Louisiana

Relevant posts

1/11/2012. Attorney Joseph C. Peiffer and “Teen Anal Sluts”
4/30/2012 “Attorney Paul Lesko and 1000% return on investment in “Teen Anal Sluts””

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    The latest Troll case in LA was on 3/14/12. RFC appears to have double posted this case:

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/louisiana-western-district-court/91952/west-coast-productions-inc-v-swarm-sharing-hash-files-7a41e9dded8675f90cddac6f8e4e2311babf14e7-et-al/summary/

    Titling the case by hash files looks like trying to hide the fact that many Does (416) are being named in a mass copyright case.

    Besides the usual junk, this case and the two previous LA troll cases (4: Twenty Media Inc. v. Swarm Sharing Hash Files) look like they have two big flaws:

    Improper jurisdiction: Most Does are out of state

    Improper joinder: Six different “Swarm Sharing Hash Files” included in one complaint

  2. Raul says:

    Also the Troll on the case is a Nerd (Trerd?) who collects baseball cards (pictures of grown men)
    of all things:

    Paul Lesko is the head of the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC’s Intellectual Property Department (http://www.simmonsfirm.com). Don’t hold the fact that Paul is a lawyer against him, he is also a rabid baseball and college basketball fan, and an avid baseball card collector. Paul can be found on Twitter @Paul_Lesko and Google+.

    http://www.cardboardconnection.com/author/paul-lesko/

  3. Raul says:

    Would you be shocked to learn that a Louisiana Federal Judge (from the Eastern District not the Western District where the troll suits are pending) was impeached for taking bribes from lawyers who had matters before him (there were other impeachable offenses as well)? http://corruptionsucks.blogspot.com/2010/12/senate-votes-to-oust-corrupt-louisiana.html

    Yeah, me neither.

  4. DieTrollDie says:

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/03/29/multiple-hash-files-in-a-single-troll-case-ripe-for-a-motion-to-quash-dismiss-louisiana/

    “Multiple Hash Files In A Single Troll Case – Ripe For A Motion To Quash / Dismiss – Louisiana”

      • Not In LA says:

        I am one of the Doe’s in the 4: Twenty Media case (6:12-cv-00031). From researching other similar cases it can be difficult to get a motion passed depending on the judge’s interpretation of the laws and the arguments put forth in the motion. Therefore I want to have a motion drawn up by a lawyer who understands these cases and can effectively argue my case. Unfortunately I’m having a difficult time finding someone to respond to e-mail inquiries. I am willing to pay fair prices for services rendered. Any suggestions?

        Also, any other does in this case should contact me if they have or are seeking legal representation.

        • Raul says:

          Dumb question, do you live near the courthouse?

        • Anonymous says:

          If you haven’t already, you might look at the docket on PACER to see if attorneys for other Does are listed. I don’t see any listed on the RFC or the Internet archive dockets. It’s possible that one is listed in the many documents at:

          http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.lawd.121355

          One way to search is to give a call to an attorney way out of state, who has some experience in this matters. Many will take your calls or emails. If they can’t help you, many can direct you to someone closer who can.

          Several are listed in the Resources section of this site:

          http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/resources/

          Two other groups not linked on SJD’s list are Ben Justus of Lybeck Murphy and Jason Sweet of Booth Sweet. They are groups with experience (positive for Does) who I’ve heard are responsive. I expect there are many more good ones.

          You’ve probably seen the EFF list:

          http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense

          You could look through Doe defense attorney blogs and sites like this for prominent names.

          In a case this large, other Does must already have worked with attorneys. Hopefully, some reader will send more specifics.

  5. Not In LA says:

    Raul. No I don’t live near the courthouse, I am out of state and would prefer to have someone with capable of practicing in the district file the Motion.

    Anony. Thanks for the suggestions. There are no lawyers currently listed in my suit yet or I would have tracked them down. I already contacted the lawyer listed on the EFF website in Louisiana but haven’t received a reply. I’m currently searching other similar cases to try and find someone who has been successful with the motions they filed. I appreciate the names you suggested will contact them this week.

  6. John D'oh says:

    Has anyone found a lawyer for this case yet? I’ve just gotten a letter and would like to at least see if I can stop the phone calls before they start. Does anyone know anything about http://thedownloadlawyer.com ? That site came up when I was searching and he has the case specifically listed but I can’t tell which side he’s connected with (says he does both on his website). Any information would be greatly appreciated!

    • No way! This guy Marvin Cable is a troll: he is a “weretroll”, i.e. converted from a defender to a racketeer. Read this post.

