attorney, etc. They might threaten said blue collar worker but they know that most are judgment proof, but they can intimidate the hell out of someone who has a reputation to lose. They’re playing with fire when they do this though because if someone like that is innocent and chooses to fight back, it’ll be a mess.

      Check Rob Cashman’s site. He’s got a good primer on how to limit your online footprint, at least as far as the trolls finding out how much your house is worth, your job, etc. All of this is publicly available, as I found my Spokeo profiles (one for each city I’ve ever lived in…Spokeo guarantees 100% accuracy, well, my house is not worth what it said it is) and had all of them pulled, along with my immediate family members’ profiles (even the dead ones).

  2. John says:

    I was named. I received one call about this issue after getting the subpoena notice(Comcast) in September. This call was about 2 months later. I informed the person on the other end that I did not download their movie and do not have it on my systems. I’ve checked all the systems in the house and of course changed my wifi password.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hm, sorry this just sounds weird, there are no federal cases in central, there is a couple in northern, one already settled and one ongoing. Maybe it’s a scare tactic? Were you actually served?

      • Anonymous says:

        It’s possible that the never severed the does and they’re going after all of the ones that didn’t settle. There are a few of the Malibu cases in ILCD that have had summons issued for people.

        • John says:

          You might be right in that. It’s a bad spot to be in…either fight them because I didn’t do it or pay them to go away. Both options will cost me money, time and sleep.

  3. John says:

    Yes. I was served a summon a couple days ago and looked up the case.

  4. I highly reccomend all Illinois innocent Does contact the Illinois Attorney General’s office THIS WEEK.

    They need to know the scale of this issue, rather than it being just a handful of folks being targeted.

    • Anonymous says:

      Will do. What do I need to send? Would using AG’s online contact us page be enough?

      • Anonymous says:

        That is what I did.

        • Anonymous says:

          The IL attorney general Office send you a form which wants your name and address info and then asks you to fill out a form that is more for car sales gone wrong then Copyright troll case. I told the AG office in email that if I filled out the form it would be my name address and then the rest of the form would be blank and I didn’t that that would help.

          I got no response to the email :)

    • john says:

      Mr. Antonelli,
      I received a summons for 1 movie infringement but when I got the settlement offer it was for 24 movies. Is this standard procedure.
      I am very concern.

      • I can’t say it is standard, but it does happen. The highest in my office I think may have been 28. They need to be flexible in their demands. No lawyer – or client – wants to get a “paper judgment” meaning a judgment for a huge amount of money that they will never collect.

        • john says:

          I am leaning towards fighting this case. I do not have any movies listed nor bittorent on any of my systems nor has it ever been on them. I was named in the summons because I did not think I needed to suppress the subpoena to release my identity.

          I appreciate your insight.

        • Anonymous says:

          Oh I’m pretty sure there’s one attorney who wants paper judgements, but that’s the best he can do.

        • No matter what, DO NOT IGNORE THE SUMMONS. Even if you cannot afford a lawyer, show up to court. File a pro se appearance – get a fee waiver from the clerk of the court if you must. Seek legal help from legal aid in your county. If you are innocent, call the attorney general’s office in your state. They will not represent you in the case, though. If others are in the lawsuit for you, see if a joint representation is possible. It may not be, and conflict may make it impossible. Then again, a lawyer representing more than one defendant in the same case MAY be make it less expensive for you.

        • john says:

          Thank you. I have a lawyer who suggested that I settle because it would be less to fight the case. This is prior to receiving the 18k settlement offer. This is going off of the original summons for an alleged one movie download.

  5. PS After reading DECLARATION OF COLETTE PELISSIER FIELD in the Malibu Media case, the calls to to the IL AG office should be supported by MM.

    There has to be a way for innocent does to not be subject to the stress and expense of these things. I know, I’ve represented (and continue to represent) many.

    Those who actually did do it, should settle but at reasonable rates, and move on. Nobody but the Megauploads of the world should have to fear federal court and statutory awards in the tens of thousands.

    • John says:

      Thank you for your comments. I am consulting an attorney this coming week. An attorney from Chicago, which I shall not name, advise that it would be easier to settle. 3-5k for costs and another 2-3k for settlement.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh wow, 5k just to negotiate settlement.

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          Wild guess but I believe that everyone who frequents this website knows the name of said attorney.

        • SJD says:

          You meant 500 I guess. That’s the going rate in Chicago. It may be more if there are complications (multiple titles, more than one round to bring the price down etc.), which can drive it up to x2-x3, but 5000?

        • Anonymous says:

          I will be discussing this with a lawyer in the Central District. It is good to know that the going rate in Chicago is 500. According to the summons, it is for a single movie. The question remains, do I need to get an IP lawyer or one that handles copyrights?
          The one in this District handles copyrights and has seen some MM cases.

      • Anonymous says:

        With all due respect that sounds ridiculous. If the settlement amount is the standard going rate, why are they charging so much to settle? I talked to two lawyers back when I was a doe and one said $300 flat fee. The other was $295 consultation with an expected rate of $300-$600 to negotiate. They expected settlement in the range you posted. Maybe it’s more because you were named, but that seems awfully high.

        • John says:

          Was this recent? I’d like to be more informed before consulting with a lawyer to see what my options are.

        • john says:

          I got a summons for 1 movie infringement. I just recently received a settlement offer of 18k for 24 movies that was allegedly downloaded. This is very frustrating…I dont know what to do with this.

    • SJD says:

      With all my respect, I loathe the idea of settling, because zero fairness is being restored that way. According to the quite credible study, people think that anything more than $100 is not “reasonable” for this type of offence. Next, the recipient of the funds is simply a wrong entity. In this particular case, only 10% goes to Malibu, the rest 90% fuel the future racket. Not to mention that the problem of “piracy” (some convincingly argue that there is no problem to begin with, but I digress) won’t be not only solved this way, but even suffer 0.0000000001% damage.

      I’m trying not to talk about the moral aspects (or the absence thereof) of the copyright, but if someone feels guilty, that’s fine with me: I’m happy for you and the peace in your soul you’ve achieved! Probably stopping your infringing activity will be by far more rewarding (at least in the imaginary world of plaintiff’s tale), but you also feel free to donate as much as you want to one of plentiful charities out there.

      The only time I understand and sadly approve settlements is when a person’s life/study/marriage/career may be ruined by the public association with pornography and copyright infringement in general.

      • John says:

        Yes. I agree that settlements only encourage the practice and it does not solve piracy. I think that is the point…MM do not want a real solution, they want the money. Not having money the to pay for lawyers to litigate is an issue. The trolls know this as well…

      • badgerill says:

        There’s the problem.ive hired an attorney frankly because i know i’m guilty but when you look online at other posts settlement costs seem to range from a couple hundred dollars to thousands;but lawyers many are very expensive,and in the case of the one that i chose maybe not good enough to fight for me,these cases could get VERY EXPENSIVE to fight or even settle.
        A wrong move or if TROLL somehow targets you can be a financial disaster.

        • Anonymous says:

          Don’t feel guilty!!! Most of the world is downloading stuff from internet.. Very few get into trouble from Trolls..

  6. Anonymous says:

    So I got another call from MM, again telling me that I should hire an attorney, nothing else. That’s a little bit more frustrating because I cannot tell if they want to settle or go court? I was expecting settlement offers but no such luck :)

  7. Anonymous says:

    Anyone know what is going on with ” Malibu Media, LLC vs. John Does 1-49 1:12-cv-06676″?

