John Steele and Prenda Law

This is the place to discuss predatory porn lawsuits by John Steele and his gang (Formerly Steele Hansmeier, now Prenda Law, and soon “Anti-piracy law group”):

PRENDA LAW, INC. 1111 Lincoln Road, #400 (Regus Business Center)
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: 305-748-2102
Fax: 305-748-2103
http://www.wefightpiracy.com

See the Copyright trolls page for the list of scam artists.

Telephone numbers Prenda use to place harassment calls:

305-748-2102
800-380-0840
312-880-9160
305-397-8558
702-445-6064

Supplemental pages
Announcements

January 2014.

An attorney who has represented several dozen folks accused of movie and music downloads would like to speak with individuals who have settled a porn downloading claim (for whatever reason) when they did not download the alleged file or movie.

The attorney is trying to determine if there is a pattern to those sorts of settlements which could form the basis for legal action.

The conversation would be completely confidential, and would not create any obligation on your part. If you are interested in speaking with that attorney, please send him an email to attorney@fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    ‘the government uses to catch pedophiles’ was something they said over the phone by the person calling, I apologize for misleading you there. The mail sent appears to be standard copy/paste $3400 settlement offer.

    • Anonymous says:

      No doubt it’s this technology, that resulted in police or FBI raiding three of the wrong homes in a child porn sting:

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/fbi-child-porn-raid-a-strong-argument-for-locking-down-wifi-networks/

      These guys keep thinking up new ways to put their feet in their mouths.

    • Anonymous says:

      Probably the same technology the FBI used to raid three of the wrong homes in a child porn sting…

      Prenda just keeps finding new ways to sound like idiots.

      In any case, I would love to know how they are privy to what the government uses for its own investigations. If they really know something and are disclosing it ta random people on the phone, I wonder if that counts as leaking classified information.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well what a fantastic job the FBI has done catching pedophiles. How many times have innocent people been raided by FBI tactical teams carrying M4A1s, MP5s and using flashbangs and CS gas? In my opinion, one time is too many but unfortunately that’s happened more than once. Prenda DOES NOT use FBI technology or anything close to it, plain and simple. Ironically, the tech the FBI uses is miles ahead of what Prenda and the other trolls are using yet the FBI still fucks up.

        I haven’t received a robocall or letter with that particular phrase. I haven’t received any written communication in months, yet they keep referring to letters they’ve sent. Another odd thing is that I haven’t received a robocall yet this week and they usually get crackin’ on Monday morning. Strange….

    • Raul says:

      Never knew that the government uses the stained notepad and obtuse pencil technology employed by Prenda ;) http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/06/23/properly-respond-to-a-demand-letter-never-hear-from-blackmailers-again/#comments

  2. Anonymous3 says:

    Even if by phone, the tactic is outrageously bad. Makes notes about the calls (including date). Arrange to record them if you can. For recording, the Olympus TP-7 is one device that has gotten good reviews as a connector to a recorder.

    Of course it’s better to avoid talking to trolls and telling them to stop calling. But evidence of bad practices is helpful.

  3. Johnny Doe says:

    Anyone know anything about George A. Banas of the Banas Law Firm? He just filed two single-Doe AF Holdings cases in Florida’s Central District. Two things worth noting– he didn’t file as a Prenda attorney, and he actually seems to be a reputable attorney who specializes in intellectual property law.

    • Anonymous says:

      Isn’t AF Holdings a Prenda shell corp used for acquiring copyright material for the purpose of bringing forth infringement suits? I thought Prenda was the only firm that files copyright suits for AF because of the speculated affiliation.

      • SJD says:

        It seems so. Another suspect – Ingenuity 13: also offshore, no data except Prenda-initiated lawsuits.

        • doecumb says:

          And no indication the alleged “useful works” are distributed anywhere. The title name in question seems chosen to avoid revealing at first glance that it is a porn video. The “works” seem to have been “composed” with the intention of monetization through legal demands, and who knows how the file sharing was seeded.

    • SJD says:

      I already confronted him on twitter. Although he did not file as Prenda, he uses a wefightpiracy email.

    • SJD says:

      He turned out to be a decent fella deceived by Prenda crooks. After learning what kind of deepshit he stepped into, he is resigning from Prenda cases. Not in papers yet, but this rumor was confirmed by 3 independent sources.