      • John D'oh says:

        Thanks for the quick reply! I thought his name looked familiar but there is a LOT of information on your site lol! Keep up the good work and if you hear of any good lawyers working this case please let me know! I’ve been through hell as I’m absolutely positive my router was hacked (I have a couple of these letters, some odd charges on credit cards and have four different notices that my e-mail accounts have been hacked—it is NOT fun). I’ve learned a lot from your website as well as DTD and can not thank you enough for all the hard work you’ve done. It helps a little but I’ll be much more at ease when it’s all said and done.

  7. Doe-eyed_Deer says:

    Marvin Cable is the plaintiff’s lawyer’s local arm in a case where I was named a doe. Stay the hell away.

  8. John Doe Texas says:

    I am in Texas and received a notification from my ISP yesterday. I am also looking for a law firm to work with as I plan to file a Motion to Quash. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Saper Law appears to be in Chicago but could they help at least to file the motion for me?

    • I heard about Daliah Saper, I heard that she is good. But to the best of my knowledge, she is licensed in IL only, so why did you pick her? Any attorney can appear pro hac vice in any state if someone vouch for him or her, but it costs extra money and time.

      • John Doe Texas says:

        The reason for mentioning Saper is that I was looking for law firms that have experience in copyright trolling cases and ran across their information. I later found Mudd Law Offices out of Chicago with some additional information that led me to believe that Mudd may be licensed in Texas. Might be a better option. Any experience with Mudd Law Offices or recommendations for lawyers in Texas I could work with?

  9. Anonymous LA Doe says:

    I’m curious–looking at your twitter link to the case there is a LOT going on there, but my information has already been given out (wish I’d filed something as it looks like the judge is taking anonymity seriously). Is there something I can do at this point that won’t antagonize the trolls? Should I add another motion to the pile? Reading numerous posts on here it seems they go after people that make thier lives difficult. With all those motions pending is it better now just to hold out? Thanks!

    • Not In LA says:

      I am working with a local attorney in WA and I am in discussion with a copyright attorney in LA at the moment. If you would like their contact information please e-mail me @ usdclawsuit@gmail. Additionally, if you have looked up the docket on PACER you will find that another Doe has obtained representation and his attorneys are listed in the docket.

  10. Raul says:

    With your info being in the troll’s possession, it is probably best to sit tight. Do not speak to the troll.

  11. Shawn says:

    My wife has been named a Doe in this case. Needless to say she was absolutely P.O.’d. It appears our ISP gave the information without informing us of a subpoena. Does anyone know if there is any recourse to that occurrence?

    Thanks for all the hard work you do. Believe me, it is very much appreciated.

    • Raul says:

      Probably not worth the effort or expense to go after your ISP (and my son and myself have been in the same boat you are currently chartering) rather aim your Howitzers at the trolls and their clients. If we all put our collective efforts there, these rat bastards will be nothing but a story to tell your friends over a few drinks next year.

      • Shawn says:

        Thank you for your response, Raul. I’ve been keeping up with the case and it looks like some motions have been granted. My ISP is Cox and one Doe with a Cox IP address has been voluntarily dismissed from the case. I could find no supporting documentation previously in which that Doe is listed that would support the dismissal. I was curious if the dismissal was based on jurisdiction. My first instinct is to follow some of the advice on here and sit tight, however I am also filled with the urge to fight tooth and nail to have any case against me or my wife dismissed. I’m curious as to your opinion on whether or not to file a Motion to Dismiss based on improper joinder and the conflict of information in the original Motion, to wit, that the Plaintiff is in the business of “distribution and marketing” of videos and then that the Plaintiff “made” the video. Additionally, there is no proof that the video is even available for sale!

        Any thoughts based on your experience would be welcome and appreciated. Thank you.

  12. Shawn says:

    I can’t find the document in the docket, but does anyone have a copy of the Motion for Discovery in the 4:Twenty Media case? Thanks!

  13. Shawn says:

    Another question: As i mentioned above, my ISP released enough of my wife’s information to Plaintiff’s counsel so that counsel could send an extortion letter to her home address without first notifying her or me of the initial subpoena requiring the release of said info. Am I correct in assuming that a Motion to Quash is to be used prior to the release of personal information and a Motion to Dismiss is to be used afterwards?

    Thank you.

    • Raul says:

      Oops! I forgot that the ISP has already turned over your info so a motion to quash/sever or in the alternative issue a protective order would be a waste of time. Typically a motion to dismiss would be made after your wife were to be served with a summon and complaint. This will not happen in this lawsuit unless you speak with the troll and give him something to work with.

