Massachusetts
Active trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Samuel Perkins of Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP was instrumental in de-facto ending mass bittorent lawsuits in MA.
- Edward R. Molari: an attorney from Boston, MA who offers free initial consultation by phone (or even in person). Visit Copyright Defense page — detailed and thoughtful resource.
- BoothSweet LLP: Dan Booth and Jason Sweet are top IP attorneys, initiators of the first class action lawsuit Shirokov v. DGW. Dan Booth is also admitted to practice law in New York. Dan and Jason are also actively fighting Prenda Law (Lightspeed cases in particular).
- Nicholas Guerrera: an attorney from North Andover, Massachusetts. Nick is also licensed in New Hampshire.
- Catherine Rajwani: an attorney from Northborough, MA. Catherine is also licensed in Texas.
Relevant posts
Announcement
If you happen to have a demand letter from Prenda signed by Duffy and sent to your Massachusetts address, I would be happy to see it. You can either redact it yourself (But if should display “Massachusetts”) or trust me in doing it. You may tremendously help. I’m not interested in Ruggiero-signed letters at this moment.
Comments
I knew I remembered that logo from somewhere, the punk lifted it from IBM!
http://i.imgur.com/GNR7LSB.jpg
” Use of IBM logos
IBM carefully limits the use of its logos. No other company may use IBM logos unless it has the express written permission of IBM, or is licensed by IBM to do so.
To obtain permission to use any IBM logo, contact your IBM representative or the IBM Call Center at 1-800-IBM4YOU (1-800-426-4968) and ask for Corporate Branding. ”
http://www.ibm.com/legal/us/en/copytrade.shtml#section_2
Well shucks, it’d be a real shame if somebody were to have alerted IBM…
Breaking Glass Pictures v. Swarm Sharing Hash File SHA1: A705C88ADACBD6B082C6800BEF09D4653AB6ECF1 et al so a new player on the scene????
Plaintiff: Breaking Glass Pictures
Plaintiff Counsel: Alexandra Capachietti of Burns & Levinson LLP
Defendant: Swarm Sharing Hash File A0AD891DA8DF4D87DDC343A3742DCF610FEE7B6D
Does 1-5
Hash is for direct to DVD B-movie”6 Degrees of Hell” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2002789/
Alexandra Capachietti is a former assistant DA for Essex county
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexandra-capachietti/33/168/609
She needs a warning regarding what she’s getting into with these lawsuits; seems like she’s on the up and up but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt she isn’t aware of the trolling scourge
Alexandra Capachietti of Burns & Levinson LLP, 1:13-cv-10735 – assigned to Leo “Smackdown” Sorokin
Link to the recap
http://ia801703.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.mad.150471/gov.uscourts.mad.150471.docket.html
First paragraph of the complaint I found rather odd:
“Plaintiff is the registered owner of the copyright to a motion picture entitled “6
Degrees of Hell” (hereinafter the “Motion Picture”). THE MOTION PICTURE IS NOT A
PORNOGRAPHIC FILM.”
Trying to distance yourself from the porno trolls Alexandra? Well you’re using all the same terrible tactics and nonexistent evidence. They say if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…
Hilarious (and sad). If I have time, I’ll write about it.
91 Does! Why even try at this stage for such joinder?
3/28, Cable’s case that had been recommended for dismissal: MA CV 1:12-10532 was dismissed for failure to serve. Case has been Recapped.
Here’s the link to the Recap:
http://ia601200.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142861/gov.uscourts.mad.142861.docket.html
At one point, there were other cases related to this one. I assume that they were all dismissed also. It’s not clear to me if that is the case.
Associated Cases
Related Cases Start Date End Date
1:12-cv-10756-NMG Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 38 04/30/2012
1:12-cv-10757-DPW Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 33 04/30/2012
1:12-cv-10759-DPW Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 30 04/30/2012
1:12-cv-10758-GAO Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 36 04/30/2012 03/28/2013
Poor Marvin… Some people simply attract trouble…
Anyone have any idea what is going on with Cable’s cases. For instance, in case 1:12-cv-10804, Judge Saylor issued a motion which mentions the following:
For the foregoing reasons, the claims against all of the “Doe” defendants are severed and
all claims, except those against “Doe #1,” are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
Then Marvin dismisses Doe 1 without prejudice. Could someone explain?
It means that lawsuit is now dead but Cable could always file individual lawsuits against the same Does. However given the repeated benchslaps Cable has received the chances of him refilling are very, very slight.
Thanks SJD for the recap and update- you’re the best
looks like cable needs help with his mail merge software and general computer skills and might need to CHECK THE FUCKING DATES ON HIS SHIT
“On September 25, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause…”
“Date: September 18, 2012, Respectfully submitted,”
lol what an inattentive oblivious toolbox, that response should be stricken due to unprecedented dumbfuckery and douchebagitude
“douchebagitude” you sir have created one of my new favorite words.
*Crickets* Chirp, Chirp, anything going on in MA regarding Troll Cable and others?
Did you this recent post by SJD? http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02/02/booth-sweet-llp-tells-court-a-story-of-prendas-deception-and-abuse-asks-for-a-bond-to-be-posted-by-af-holdings/
Oh and, because he’s a douchebag, Cable is suing a guy who does own a computer. http://ia600407.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mad.144199/gov.uscourts.mad.144199.23.0.pdf
Cable is also in hot water with Judge Boal. http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/combatzone_does1-84_121126Order.pdf