    The Judge has been silent for a month and Malibu just filed for an extension since Comcast wont release any information because there are two motions to quash outstanding.

  8. Anonymous says:

    For those of you who have already gone through this ordeal in Illinois, how did it turn out for you? Did you end up going with one of the above listed lawyers?

    • Doe Re Me says:

      i originally hired one of the above as a shield service only. i had hoped (and believed) that would be the end of it. unfortunately for me, i was served and now have to find a defense attorney. i am going to speak to a local (our family) attorney tomorrow (monday) just because we trust him and ask his advice (he is also very familiar with the judges in our district). I definitely did consider settling because it’s cheaper and that would be the end of it but every time i thought of those trolls cashing my check i wanted to vomit. ultimately i decided i would rather pay an attorney more to clear my name and defend me than to pay off the trolls. good luck.

  9. John Doe says:

    Any other Does been through this in IL with Malibu Media, how did it end up?

    • Doe Re Me says:

      i am going through it now in Illinois. i received my notice (from IP) late November, hired a shield early December (because i have kids that i didn’t want to risk exposing to harassing phone calls), shield notified me of one offer of settlement (i declined), summons issued for me to appear in court mid-january. I have not been served yet so we’ll see if that happens. I am prepared to fight but I did a lot of soul searching because it certainly would be easier (and cheaper) to settle. Ultimately I decided I will not fund this scam. I agree with SJD that it’s immoral for me to choose the easy path which would certainly result in other innocent people being victimized.
      For any of you who are illegally downloading movies or music using your neighbor’s wifi, you suck.

      • Raul says:

        Good for you and good luck, hopefully you will recoup your attorney fees as a “prevailing party”. This inequitable Copyright Code is in desperate need of a redraft.

  10. anonym says:

    One of named does filed motion to dismiss (1:12-cv-01280).
    He represent himself as attorney.

    http://ia601208.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55843/gov.uscourts.ilcd.55843.docket.html

    This will be interesting.

    • Anonymous says:

      I want to file a similar motion as the one stated above. Is it too late to file a new motion based on the information that Malibu doesn’t even have the right to sue anyone? What should I title the motion? Amended motion? Emergency Motion?

      • Anonymous says:

        I left out I am reffering to filling a new motion to dismiss for the case 1:12-cv-06676 malibu vs john does -1-49 in nothern illinois. Based on the fact that malibu doesnt even have the right to sue anyone. I dont know how i missed that information when researching my previous motions.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I noticed a case update today on a Malibu case on PACER :

    MINUTE entry before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen:Status hearing held on
    1/3/2013, and continued to 4/4/2013 at 10:30 AM. Plaintiff is to file a listing of all cases
    filed in this district that are related to this matter by 1/17/13. Judicial staff mailed notice.

    Does this mean that everything on this case is on hold until April, including the ISP releasing the Doe documents to Malibu?

    • Anonymous says:

      yeah im in that case but so far nothing. the info was suppose to be released but nothing so far it seems. I’m really interested to see what this means. Is he asking for every case involing malibu media in northern il.

      • Anonymous says:

        also just noticed this

        MINUTE entry before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen: Combined motion (21) to quash and for protective order pursuant to FRCP 45 and 26, or in the alternative to sever for improper joinder is referred to Magistrate Judge Mason. The motion hearing scheduled for 1/17/13 is stricken. Judicial staff mailed notice (gl, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013).

  12. Anonymous says:

    FYI, I just filled 3 motions in Malibu Media, LLC vs john doe 1-23 1:12-cv-07579 in Illinois Northern District Court. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/105451/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-23/summary/

    Using info from this and other sites copyright troll sites (thank god this and the others sites like it exit) and general info on the web about bit torrent.

    What was driving me nuts was that I mailed the memorandums on 12/21 and then just showed up on RFCexpress like 1/2 or 1/3. I am just happy that they got registered and not lost.

    • Anonymous says:

      Two of us in that case are in these forums. Glad to know! Nice motions, must have taken a lot of time.

      • Anonymous says:

        3 of us actually. I noticed today 2 settled. ugh.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yea, saw that yesterday. I can’t believe some folks called the troll from the ISP letter alone – they didn’t even get their info (not until 1/8). Crazy. Talk about easy money, what a joke this whole thing is. I can’t believe how different the courts across the country deal with these cases. Theft by extortion.

    • John Doe says:

      I’m in this case too. Didn’t do anything so far. Was going to hire an attorney as a shield but then read that if you do, they single you out and go after you. I have no idea how this works but this and other sites have given me a good primer. Although at times, conflicting info. I guess at this point I wait until they call me and see how bad the harassment gets.

      • doecumb says:

        I don’t know any data to support the fear that an anonymous Doe is singled out because they have an attorney. The opposite case can also be made: a Doe that retains a lawyer shows she will fight back. This discourages trolls. And certainly in some doe defense lawyers have had their client or the case dismissed with successful motions.

        I am not in the legal business and have no motive to make either case. Without clear information, it’s reasonable for a doe to follow their own wishes about getting or not getting a lawyer. Trolls want to move on and make a quick easy buck from uninformed fearful does. They would prefer not getting bogged down by court proceedings.

        • SJD says:

          Agree. Even more: more at least 3 attorneys hinted that sometimes trolls dismiss their clients without any money involved (well, except money paid to the defense lawyer).

    • Anonymous says:

      Ok, so why did Malibu Media / X Art just dismiss only the 4 does that fought back on this case and not the one that did respond? What are they up to?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Another thing I noticed recently..
    Malibu Media, LLC vs. John Does 1-49 1:12-cv-06676
    This case is all about bit torrent of X-Art – Young and hot video..
    The same video is already broadcasted free of cost in “RedTube” under www redtube dot com/212312

    Uploader is X-Art
    1,691,237 views of this video with no cost associated. I doubt that X-art has uploaded the same video to bittorrent and try to make money out of it too!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      I am in 6676 MM case too.. Can you give some more information about “malibu doesnt even have the right to sue anyone”

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am in 6676 MM case too.. Can you give some more information about “malibu doesnt even have the right to sue anyone”

  15. Anonymous says:

    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1, 6, 13, 14, and 16, 2:12-cv-
    02078-MMB (E.D. PA., Jan. 3, 2013), in which the Honorable Michael M. Baylson denied all
    pending Motions to Dismiss.

    Specifically, Judge Baylson
    stated:
    The Court concludes Plaintiff has the requisite standing to bring the claims in the
    Amended Complaints. Even if Defendants themselves had standing to contest the
    validity of the Assignment – which it appears they do not, given the lack of
    disagreement regarding the Assignment among the original parties – the
    background context of Malibu’s formation, the Affidavit of Colette Field, the text
    of the Written Assignment from September 13, 2013, and the text of the
    Clarification Agreement from December 5, 2012, all demonstrate that Brigham
    Field intended to transfer and did transfer complete and exclusive rights in his
    copyrighted works to Malibu when the company was formed on February 8,
    2011. Malibu was the “exclusive” owner of the Brigham Field copyrights as of
    that time, and it has standing to sue for infringement of those works presently.
    Id. at *16

    • This is an interesting turn of events indeed. many of us are following that case. Thanks for the timely update.

      This shows what a great crowdsourcing resource fightcopyrighttolls and dietrolldie are for a nationwide audience

  16. Anonymous says:

    Got a letter last Friday, case 1:12-cv-09727 Does 1-23

    I have until 1/28/13 to vacate the Subpoena. Or should I settle or shield? I’d spend $1K to avoid the hassle.