      • Shawn says:

        Well, we most definitely will not be contacting the troll in any way whether that be visiting their website and using our “Unique Identifier” to log in as suggested or by letter or email. I noticed that the order for Discovery in this case prohibits the ISPs from disclosing phone numbers of the Does. It allows other info but not the phone numbers. I think that’s a good thing. The order had “telephone numbers” X’d out.

        I see that Summons was issued in the case but cannot see what includes. I’m clueless on that one. My wife has not received any such summons, only the extortion letter.

        Also, what is the statute of limitations on this sort of case. The extortion letter states that the “offense” was committed August 23, 2011. I’m sure the SoL is years, but I was just curious.

        Thanks!

        • D'oh! says:

          wow good catch! I had no idea that disclosing phone numbers was not allowed in this one–I’ve been waiting for the calls to start…not that this will definitely stop them (there is lots of information on the internet about just about anyone…so far as I know my public number is not out there, but where I work and phone numbers might be) but there’s always hope.

        • Raul says:

          The SoL to bring an action for civil copyright infringement is 3 years

  14. Nick Ranallo says:

    Just an FYI for anyone in this case: I recently filed a MTQ on behalf of a Doe, along with local counsel Carlos Zelaya (Pacer Doc 74) . I am available to file further MTQs in this case as necessary.

  15. Charles says:

    sir..what’s your fee to file MTQ?

    • Nick Ranallo says:

      Generally in the neighborhood of $500-$750, depending on how rushed it would need to be. I could potentially do it for a bit cheaper in this case, since I’ve already done most of the heavy lifting. Feel free to shoot me an email and we can set up a time to talk.

  16. Charles says:

    awesome

  17. Anonymous says:

    I received a settlement offer today. Am I wrong or is this thread the strongest collection of defendants for this case in one forum? I’d love to stay in contact with everyone here for advice and support and even possibly shared legal defense.

    Reading through all this information in a marathon frenzy, I feel somewhat empowered by the righteous community here, but also like a sitting duck with this hanging over my head, since the perceived recommendation is to wait out this BS suit. Am I right?

    I dropped the ball and failed to file a motion to quash in time and it seems unwise to file for a dismissal yet, even through I am out of state. So… is it just a matter of waiting until the case is either flat out dropped or you’re one of the unlucky few to get a summons to appear in court? That’s yet to occur to anyone, correct?

    I guess I’m just wondering what else I can do to prepare, as it’s really caused a rift in my home and it’d be great to increase peace of mind as much as possible, even if I can just assure them the odds are incredibly low, so settlement should not be considered. Is it the general opinion no one will be brought to court on this or is it another of those cases where they may randomly pick 1%?

    Assuming the case never does go forward, will they just let it linger for the next couple years, waiting for the SOL, sniping off still gullible John Does for settlements? Or is it more likely to get dropped by the end of the year? I don’t know the process.

    Sorry for the long post. Lots of questions and, really, I don’t see the point in even consulting a reduced fee lawyer, with the extensive information out there and the limited options we appear to have.

    • Relax, nothing will happen to you. This particular case is unbelievably weak, pure bluff. No one will sue you over “Teen Anal Sluts” distributed by crooks registered in Seychelles. Pornography is illegal there, and I actually wrote an email to all the ministries of this small country. The ages of models are also big question: this is not a US-produced porno, and they may be < 18 years old, at least crooks must prove that this is not the case. A topic of child pornography is very sensible in this country, and even rising this question will undoubtedly mark porn purveyors with non-washable paint. No sane attorney would want to see a case like this in a courtroom. Relax and don't talk to scumbags.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for all your help. I am also a doe defendant is this case and have just received a second demand letter with a copy of a motion to amend naming myself and 9 others in this case. The letter states I have till June 19th to either settle or advise whether or not I consent to the filing and granting of this motion. My questions are: Why only 10? What if I am a Louisiana resident? and What should my next steps be?

        • This maybe a brazen fraud. No such motion to amend is filed, and I believe that this is just a scare tactics, which may put Lesko in huge trouble. I bet that hundreds received such a mail with its own version of “amended complaint.”

          I’d love to see this letter ASAP. Can you redact your name and send it to me? This must be publicized. I’m good at redacting documents, always triple-check that no identifying information is left out. If you rather not, I’d understand, but it may be a chance to sink this case!