      It is always heartwarming to find out that a suspected crook turns out to be a decent person, unfortunately the opposite tends to happen more often.

      • Raul says:

        He looked too well fed and legit to be a troll, but so does Lipscomb. :)

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow, wild. Keep us posted. If this is true it is quite a development, and a validation of the work you do.

        I have always thought that making sure copyright trolling is a reputation-destroyer is one of the best ways to wage war against Prenda. If they can’t get local counsel or clients their geographical reach will be severely constrained and the beast will starve.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Is torrentlitigation a for real site?

    • SJD says:

      It is legit, but…. these guys push you to settle, calling it a “pragmatic” approach. To justify their advice, they make some FUD: just read their FAQ.

      So while they are technically on our side (and listed on the EFF site), I definitely don’t recommend them

      • Raul says:

        For what it is worth, I agree. While their site provides needed information their site seems engineered for drumming up business. Also when stressed you need to weigh your self interest against your responsibility to society which is admittedly difficult but necessary if you shave each morning.

        • Anonymous says:

          “…admittedly difficult but necessary if you shave each morning”

          Best advice ever, and some of the funniest I might add :-)

        • Raul says:

          Hardly profound and likely stolen from someone wiser but definably relevant.

    • SJD says:

      A little bird told me that Perea is in deep shit. Which is good news.

      • Raul says:

        That might help explain the last 72 hours.

      • Raul says:

        I’m willing to start an office pool of sorts if there is any interest: Does Steele /Prenda come to the aid of Perea or do they just hang him out to dry? If you know Prenda, the odds are Perea left twisting in the wind.

        • Anonymous says:

          I say that Steele, err, Prenda throws Perea under the bus. In fact, I’m hoping they throw Perea under the bus. A former business partner scorned is not someone you want.

    • Anonymous says:

      Pretty much every Prenda (and other troll) case should’ve been 4(m)’d. Mine sat on the docket for 7 months before being voluntarily dismissed by Duffy…much much longer than the 120 days under 4(m).

  5. Dave says:

    Gibbs made contact again and took his offer of extending the “olive branch” off the table and promised further action. He also advised that I or anyone else who may have had access to the internet via my modem not delete anything from their computers as they have ways to track and detect that kind of conduct. He also promised further charges for destruction if evidence for that activity. It’s almost insanity and I was thinking of contacting the attorney in Jacksonville, FL that I saw on an earlier blog. It was William Wohlsifer PA’s website and he was offering consultation in FL. i did not see the case # that i am involved in listed. Any thoughts?

    • Raul says:

      In no shape or form is this legal advice BUT Gibbs has filed individual lawsuits and then just sat on them awaiting a judge to dismiss for failure to prosecute unless he can extract a settlement. These Prenda individual lawsuits have, so far, gone nowhere. They are filed in furtherance of the usual bullying tactics which usually result in Prenda dropping the lawsuit on the eve of the judge dismissing it for failure to prosecute. If I were standing in your shoes I would sweat it out unless you can afford to piss away 4K.

      • Dave says:

        That’s my feeling. Thank you Raul. I am willing to go the long haul. the contact was just strange. Almost not real attorney kind of communication.

        • Anonymous says:

          If Gibbs was a real attorney he would have a real job.

        • doecumb says:

          Are you sure it is Gibbs himself making the phone calls? In the money churning scheme, profit would be higher if a troll lower on the food chain did the calling.

          It’s a good bet that whoever is calling is being paid partly or fully by commission. Something to keep in mind when the so-called plaintiff representative pushes for a cash settlement.

  6. Anonymous says:

    My initial offer from them has expired (sunlust case). Got a voice mail from them today that says their client wants to extend this offer before they go ahead and file a law suit naming me (it doesnt sound like an robo call..looks like a real person is calling)….SO far I havent spoken to them and not willing to setttle at all. gonna stay strong… :). I am just a little concerned as I am from one of the states where they have been more active (CA,FL)….BTW you guys are doing a great job educating people…..
    Can anyone predict whats going to happen on the Sunlust case? Any prophets?

    • anonymous says:

      guys can anyone help us? got the same prob as this guy on top?

      • Raul says:

        I have not seen the list of IP addresses for the “joint tortfeasers” but my guess would be that it is a long one. If so, Prenda simply does not have the resources to name or much less sue everyone. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor that nothing else will happen other than you will receive more harassing phone calls advising that Prenda’s client has magnanimously seen fit to (surprise!) extend the deadline. If you do live in a state where Prenda is active and you are on of the unlucky .01% who do get named there are some very good attorneys experienced with Prenda who will represent you for less than Prenda’s settlement demand.