    • Anonymous says:

      Shield. The settlement without representation is probably going to be for an insane amount of money, and having a lawyer could help defray the costs even if you have to settle in the end.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hey guys, I am part of the following case:
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-47 1:12-cv-06679

    I have gotten one call from the lawyer who left a message. I just looked up the court case online and found that on 1/3 the following happened:

    MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time 38 is granted. Plaintiff has until 2/19/13 in which to serve the defendants with a summons and complaint. Status hearing set for 1/17/13 is stricken and reset to 3/14/13 at 8:30 a.m. No appearance is required on the 1/17/13 notice date. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

    Can anyone shed light on this new development? Does anyone with knowledge of the case know what this can mean for me? Trying to fight the good fight here.

    • Anonymous says:

      Collins is asking for more time

    • Anonymous says:

      Collins is asking for more time to serve the defendants

      • Anonymous says:

        I assume this doesn’t mean the defendants will necessarily be served, but he is buying more time in general to harass and then possibly serve?

        • Anonymous says:

          In all likelihood it’s just more time to harass and hope you cave in and pay the go away money.

    • Anonymous says:

      i am also on that same case. now a got a letter from a atty in il asking me to fill out a questionare or call. i have not done so, is that the right thing to do? i dont want to settle please help

  18. Anonymous says:

    Can someone explain this update on Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-47?

    43 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Patrick Collins, Inc. (Nicoletti, Paul) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

    44 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Pursuant to plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal 43 , defendants John Does 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 AND 47 are dismissed without prejudice.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

  19. Anonymous says:

    I’m starting to get harrassed with the usual threats from Malibu, what’s the general opinion around here about whether to lawyer up or not at this stage of the game, even with just a shield?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Is there a strong opinion at the stage of the game where Malibu starts harassment as to whether or not to get a lawyer or not? There’s a move on 07577 to sever for improper joinder but all this waiting (and harassing) is such a pain.

  21. If you’re pissed because you did not do it, you may be interested in a very interesting article I just came across from the University of Birmingham UK’s School of Computer Science. It is called , called The Unbearable Lightness of Monitoring: Direct Monitoring in BitTorrent. It discusses “whether the information gathered by monitoring agencies is accurate and conclusive (what information is really collected?) [and] investigates how users can defend themselves against monitoring.”

    I posted it to my website but you can go to it directly at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~tpc/Papers/P2PMonitor.pdf

    We’re working on the technical defenses to go along with our legal defenses. Understanding why your IP address could have been involved even when you are innocent will go a long way. Ultimately this may turn in a “Daubert” question on the admissibility of “scientific” type evidence, both before and at trial.

  22. ASU says:

    Hi, does anyone have any information on docket number 1:12-cv-08903, Malibu Media v/s John Does 1-6, filed in the Illinois Northern District court? The ISP was supposed to have released my information by January 8th and I haven’t heard anything yet. I don’t know how to find updates. Please help!

    • falcon789 says:

      http://ia600707.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276271/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276271.docket.html

      Malibu has put in a motion for leave to file excess pages on 1/18 and that is the last thing on the docket. There seems to be an attorney representing a doe in the case, Michelle Janeen Rozovic, you might want to look her up and give her a call, she’ll know whats going on.

      • falcon789 says:

        Sorry, the motion for leave to file excess pages was filed by the doe represented by the attorney I mentioned in the first post, so Malibu hasn’t filed anything since 1/4/13 in 1:12-cv-08903.

        • ASU says:

          Thanks, Falcon! I will wait to see if I actually get the harassment calls from the troll and then get in touch with Michelle Rozovic.

          This is just the most awful thing. Sigh! I don’t know what I would do if they come after me. As a student, I am literally barely scraping a living. I doubt I’d be able to even afford an attorney. This is such a nightmare.

        • Raul says:

          @ASU-For starters keep focused on your school work and try to relax. The lawsuit in which you have found yourself is being prosecuted by Troll Schulz who has little desire to sue individuals. Out of her 24 MM lawsuits, she has only served 2 individuals so your chance of being struck by lightening is just below 10% or maybe much lower if you factor in her other lawsuits. Also she is one of Lipscomb’s trolls who usually performs a background check before they sue individuals (which they wildly screw up on occasion) and they should not be too eager to go after a college student with no assets.

        • ASU says:

          Thanks, Raul. I think the harassment has begun. I received a call from an unknown number today and upon googling it, I discovered it’s a from a debt collector representing a porn company. I’m going to continue to avoid answering calls from unknown numbers. God, I hope this goes away.

        • Raul says:

          Good Luck! BTW some Does have reported that you can use Google Voice to screen harassing/unknown callers.

        • ASU says:

          Oh, I actually changed my phone number on the ISP’s website. Moreover, from the docket online, there are three outstanding motions to quash. So I’m genuinely puzzled about how they have already found a way to contact me. Am I wrong in understanding that until the judge rules on the outstanding motions, my identity should not have been revealed?

  23. Dixon Tufar says:

    Hi how is everyone.

    First of all let me say thank you to everyone who has contributed to this great site. You all are fighting the good fight. Mr. Antonelli, your assistance is sincerely appreciated.

    I’m involved in a case that I haven’t read too much about it, either here or elsewhere. The company suing me is known as xpays. It’s in the southern district of Illinois.3:2012cv00928.

    A little bit of information. The deadline to file a motion was about six weeks ago. However, I have yet to receive any harassing letters or calls. As I was going over the pacer account, it appears that the judge has a conference call set up for the fifth of February. I don’t really understand what this means. It sounds like he wants to discuss how the discovery process will be executed, a possible settlement process, arbitration, that sort of thing. And then the trial appears to be scheduled for April of twenty fourteen.

    So does that become the date of discovery then, the fifth? Am I supposed to do something? Any opinions are greatly appreciated.

    Thanks again to everyone for making this a great resource for people who need help.

    • Raul says:

      If no one has been served with a summons and complaint, as is usual, the troll will likely ask that the conference be adjourned to a later date so he can further harass without court supervision. At this point, just keep your head low with no contact with the troll or his agents.

  24. PDquash says:

    Just received notice today of a new case filed in Cook County, IL: LW Systems LLC v Christopher Hubbard. This case is completely frivolous and has no bases, and the same exact case was filed in St. Clair County, IL. I initially freaked out and contacted them, and they wanted $4,000.

    The summary of the case can be found here: http://www.torrentlitigation.com/cases/LW-Systems-LLC-v-Hubbard-No-13-L-0015-(St-Clair-County-IL).pdf

    Please let me know if you are implicated in this too, as we can collaborate on what steps we need to take to torpedo these bozos.

    • SJD says:

      Glad to hear that you are pissed off, not scared. I plan to cover this case in the beginning of the next week. Stay tuned!

    • Anonymous says:

      I just received a notice from my ISP (RCN) regarding a subpoena request in this matter that specifies an IP address that does not appear to be associated with any of my computers. Am I receiving the notice simply because I am an RCN subscriber whose info may be released when RCN responds to the subpoena or is it because I am potentially a defendant in the suit?

      I would be interested in collaborating to defeat this case and look forward to a discussion on that front.

      • PDquash says:

        Just by reading the other posted case it appears that we are being subpoena’d in order to get our names/phone/address. As far as I know they can’t prosecute us if we aren’t named in the actual suit.
        It appears as if previously people would be named as John Doe # in cases, but this seems to be a different one. I’m looking forward to what SJD has to say.