  18. Raul says:

    If I were you I would get in touch with Nicholas Ranallo who is already representing a Doe in this lawsuit. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/resources/nicholas-ranallo/

  19. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the responses and I am sorry if I mis led you. The letter states the motion will be filed after June 19 if I do not settle and will be filed whether I consent or not. If I choose not to consent they will apprise the court that I intend to oppose the motion. I will consult with a local attorney and try to send the letter if I can.

  20. Doe200001 says:

    Just got Paul “Anal” Lesko’s settlement letter….lame. He did however demonstrate that he is, at the very least, competent enough to know how to copy and paste. I’d love to see Prenda sue him for plagiarism. :)

  21. Doe200001 says:

    I haven’t gotten such special treatment. It’s the old one

    • Thanks. Dear everyone: if you receive a letter that is different from the posted one, I will really appreciate if you send it to me (redacted of course). it may happen that you will help everyone on this case.

  22. Anonymous says:

    need to take a look at the Louisiana docket…West Coast >1900 does

  23. Anonymous says:

    It occurs to me that if a lawsuit were to ever get to trial, it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that their proprietary IP-harvesting software was *accurately* logging the correct addresses. I doubt that any of these trolls have bothered to submit their software to any sort of quality assurance testing or certification. Wouldn’t it be a simple defense to assert that plaintiff has not demonstrated the reliability of their software AT THE TIME OF ITS USE FOR COLLECTING IP ADDRESSES? This fact alone should create reasonable doubt, particularly if a jury is sympathetic to a defendent.

    • Anonymous3 says:

      Civil trails (which trolls are hollowly threatening) are different from criminal trials. The plaintiff needs “only” a preponderance of evidence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence

      But you’re absolutely right. It’s no accident that in allegations involving 300,000 people, there has been no contested trial proceeding with “evaluation” of the supposed forensic technology. There’s no indication from any troll filing that reputable well qualified computer scientists have evaluated the supposed technology and found it “flawless.” There are many comments and at DTD about the problems with troll tech claims.

      Also, the financial relations between the I.P. harvesting firms, the lawyers, and the “plaintiffs” has not been specified in open court or open documents, but as the “No Agenda” podcasts suggested, it’s the extortion racketeers getting 90% of the cash. There’s reason to believe the I.P. harvest “forensic” groups are initiators of the racket. There are, at the very least, obvious conflicts of interest in troll claims about the supposed accuracy of their supposed software.

      There are other holes in the claim of accurate technology. And even more important, an I.P. address is not a person. Open or an “encrypted” wireless sources can have compromised access.

      The “declarations” in court documents are by biased persons who profit from the racket and lack strong degrees and credentials. Trolls want to exploit both the worries of Does and the lack of computer tech background of many in the courts.

      Trolls want to pretend that something that involves “computers” is “perfect”. Is the re-election of dictators in Burma or Syria an accurate vote counting because the result is written with a laser printer ?

      It’s also right that in a real jury trial there would be little sympathy for porn purveyors or off-shored shell businesses. Since porn purveyors “work” in only a few jurisdictions, jurors in a real case might (rightly) view the action by trolls as the extortion of local residents by immoral outsiders.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Severance ruling for 6:12-cv-1713 (West Coast Prod. v. Swarm) in WDLA:

    http://ia600606.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.lawd.123716/gov.uscourts.lawd.123716.15.0.pdf

    • D'oh! says:

      Well good on Judge Hill for finally coming around–now if only he’d do this with ol’ “Anal’s” other two cases that (I suppose since I haven’t heard any different) are still on the docket…

  25. Anonymous says:

    This has got to bode well for the Lesko case, I would think. Same judge and he has yet to rule on motion 132.

  26. Anonymous says:

    anybody know what’s going on with this case? Haven’t seen any activity since late Sep.

    • SJD says:

      What case? All the Lesko’s Louisiana cases are dismissed….

      • DO'H! says:

        Got my notification of dismissal 28 days into the 30 day deadline. Case is dismissed without prejudice, so if they want to pursue you individually in the correct jurisdiction they can. Have no idea if Lesko has local attorneys anywhere other than Louisiana and Illinois (I assume so as I know he’s got another open case somewhere, but I don’t remember where) but haven’t heard of them doing that yet. It looked like maybe a third of the people settled so they may just take the money and run. I’m sure they don’t want this case looked at very closely.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I was referring to the Teen Anal Sluts case but great news if it’s been dismissed! I didn’t receive notification from my counsel. I filed a MTQ early in the case.

  28. Anonymous says:

    i just clicked on your dismissed link…That is awesome news!!!! These trolls should be rounded up and placed in prison.

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