  7. Raul says:

    This is just sleazy.

    In one of Prenda’s Marquee Lawsuits, AF Holdings v. Williamson (CAED 11-cv-3072), M.J. Newman denies the troll expedited discovery as to Williamson’s alleged “co-conspirators” on the ground that “no actual dispute is presently before the court” with regard to the subpoenas.http://ia700801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.15.0.pdf So the next day with either the Judge’s blessing or without it, Prenda gives the court notice that it is going to serve the subpoenas anyway in direct violation of 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) http://ia700801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.16.0.pdf WTF? Can someone like Cashman weigh in on this maneuver as it seems sleazy at best and illegal at worst.

  8. Raul says:

    Finished reading Cashman’s well thought out and buttressed post that Steele is evolving from a mere toothless copyright troll into an asshole attorney. Fair enough and the post is cautionary not alarmist, however an examination of Prenda’s Marquee Lawsuits (those which are featured on its website to frighten Does into the fiction that they sue and win) present a woeful record for Prenda.

    As an example, their first listed lawsuit is AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe et al (CAND 12-cv-2048) which is before Prenda disbeliever Judge Lloyd http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/04/06/the-court-is-not-willing-to-assist-a-troll-in-extrajudicial-business-says-the-judge/ The defendant is being represented by Ace Doe Defender Nick Ranallo http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/resources/nicholas-ranallo/ who filed a motion to dismiss the negligent copyright infringement complaint on the ground that a negligence claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. http://ia600601.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254108/gov.uscourts.cand.254108.17.0.pdf Troll Gibbs puts in a rather lame response http://ia700601.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254108/gov.uscourts.cand.254108.18.0.pdf

    Between the time that Ranallo filed the motion to dismiss the complaint and the time Gibbs put in his opposition a SDNY judge ruled that the Copyright Act preempts any claim of negligence in the context of an infringement case. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/07/11/judge-finds-randazzas-negligence-theory-unconvincing-motion-to-dismiss-is-granted-tugboat-is-sunken/ Armed with that well reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Ranallo bludgeons Gibbs’ weak opposition into the ground. http://ia600601.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254108/gov.uscourts.cand.254108.19.0.pdf

    Long story short: this lawsuit cost Prenda both time and money and it is ultimately doomed. If they keep it up maybe they will go bankrupt by this time next year.

    Docket is here http://ia700601.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254108/gov.uscourts.cand.254108.docket.html

  9. Raul says:

    Exhibit A to Prenda’s Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice that their Geolocation Technology is 100% Accurate http://ia600502.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.536409/gov.uscourts.cacd.536409.7.0.pdf

  10. Raul says:

    Everyone is going to love this.

    In AF Holdings v. Doe (CASD 12-cv-1525) M.J. Brooks denies Gibb’s motion for expedited discovery as to a SINGLE Doe address because there is no reason for the emergency relief and he further finds that Hansmeier is a liar:

    “Plaintiff’s misrepresentation that the subscriber information records are “facing imminent destruction” is disingenuous and may run afoul of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure.”

    http://ia600800.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.casd.387762/gov.uscourts.casd.387762.4.0.pdf

  11. Raul says:

    Finally Prenda discloses its sophisticated geolocation technology! It is set forth in the 7-25 Declaration of Brett Gibbs which has not hit RECAP but it will shortly http://ia601202.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.casd.387721/gov.uscourts.casd.387721.docket.html

    • Anonymous says:

      Wow he’s a bigger idiot than I thought. Duffy (or any of other Steele’s lackeys) would’ve just kicked the case if it came to this.

      Sophisticated technology….hah
      “2. I used a geolocation database to determine the location of the unknown John Doe
      Defendant. Equipped with only the IP address via which the infringement took place, I entered that information into the website: http://whatismyipaddress.com.”

      I noticed he used the pronoun “I” as in Gibbs is the one who did it…not Hansmeier, which sounds like a huge misrepresentation seeing as how Gibbs is not an expert nor is he a licensed private investigator. Then again I doubt Hansmeier is either. I’m pretty sure that this is gonna open up a can of worms because the reliability of those geolocation websites is shoddy at best. I ran my IP on several different ones, a couple got it right, others told me I’m in Boston, Chicago, etc.