    • J Dow says:

      I received such notice from my ISP provider and would like to see if you were also thinking to quash the sunpoena the release of my information.

      • PDquash says:

        I’m not sure how to approach this legally. It’s basically like they just subpoena’d a massive amount of people under the guise of “case discovery” and we can’t be tried for anything if our names aren’t listed.
        The fact that a judge would grant such a subpoena means that they have no clue what is actually going on with this farcical company.

    • JT Marlin says:

      I was named in the LW Systems LLC v. Christopher Hubbard subpoena and got the letter on 1/25/13. What’s interesting is that there was also an attachment from RCN (neustar), that read that RCN will comply with the subpoena on 2/22/13 if they do not receive a legal documents that delay or terminate the process.

      The IP Address that was supposedly targeted was not the IP that my computer uses. Paul A Duffy is the listed contact. This is so completely bogus!

      • PDquash says:

        I would call up RCN, or the Neustar number they provided. If it isn’t your IP then you need to confirm with them that this subpeona has nothing to do with you.

        • JT Marlin says:

          Just got off the phone with Neustar. They said that the case number dates back to 10/9/12, and that IP address can change, so it is entirely possible that the IP that was flagged on that date, did belong to me.

          So, any ideas how to proceed from here?

    • magnum says:

      PDquash

      I received a letter and a copy of the subpoena to RCN. I was so freaked out I called Andrew Cook, Edward Bi of saper, and Adam Urbanzcyk. I am still not sure what i am going to do.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, whatever you do, I would seriously not hire Adam Urbanzcyk. Hell, I’d probably not even speak to him again. He is bad news. Read all about him on the Guava pages.

    • Anonymous says:

      PD: I just received a notice in the mail today saying comcast would release my personal information next month if I didn’t move on my own to quash it. This was the case filed in St Clair County, not sure what to do here?

  25. When you called, was a movie or website identified?

    • PDquash says:

      No. It was very strange, after several rings and calling late on a Friday, a woman answered “Law office.” She then asked me for my IP address (not the case number or anything, another red flag). She then had a “para-legal” call me back who gave vague detail of the case and said if the IP address I was calling about was asked for a $4,000 settlement.
      It makes no sense that anyone could settle, particularly because none of us are named on the lawsuit (that I know of). I can’t find the specific case (the Cook County) one as of this weekend. Has anyone found it?

    • PDquash says:

      I specifically asked what website or movie he the case was referring and he wouldn’t give me any information. Pretty funny, shows the extent of this fraud.

      • falcon789 says:

        I’ve really only heard Mark Lutz doing the harassing for Duffy. Did the “paralegal” even mention his name? Gosh they are so freakin Bogus!

        • SJD says:

          Kevin O’Kelly is a paralegal initially tasked with Lutz’s job. When Steele suddenly decided to move to Nevada, Lutz refused, which prompted an initial “firing.” But there was a worse thing: Steele’s wife refused to move too. That was the main reason for the drunken spree circa October-November.

      • JT Marlin says:

        Just a quick question, how can Neustar release my ISP records to a law firm where I’m not included in the suit itself (in this case LW Systems v Chistopher Hubbard)? Can’t their legal department

        • SJD says:

          Neustar is the worst ISP (not really an ISP but ISPs outsource legal services to these douchebags) when it comes to cooperation with troll criminals.

        • Anonymous says:

          What pisses me off about Neustar is that the notice they send out to subscribers who are caught up in this directs them to contact the troll lawyer to find out information about why their information has been subpoenaed!!! In my mind that is negligence. These suits aren’t a new thing and they clearly know what these lawsuits are all about yet how many people have mistakenly contacted the troll because of these letters and implicated themselves? They’re just as guilty if you ask me…

        • JT Marlin says:

          Hey SJD,

          So what do you recomend I do as far as Neustar is concerned? If I’m not named in the suit, how can I convince them to not release my records?

          And a big thanks to you for all the hard work you’re doing on this stuff!!!

        • Anonymous says:

          I don’t understand this case – from my reading of the suit (http://www.torrentlitigation.com/cases/LW-Systems-LLC-v-Hubbard-No-13-L-0015-%28St-Clair-County-IL%29.pdf), it sounds like the plaintiff is alleging damages from computer tampering/malware, not simply illegal downloading of copyrighted material. What’s going on? Thanks for any advice!

        • doecumb says:

          Reminder:
          In addition to Neustar’s records handling which favors the plaintiffs, Neustar has a LARGE business division devoted to computer forensics and monitoring. This is a major conflict of interest in handling records for trolling cases.

          http://www.neustar.biz/solutions/security-threat-monitoring

  26. JT Marlin says:

    -Anonymous-

    After doing some research about this over the last few days (specifically about the LW Systems vs Hubbard case – because I’m named in that one as well) it’s becoming clear that these trolls are not planning on naming us individually in a suit. This is purely a SHAKE DOWN. They are notifying the ISPs of an impending case knowing that some ISPs won’t look at the suit, they will just see that there is a subpoena, and then provide the information about the specified IP address that was named.

    That LW Systems and Hubbard case is a hacking case. It has nothing to do with downloading anything. My guess after the records get released, and 3-6 months of harassment, it will go away on its own. Even with that said, I’m still planning on filing a motion to quash to prevent my ISP from releasing my records. If I do that, I think there is a 99.99% chance that this just goes away.

    Hopefully someone else can verify what I’m saying is true.

    • SJD says:

      You are spot-on. The only correction: I bet that this case won’t go away on its on: there are enough people to help this happen.

      • JT Marlin says:

        Just curious, what do you mean by, “there are enough people to help this happen”? So do you think that we will be named in a suit?

        • SJD says:

          Nope, I mean there is a strong network of attorneys, and some other powerful players. And unlike last year, the evidence against the Prenda crooks is overwhelming. Don’t you that CSS Prenda is sinking?

        • Anonymous says:

          Here’s a clear rewording of what SJD said:

          “The case won’t go away on its own, it has a team of attorneys and others who are fighting it to help it go away!”

          Because a case like this won’t just die if nobody fights it. :)

      • Anonymous says:

        So are you saying that there are a lot of powerful attorneys that are going to keep this case alive and that’s why it wont go away? I’m sorry, I’m confused what you are saying.

        • Anonymous says:

          i think what she is saying is that there are enough good attournies in the IL area that are onto this scheme that the case will not “go away on it’s own” but rather will be killed off.

        • SJD says:

          Yes, exactly. Sorry for confusing sentence.

    • Anonymous says:

      I spoke with a few lawyers on the phone, and they all told me that MTQs are rarely effective as long as you live in the proper jurisdiction – but I also understand their incentive in getting me to hire them to negotiate a settlement. Anyone here with experience filing MTQs, especially without legal counsel?

  27. Anony mouse says:

    To clarify, anonymous above wanted more information as to what this case was actually about. allow me to clarify (I am a longtime reader me these blogs and cases, so the different types me suits are familiar to me.)