      • Raul says:

        I have a business proposal for DTD and SJD. We should use Prenda’s sophisticated geolocation technology and start our own computer forensics corporation to troll infringers of
        Linux. We could incorporate in St.Kitts/Nevis, call ourselves Dire Straits, LLC and our motto would be “Money for Nothing”. Be rolling in the dough in no time.

  12. Joe says:

    The first Doe is still on the hook, but it looks like Judge Moulds has quashed all of the un-indicted co-conspirators in 2:12-cv-00616. The nice part is that Gibbs has to send a notice of the quash to all of the ISP’s *and* the ISP’s have to send a notice to all of their customers, letting them know that they can breathe easy, now.

    http://ia600804.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.caed.236089/gov.uscourts.caed.236089.36.0.pdf

    • Raul says:

      Nice catch! 2 CP Productions lawsuits have been harpooned, 2 more to go. I bet “Chica” LOVES Prenda and the bang up job it has done so far!

  13. Anonymous says:

    AF Holdings v. John Doe, I love Judge Brooks’ citation in his conclusion to deny Gibbs’ ex parte application:

    “AF Holdings has failed to demonstrate that its request should be considered on an ex parte basis. ‘Lawyers must understand that filing an ex parte motion, whether of the pure or hybrid type, is the forensic equivalent of standing in a crowded theater and shouting, ‘Fire!’ There had better be a fire.’ Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492.”

  14. Anonone says:

    Is anyone familiar with the Guava LLC v. Skyler Case?

    http://torrentlitigation.com/cases/Guava-LLC-v-Skyler-Case-No-12-L-7363-(Cook%20County,%20Illinois).pdf

    There’s a letter being distributed right now. No IP address is listed and the letter says information about their claim could be found in the “attached data sheet.” No data sheet was provided.

    The guts of the letter are: “The claims alleged in the Complaint are very serious and demand your full attention. For example, one of the claims is violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). CFAA provides a private right of action for misappropriation of computer data, unauthorized access with the intent to defraud and unauthorized access resulting in damage to computers. See Pub L 103-322, Title XXIX, \290001(d) (codified at 18 U.S.C. \ 1030(g)).”

    I have no idea how many “co-conspirators” there are or even what the actual infringement they claimed has occured (since no datasheet or real details were provided).

    Any suggestions or thoughts?

    • Anonymous says:

      If they are using CFAA it sounds like a password hacking case. I wasn’t aware of anyone besides Lightspeed Media doing this. Is it a new case?

      • Anonone says:

        Yea it’s a new case. Listed at the bottom of torrentlitigation.com’s website.

        Other than that court document and the letter, I know nothing.

    • Raul says:

      Try this link instead http://torrentlitigation.com/cases/Guava-LLC-v-Skyler-Case-No-12-L-7363-%28Cook%20County,%20Illinois%29.pdf Fell out of my chair reading the trespass to chattels cause of action, that Duffy is soooo funny! The only thing that would be funnier is if Guava hired Arcadia Security as its computer forensics expert.

      Other than the complaint appears to have been drafted by an idiot, I have no further insight at this time.

      • Anonone says:

        Thanks Raul,

        Any suggestions about next steps?

        Or just sweat it out and hope it goes away?

        I’ve got until September to respond.

        • Raul says:

          Can you weather threatening phone calls, emails and letters? If not, hire an attorney to file a motion to protect your personal info from troll discovery or to act as a shield from the harassment. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor that you will not be named in a lawsuit much less served with a summons and complaint that a lot of Does elect to just weather the storm. It is a highly personal decision but most of us “old timers” filed pro se motions to quash/sever/issue a protective order, did not speak to trolls, did not settle and are still around to tell the tale.

        • Anonone says:

          Thanks again Raul,

          Any recommendations on representation?

          I’m not in the US so I dont have a lot knowledge about how all of this works. Nor the contacts to try to fight the good fight.

        • Raul says:

          Incredible! Prenda is trying to threaten you, a citizen of another country? WTF? Mail them a bag of dogshit with a cover letter advising them that you consider this payment to be in full accord and satisfaction of any and all pending claims in law and equity against you :)

        • Anonymous says:

          I’d love to see Prenda’s argument for personal jurisdiction over a foreign national. Long-arm statute “Defendant accesses websites in the United States on a daily basis, therefore….” I highly doubt any judge would wanna determine personal jurisdiction in any copyright infringement case, much less one for some porn movie because that’d set a helluva precedent and open up a huge can of worms of MORE lawsuits, not to mention creating what could only be described to be an international incident.