    This type me case SOUNDS scarier than the normal torrent suits. it uses words like hacking, malware, etc. Want to know what it really is alleging? That the people they subpoena have gotten a username and password to a porn site. that’s it. if you go to Google and type porn passwords, you will see millions of pages. Some people do hack the systems and reap passwords. they then put up sites or host chatrooms where they provide these passwords.

    now, here’s where the whole suit falls apart: you can linkify porn site usernames and passwords. let me break that down in simple terms. let’s say i run a porn site called steakeatingcuties.com. a pay site with girls naked eating delicious steaks. now, a hacker is able to reap passwords either by getting through my system or tricking legitimate users into giving me their password. let’s say one account name is albundy and his password is hooters. someone can then just make a link that looks like this: http://albundy:hooters@steakeatingcuties.com and all anyone would have to do to gain “unlawful access” to the site is click that link.

    now that i have explained it fully, let me tell you where the plantiffs case falls apart: anyone can mask that link. I could make it look like you are just clicking on steakeatingcuties.com and you wouldn’t know you’re on someones username and password. you might just think it’s a free porn site. hell, someone looking to frame you could take that link with the username and password, put it into a link shortening service and then link you to, say, tinyurl.com/kittenshugging and you could get redirected to the porn link.

    i hope this makes sense. see, the main issue is technologically illiterate judges might not understand what i just explained above. i am not sure how to make it clearer to a layman. these particular cases aren’t actually about hacking. it can be as simple as unwittingly clicking a link.

    someone can correct me here, but from what i have read that is what these cases in particular are about.

    • Anony mouse says:

      apologies for any typos like me instead of “of” – autocomplete is a fickle mistress.

    • Raul says:

      Thank you for the explanation as I am admittedly a tech idiot. However these lawsuits are treading well worn, pot holed roadways. If you are a new arrival, search this blog for Lightspeed Media Corp., Steve Jones, Hard Drive Productions, Pilcher, CP Productions, Arte de Oxacata and now LW Holdings. Maybe now Sunlust, New Sensations, Millenium TGA and othe hastily dismissed Prenda plaintiffs. Same players, same douchebages, same scam.

    • doecumb says:

      Thanks anony mouse, for some good explanations and analogies.

      Add another outrageous malicious twist to the list of troll unscrupulous tactics. It seems again that these trolls want to play both the courts and Does for chumps.

      First, Marlin, this is an Illinois state case, not a Federal case. It’s an extortion scam, as usual. But when you look at the troll names Raul suggested, you’ll get more similar information from state of Illinois court cases, rather than Federal civil cases (say in Illinois Northern District) involving these creeps.

      I agree that these allegations could easily be complaining about one password access to one website. The malware and conspiracy stuff could easily be trumped up.

      By linkifying things (see anony mouse’s description), it’s certainly possible that trolls could fraudulently entrap Does with intent to extort. Is there any evidence of good faith previously by any of this Plaintiff troll gang?

      After thousands of cases, we have no evidence that troll “technology” is at all reliable for doing a simpler thing-collect IP addresses at single moments. In fact, trolls have given no detail. They only claim their “experts” can do it with “100%” accuracy (a foolish claim). Trolls are claiming to do something more complicated here, while also tracking down chatroom “evidence” for conspiracy.

      In only ten pages, this bogus complaint wastes one page describing that computer security is important and another page saying malware can be applied in different ways.

      The complaint includes a pathetically HUMOROUS charge: “Plaintiff was forced to keep its computers running longer…which utilizes more electricity….”

      Even if the allegations were accurate (probably not) and even if damage occurred as described (almost definitely not), the details of this case (if there were merit) would be difficult and very time consuming just to present at trial. If trolls don’t go to trial even for “simpler” cases, why would they want to go forward with a more problematic one?

      And that doesn’t even include a probable lengthy list of troll mispresentations. Starting with, “who is the plaintiff really?”, “who’s getting what share of the settlement money?”
      etc.

      • PDquash says:

        Thanks to all those willing to talk in better detail about LW Systems v Hubbard. As this seems to be a slightly different kind of case then others, it will be interesting to see what goes forward.
        In the copyright cases there is always the $150,000 sitting over your head, but in this one I’m not so sure what it would look like.

        Anyone who is smart enough to read here and DTD will probably not settle and ignore the trolls until they actually implicate a Doe.

        I find it entirely possible that Christopher Hubbard is a made up individual, or at the very least a similar character to the AF Holdings case. Either way this case seems utterly pointless, as to how many people can one adult website sue for trying to enter its site?

        We will see how this goes, but for the court’s to allow our ISP’s to release our info to these trolls is utterly embarassing injustice.

      • Anony mouse says:

        you’re welcome. as i mentioned elsewhere, and it bears repeating here, the hacking cases and the torrent cases will form in the future what i am dubbing the “Steele Double Dip Scheme.” I outlined it in the “Connecticut defendant strikes back” recent post, but I will explain it in short summary here:

        It’s obvious to me the path Steele is on. He will create a porn site (according to some he has already contracted a few pornos that have already been filmed.) He will then create a site for them. Then the double dipping begins: He will own all the content at the outset and anyone gaining “illegal access” from ill gotten password links (in the manner mentioned above ) or people downloading the pornos he owns from torrent sites can expect a subpoena. now, i stop short of calling this a honey pot scheme because that would imply he would be the one distributing the video to torrent sites and giving the “hacked” accounts in chatrooms and password sharing sites. i sincerely hope steele and company wouldn’t want to start an entrapment mill like that.

    • Interesting.. or is this related or important ? says:

      Like this?:

      What is Click Here LLC (http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Los-Angeles/click-here-llc/103426202.aspx) (http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Malibu/brigham-field/67218878.aspx)

      Click Here LLC has a location in Los Angeles, CA. Active officers include Brigham Field and Colette Pelissier. Click Here LLC filed as a Domestic on Friday, January 27, 2012 in the state of California and is currently active. The company’s line of business includes Hold Intellectual Property.

      is this related or important ? (http://whois.domaintools.com/colettefield.com)
      or this?
      (http://reversewhois.domaintools.com/field%2c-brigham)

  28. Anonymous says:

    I saw that you added Adam Urbanczyk (torrentlitigation.com) to the ‘do not recommend’ list recently – can I ask why (in general terms)? That website seems legitimate as far as I can tell.

    • Anonymous says:

      You can read all about it on the Guava pages. Basically, its suspected that he is allegedly colluding with Prenda law and the plaintiffs in his cases. The judge went so far as to ask, “are you two in bed with each other.” There is a document that alleges blackmail between Prenda and defendants in Guava cases and AU has yet to file it with the court in Cook County. The agreed orders that are in the Guava and Oaxaca cases came about a little bit too easy. No one can find any record of Skylar Case or Stacey Mullen in Cook county. AU used to comment on this site and has never answered any of these questions or assuaged anyone’s suspicions of collusion. The list goes on.

  29. [...] of these lawsuits to stay in less transparent and more fraud-permitting county courts. Another is suggested by a reader (make sure to read the [...]

  30. anonymous says:

    I’m new to this area, but I received a letter from Neustar as well. I read the Case that was filed in the Illinois Circuit court, and have a few questions. The case seems pretty specific about unauthorized entry of systems and use of malware. I, in no way did that, nor did I use an illegally obtained password to access a site. So, Is this a phase one, fishing expedition? Is phase two the next lawsuit that names me now that they have my info?

    Mainly I’m curious about the jurisdiction of the Illinois circuit court. I live in Ill, but far away from the 20th district. Does the 20th circuit court have jurisdiction over me?

    [SJD: I redacted your comment removing one sentence. When you read around enough, you'll understand why. A hint: all the trolls read this site and they don't have any court-grade evidence, unless you supply it on a saucer with a blue edge and avail yourself to especially aggressive harassment.]

    • Raul says:

      With old school massive amount of Does type lawsuit I see. His baseball card habit must be getting expensive.

      • Anonymous says:

        All IP addys are from Comcast as well. Isn’t Comcast one of the ISP’s that usually fights back on some of these? Especially with 200+ does they’d need to get info for?

      • Anonymous says:

        They didn’t even bother to do geolocation on the addresses. It just says the location is “illinois”

  31. Anonymous says:

    Anyone know what is going on with ” Malibu Media, LLC vs. John Does 1-49 1:12-cv-06676″?

  32. Anonymous says:

    I received a questionaire from Schulz Law firm, giving me 10 days to fill it out and return it to see if there is any exculpatory evidence so they can determine if they want to pursue further litigation. This is for MM.
    Has any one else seen this? Should I send it back? They are accusing me of 9 downloads.
    My first experience was with Paul Nicoletti, but all I ever received was a notice from my ISP(comcast), that they were going to release my information. I pretty much ignored that and never heard anymore and my DOE was dismissed without prejudice. Can Nicoletti give my information to Schulz?

  33. These questionnaires appear to be both a fishing expedition and a hedge against innocent folks seeking Rule 11 sanctions once the does are exonerated. This is sure to be litigated eventually; I hope judges will see that a doe getting one of these “exculpatory evidence” letters would be acting PRUDENTLY not to answer, especially not immediately (i.e. The 10 day response requested).

    In a search for reasonable solutions to this mess, may I suggest that all copyright holders hold an “amnesty period” with massive publicity, where folks who come forward can pay say $50 for all infringements up to today? This is done by municipalities for old parking tickets, and States for back taxes.

    We need better ideas to take hold, rather than the status quo of this “shakedown”/punitive prosecutions gaining acceptance. It is acceptance, isnt it, if our state and federal authorities remain complacent allowing these massive campaigns to continue virtually unabated?

    • SJD says:

      It is a fishing expedition, I agree. I’m a bit more skeptical regarding the hopes judges and Bars do something about it. Steele & Co did it and got away with that, they even got away with robocalls, while many state and federal (cell phone) laws were violated. On my side, all I can do is to tell people not to take the bait. Thankfully, most victims come here earlier or later.

      As for better ideas, I cheer brainstorms, yet I strongly believe that the main culprit is insane, unconstitutional statutory rates. Canada introduced the differentiation between commercial and non-commercial infringement, and established a $5000 cap for non-commercial. Inexplicably, copyright trolls (Voltage) are testing waters there, but I predict it won’t last long. They are there for easy money after all.

      • Anonymous says:

        So after reading the article on DTD, is it the opinion that Schulz is just trying the same tactics to get some more people to cave in and negotiate a settlement, or will she start pursuing individual lawsuits?

        • DieTrollDie says:

          The letter is designed to get some people respond with incriminating information OR possibly develop information that can help their case. There is NO exculpatory evidence collection intent here. It also allows them to test the waters for people who might default. As far as who they will single out… Hard to say, as it depends on the head Troll.

          DTD :)

  34. Anonymous says:

    Got this letter about exculpatory evidence in IL, it’s strange since I didn’t get any settlement letters before, only calls. So is it illegal to respond? Also, this letter was forwarded to me because I’ve changed state, so 10 day period is way over, will trolls get my new address from USPS?

  35. Anony mouse says:

    Leskos reFX software copyright trolling case grew in size two days ago. The amount of Does has increased to 622. one wonders how much larger this one will get. I am also curious as to what they will demand vs. what they demand for porn downloads.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Does anybody knows what is going on with 1:12-cv-06676? extension of 30 days to reply was granted on Jan 4th and no response has been provided by Nicoletti.

  37. Anonymous says:

    And why is the Andrew guy not recommended I spoke to him will he turn me over if I said anything to him or some crap

  38. Anonymous says:

    Magistrate Gorman just dismissed everyone except a few John Doe #1s for improper joinder in the 14 or so Malibu Media / Patrick Collins / AF Holdings / Ingenuity 13 Central District of Illinois cases, and Ordered that all subpoenas that have not yet been complied with by an ISP be quashed.He issued a 16 page written Order that had a pretty sterile, but unforgiving tone. It looks like all of the cases throughout the district were referred to him since he’s the magistrate for the Chief Judge of the circuit.

  39. Doe Re Me says:

    this might be a strange question but have any of you noticed an increase in telemarketing type phone calls since being named? we went from maybe one or two telemarking calls a month to sometimes as many as half a dozen each day (the trolls got my name and phone number in november and the increase in calls began in december). I am just wondering if it’s possible that the trolls are also selling the information as additional income.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, the next day after my info was released somebody put my info (with wrongly spelled name that was only on ISP account) into car insurance application, I got like 12 calls.

      • Anonandonandon says:

        Interesting. I wonder if this is a ‘cheap’ way of checking credit. Mind saying who your troll is/was?

        • Doe Re Me says:

          nicoletti

        • Anonymous says:

          malibu media via lipscomb

        • Anonymous says:

          The closest thing I’ve recieved to a phone call were texts now u do not know if this is associated to the troll who sent me my settlement letter since I’m still fairly new to this but it was odd I recieved a bunch of offers through texts for discounts lol pretty dumb

      • That Anonymous Dude says:

        Prenda almost certainly did the same shit to me. Now I get all kinds of cocksucking telemarketers calling me and hanging up. File FCC complaints against the numbers. That’ll stop them ASAP at least from the same number (if it doesn’t file another and they get the shit fined out of them).

    • Raul says:

      Not a strange question at all as others have noted this unusual coincidence.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’ve seen other people on occasion make note of getting more telemarketing calls. I’ve actually seen people mention it a couple of times over the past year or os.

        • Anonymous says:

          What do you guys see coming out of this Comcast case I know I’ve asked this question before but like I heard that this case has really good motions and other things going for it will Comcast win ?

      • Doe Re Me says:

        hi raul, is there any way to prove (or disprove) if the troll lawyers are actually selling or giving away the subpoenaed names and phone numbers? I am assuming that would be against the law. If enough of us named John Does have noticed a rise in telemarketing calls shortly after being named, seems suspicious.

        • anonymouseavenger says:

          I can’t see any benefit that trolls would get out of giving away your contact information. It seems like too much of a risk for them and their firms to do this. However, I could think of one benefit. According to DieTrollDie, there are over 300,000+ Doe cases out there. That’s a pretty good index of names, numbers, addresses. The sale of current and valid phone numbers to different marketing companies could be a lucrative one. But to answer your question: Can it be proven that they’re the ones giving out your contact information? Or, to answer your earlier question, that they applied for car insurance to check out your credit? I’ll answer the latter question first: It seems highly unlikely they’d do this. They’d need your social security number to apply for insurance (and your cars plate, make, model, year, etc.) which the discoveries did not provide. (Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that.) More than likely it was just an insurance company trying to bait you to join them. Kind of like how credit card companies say you’re pre-approved when you didn’t apply for anything and you know your credit sucks and you wouldn’t get approved if you actually applied. You *could* call the insurance company back and ask them what contact numbers they have for you… if it was indeed a troll and they wanted more info on you via this method, they’d have wanted a call back first and you might get lucky and their number is on file with your account. Worth a check if you’re really concerned. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if some enterprising troll decides to falsify who they are (like saying they’re an insurance company) in an effort to get you on the phone with them.

          On to the former question of “can you prove it if they sold Does names and numbers?”

          You’d have a better chance of finding two identical snowflakes. Unless we started a page maintained by Does with a list of telemarketers and their numbers to see if a pattern emerged, there’s no way to know if there’s something amiss. Even if such a page was started, you’d then either have to get that telemarketing company to admit where they obtained your information (good luck with that!) or, you’d have to somehow convince a judge to compel them to release such information.

          As someone said: Put your number on the Do Not Call list. It’s the best you can do vs the possible sale of your number to telemarketers.

          Just had a funny thought: Troll sells names and numbers of thousands of Does for, let’s say, $50,000. Telemarketers robocall people on the Do Not Call registry. People can get $500 (and sometimes more) per unwanted robocall. After seven unwanted robocalls the company has to pay out $3,500. Troll finds out about the payout and demands it as settlement. This is how conspiracy theories are born!

    • Po'd John Doe says:

      Register with your state’s “Do Not Call” registry (if they have one). If you are in a state that deems Troll calls as debt collection, it’s an easy way to stop the harassment. And if they do not, it’s easy ammo for a lawsuit.

      And I can’t say enough about how SDJ, Raul, and the other frequent posters on this site have helped me. My lawyer directed me here, and it opened up my eyes, assuaged my fears, and fortified my resolve. Thank you all for what you do.

      (This does not constitute legal advice, and no telemarketers or trolls were harmed by my post.)

      • Anonymous says:

        The only problem with the do not call list is that its basically waived if you “willingly” give up your number to these people. Such as filling out a form for a cruise at a sports event or something. So, not saying that they did, but if they just fill out your number on a bunch of forms, the do not call registry really can’t help.

        • Po'd John Doe says:

          That’s not always true. If your name is on the registry, they can only call you about the items you filled out the forms for. they may sell your number, but there is serious legal action, and $ paid out when the “do not call” list is ignored. The registry may not stop all call, or even the troll calls. But in some states, as I understand it, it will stop it completely.

          Best advice will always be, just don’t answer your phone. Don’t give them anything. Just live with a little heat.

      • That Anonymous Dude says:

        I’m almost positive those cocksuckers sold every single phone number that they got from their little fishing expeditions to telemarketers. I’ve been getting bombarded with calls from known telemarketers (Google the #, comes up as some mortgage, credit card, or other garden variety rip-off con/scam). Nevada, California, “Unknown” have all been showing up on my CID lately and when it goes to voicemail, the robodialer either waits for the *beep* and the line goes dead or it hangs up on the third or middle of fourth ring. Time to file a dozen or so FCC complaints but those take a long time.

  40. DB says:

    Why cant we make a class action suit against them? I’m caught up in the Guava/Comcast< St Clair Cty suit. I have read this site through and through and nobody, that I have seen mentions this. What would the lawyers on this forum say??

    • Anonymous says:

      there is a class action against the lipscum “companies”, the problem is that class actions take FOREVER seriously we are talking decade kind of time. also they are a pain in the butt and quite expensive. no lawyer would take on a prenda class action IMO because the companies are all fake so collecting from them would be literally impossible.

    • anonymouseavenger says:

      If you’ve read the site through and through, you’re familiar with this page: http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/counter-actions-against-trolls/

      It lists two class action suits so far. You’re more than welcome to bang the drum for another one regarding your particular troll/case, however.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone tried to let the members of the porn producer’s sites like X-ART aka. Malibu Media know that they are supporting copyright trolls? Things like replying to their main and models twitter / Facebook feeds etc. The bad publicity and members dropping because of it may make them reevaluate their business model regarding copyright trolling.

  42. DB says:

    Thanks, I obviously have much more to learn….despite all of the time already invested.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Magistrate Gorman in the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, just decided on 14 cases filed by troll Nicoletti. He held that joinder was improper from the beginning (even though in some cases Answers had been filed) and he dismissed everyone except the lowest number John Doe still left in each case. He also quashed any subpoenas that are still pending where the Doe filed a Motion to Quash.

    It wasn’t a particularly harsh or scalding Order, but it is clear that Gorman took the time to understand everything.

    Anyone think that Nicoletti will re-file any individual cases against people who were dismissed under this Order, or do you think he will just move on to fresh meat?

    • SJD says:

      Is it a new order or you talking about this (11 cases: 8 Lipscomb / 6 Prenda)?

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah, I was referring to the Order you linked above.

        Do you think that Nicoletti will re-file against any of the people who were dismissed w/o prejudice under the Order? It would mean paying $350 per re-filing, and for the folks they served who have now been dismissed through that Order, paying to have them served again.

        Right now Nicoletti has a case that is about to enter discovery in the C.D.Ill. (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-central-district-court/101992/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-7/summary/) so I am not sure what to think. Any thoughts?

        • SJD says:

          Nicoletti may file couple to maintain a patina of legitimacy, but definitely not against every severed Doe. If he wasn’t an arrogant prick, he would probably silently retreat from the ILCD… Prenda’s re-filing is way less likely.

        • Anonymous says:

          Well, I did some research and it looks like Nicoletti filed his last complaint in September as far as Illinois cases go. Everything after that was done by Mary K. Shulz out of Chicago. So it looks like they decided to divvy up territories (or were forced to do so). My guess is that Nicoletti will probably just walk away from his loser cases in Illinois that have been dismissed w/o prejudice by judges.

          This is supported by the fact that Nicoletti just filed a bunch of fresh individual John Doe cases in Indiana and Michigan. In each case he’s seeking a 26(f) waiver to subpoena ISPs, so it looks like these individual cases are not John Does who they’ve dealt with before. Of course, that’s not to say it won’t happen, but it looks like they’re not into recycling past Defendants for future cases. I’m guessing their view is that this is simply a numbers game, and it’s best to just move on than to get caught up on snags they hit here and there.

    • SJD says:

      Sad to learn that Judge Gorman lost his house in the tornado this Sunday.

  44. sidious1 says:

    Got an email from Comcast that said I downloaded a movie?? Any information on this and what I need to do is so greatly needed, and appreciated. This is very worrying. Help!!

    • Anonandonandon says:

      Does it look like this: http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/td_notice1.pdf or is it something more?

      • Anonymous says:

        It says that exactly. This is very worrying and I havent slept at all.

        • Anonandonandon says:

          My understanding from consulting a lawyer upon receiving a similar email sometime back is that in order to be sued or threatened with suit by the copyright holder, they need to subpoena your personal identifying information from the ISP. Your ISP would then give you notice via physical mail of that along with court documents. At that point I would probably retain a lawyer. If you are worried now, you might want to consult a lawyer anyway to help put your mind at ease. This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer, etc., but know you are not alone. This site and dietrolldie.com are excellent resources.

      • Anonymous says:

        So I should sit and wait then? I know that this ISP stuff is really starting to ramp up and am reading all about it on the net. I really appreciate you helping me on this. Now, to find a lawyer…sigh.

        • Anonandonandon says:

          This has been going on for years now with porn (2010?). I would go talk to a lawyer (if you are in IL, Jeffrey Antonelli appears to have a good name, more contacts at the top of the page). This will help you know what to do if or when the shit hits the fan. I believe Mr Antonelli does free initial consultations.

    • Anonymous says:

      What exactly does the e-mail say?

  45. Anonymous says:

    I got a letter from Charter today about the LW Systems case. (13-L-0015). Anyone have any new information on this or have a lawyer in the IL area they can suggest. This is the 1st I have ever had to deal with this and worried about what this is going to cost.

    • Joe Blow says:

      I called one place and they wanted 2200 to try and Quash … I’m thinking do it myself or just ignore … it is a hacking and civil conspiracy charge. Whatever that means.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Just got a subpoena from Charter for my IP about some L W Systems, LLC vs. Christopher Hubbard. Never met the person nor accessed any websites to be a co-conspirator. I know my wireless was open during the time frame they are looking for, i’m stupid .. I know … any sage advise on going forward. I have until 3/30/13 to respond with a motion to try and keep my stuff private.

    • Anonymous says:

      Speak with a lawyer as soon as you can. From what I can tell, the allegations in these cases are vague, and if you know nothing of hacking/password usage, I think all you have is a waiting game until they come after you. I don’t think motions to quash are particularly successful, but a lawyer who is familiar with these cases (check the recommendations on the state page on this site) will help you understand your rights. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I think you should talk to a lawyer to get legal advice, and I think it wouldn’t hurt to approach one as soon as you can.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok, you guys have a couple options. Either way you should speak to an attorney. I would not recommend Adam Urbancyzk though. There are serious allegations of collusion between him and prenda.

        Your two options are do nothing or hire a lawyer to quash. Sometimes quashing seems to be problematic because it can lead to you being singled out in retaliation. Doing nothing is another favorite option. This obviously lets the trolls get your info.

        If you do nothing and the trolls get your info, you’ll just a letter and a lot of phone calls. If you get the calls, there are two schools of though. Either ignore them or give the Richard Pryor Response. Both have risks and advantages.

        Chances of them actually naming and going after you personally are unlikely. Consensus of them naming you is about 1-3%.

        LW Systems is another offshoot of Guava, Lightspeed and Arte de Oaxaca. You can read up on those pages from the top. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/guava-llc-v-skyler-case-il-cook-county-12-l-7363/

        These cases are either password hacking or torrent disguised as hacking. It seems that, on information and belief, that Hubbard would be a doe that got singled out, called prenda and agreed to be sued so that prenda could get names to harass. This is in a deposition in another case that I can’t think of the name right now.

        Either way, don’t call Adam Urbancyzk and don’t talk to the trolls.

        • Joe Blow says:

          Thanks for the info. Sounds like i’ll do nothing. Talked to one lawyer (listed above) that immedately started talking about settling for 2500 -3000 (sounds like trying to make a quick buck)No thanks.

        • Anonymous says:

          @JoeBlow That seems like a lot to just settle. Note that if you are planning to settle (and really think you did wrongdoing), then you should absolutely do so through a lawyer to protect your rights. If you are settling, you don’t need to do so through a lawyer in your state, either. If you don’t think you did anything wrong, fighting is a real option. You can make counterclaims and force them to pay your attorney fees upon your victory. Assuming the plaintiff comes in the form of LW Systems/Guava/AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13/Arte de Oaxaca, take note that those responsible for those firms are going to have to answer to a federal judge as early as next Monday. It’s unclear what the result will be, but I’d bet that it won’t be business as usual for them afterward. Again, 2500-3000 sounds like too much, so you might want to look into alternative lawyers to settle, shield, or fight for you. This isn’t legal advice, and you should consult multiple lawyers if possible to find out how best to protect your rights.

        • Joe Blow says:

          I am not going to settle to make it go away. I did nothing wrong (that I know about) and dont want to pay a lawyer … let lem give me a summons and they can look through my computer if they want …

        • Anonymous says:

          Also re the counterclaims, this is an only and option if they actually name you and serve you. In that case definitely get a lawyer and by all means, do not ignore service of a complaint. ever.

          However, until you are properly served with a lawsuit against you, you are in no way required to talk to or respond to them in any fashion. I think the “settlement” letters still say there is a lawsuit against you blah blah blah..until your name is on the lawsuit and you’re served, it’s all BS. (99.9999% sure on this, but still playing the not legal advice card).

          The fact is that other than default judgements (people ignoring summons), not one case of theirs has ever been tried or won on its merits, which tells me that even they think their claims are BS. Otherwise these men would be much much richer, since why would they settle for $4k when you can make $150k off of each doe with your rock-solid super-duper forensic software evidence.

        • Anonymous says:

          No problem. Thanks for the info. Wait and see ….

        • Anonymous says:

          What do you mean by re the counterclaims?

        • Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous at 11:46pm, I think the counterclaims come where you can allege that the plaintiff is attacking you over something you didn’t do that has a social stigma with social and financial consequences. This might affect your job, your social life, your ability to get a loan, and your future. If they have no ground to stand on (only an IP address and you are innocent) then you might be able to countersue for damages and attorney fees when/if you are successful in defeating their allegations. I’m not a lawyer, and a lawyer is what you need to understand your options. Nevertheless, there are absolutely alternatives to paying them to go away. Jeff Fantalis took Malibu Media to task and got them to settle. Ditto Liuxia Wong with another copyright suit. Does have been successful before. Again, talk to a lawyer who will help you understand your options. Talk to more than one if necessary.

        • Anonymous says:

          IMO there is now way to know if you did anything wrong cause they don’t name a site or a video so its a bit confusing to me and even if they sue you you wouldn’t know what it is about im guessing till they serve you

        • doecumb says:

          If you speak to an attorney, it might be important for the attorney to know that, as Anon at 11:02 PM pointed out, the characters involved in this scheme are called in front of a California judge next week.

          I don’t know if this is a realistic legal tactic, but I wonder if ongoing legal proceedings involving plaintiff associates/members around a similar case would be grounds for an extension of time. The LW Systems/Guava/AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13/Arte de Oaxaca, may wilt under the California (Ingenuity 13 & AF Holdings) case.

          If things fall apart for the trolls before 3/30/13, that’s good. If actions against LW/Guava/etc take a while longer, then maybe a few more weeks delay of sending contact info to the trolls may be helpful.

          Even a good copyright attorney who hasn’t been following the Prenda group cases might take quite a while to take in the full twists and turns. An informative chart can be found here as Exhibit HH:

          http://ia701508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.59.2.pdf

          Pietz and Ranallo have some good earlier filings for this case describing suspicious Prenda & associate actions in detail.

          For discussion purposes only-This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

        • Anonymous says:

          LOL!! That chart is hilarious!!! Thanks doecumb!! Is it ok to use the basics of a filed MTQ and adjust it for a particular situation (they all seem to be similar).

  47. pissed Off Doe says:

    5 mre MM cases filed yesterday in IL

  48. Anonymous says:

    I received a settlement offer in the LW Systems case. Any suggestions on what is the best way to handle it now that they have my name and contact info from my cable provider?

  49. Laxx says:

    I still have some time before my date hits. Still unsure the route I’m taking. Mostly holding to see what happens on Monday. One can only hope that we hear good news coming from CA on Monday.

    If $$$ was no option I would love to force this issue to trial. I would love to see them try to prove anything in court. Would be a great show to watch since they have nothing to stand on in court.

    • Anonymous says:

      I also received a letter from my ISP for the LW Systems vs Christopher Hubbard Case today. I have no idea what movie/content they said I downloaded and my IP address doesn’t match the one they have provided. I have never recieved any emails from my ISP or via mail about any kind of copyright infringement, so I’m feeling that this letter is complete bullspit. I am going to call my ISP tomorrow to verify the IP address at the time I allegedly downloaded this movie, but I do not want my ISP to give these guys my information. So is the general consensus just to wait and see what happens for this case?

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