          If I were you I’d FedEx (or whatever you use where you live) them two packages. The first would be a box containing a large amount of horse excrement. The second containing a strongly worded cease and desist letter (arriving after they open the box of horse shit). Then I’d call it a day :)

      • Anonone says:

        Hahahahahaha

        So is there reason for me (truly) freaking out?

        Should I continue to be googling us lawyers in order to hire one to file a protection motion?

        I’m a total newb to all this (can you tell?) but I’m going to be out of lorazepam soon if I don’t put this bs to rest.

        I wont sleep tonight that’s for sure.

        I’ve received no calls, nothing from my ISP. It wasnt even sent courier or by registered mail. This is totally out of the blue.

      • John says:

        Is this related to all the adult industry lawsuits or is it a completely different matter? There seems to be no mention of torrents or anything.

        • SJD says:

          It is slightly different, CFAA, similar to Lightspeed’s cases, but the trolls are the same, hence the goals and some methods.

        • Anonymous says:

          What website(s) does/do Guava LLC run?

        • doecumb says:

          I haven’t been able to quickly find the sites/studios associated with Guava LLC. I didn’t find clear naming of works in the documents I skimmed for their case.

          If someone has the name of the work(s) for the Guava case(s), pass it along.

          I have mentioned in other comments the irony that porn purveyor plaintiffs go to great lengths to avoid being exposed while wishing to expose (sardonically intended) Does.

        • Anonymous says:

          http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=CASEINFOPage&CASEINFOPage=2400

          Under Division, select “Law”
          Then Search By Name–>Plaintiff–>enter in “Guava” and search

          It looks like this case has been moved from Judge Tailor to Judge McGrath, and on 7/30 a protective order was allowed. What does this mean???

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah I saw that as well and was trying to figure out whats going on with this case cause I got one of the letters from Pendra as well about this.

        • Anonymous says:

          Protective order means that the plaintiff can’t publicly release any information gained as a result of discovery (ISP subpoenas). It’s just SOP, really means nothing except that if you’re a Doe, your name and address won’t get out. They’ll be calling you soon though.

      • Anonymous says:

        Hah they forgot to add a requested amount under “Prayer for Relief” so someone added the amount and then someone else initialed it. “BG” huh? I can think of a Prenda lawyer with the initials “BG” heh.

        That line really stuck out at me. Look at the different writing styles. It appears to me as though three distinct people wrote the elements in that demand line, although I’m no graphologist. One person appears to have written “6) Amount:” since it’s slanted to the left so the person’s left handed or is a righty but lacks self confidence and some of the letters are one single pen stroke but the lines stop abruptly like the “A” and “t.” Another person appears to have written the “$150,000″ because it looks like whoever wrote it was REALLY trying to make it look legible. Finally, there’s the “By: BG” — “By:” is slanted left, “BG” is vertical (weird) the loops in the “B” and the really distinct “Y.” Just based on Duffy’s signature (flows together, no angles, abrupt stops, whatever), he obviously didn’t initial it because that’d be perjury (well, who knows) and it doesn’t look like he wrote any of the rest of it either.

        Wow I have way too much time on my hands.

        • stopthiscrap says:

          I just got a letter from my ISP last week. Trying to figure out how to block them from getting my personal information. Looks like motion to quash doesn’t always work so not sure if I that means I should just wait it out.

        • John says:

          How many people do you guys think got these letters? Thousands?

  15. sausages says:

    Still haven’t heard anything on the Illinois hacking case, Comcast ISP release date was over a month or two ago. Wish info from that court was more accessible :(

  16. skruuball says:

    If I read Gibbs’ response correctly, simply posting “terms of service” stating ” stating that a user cannot participated in the “infringing, misappropriating or violating the intellectual property, publicity, privacy or other proprietary rights of any party.” qualify as “reasonable steps” to prevent the misuse of a subscribers open wifi (page 2).

  17. skruuball says:

    Gibbs really is a horrible attorney. He is so far out of his depth in these cases it is hard to watch. I wouldn’t hire the guy to help me with a parking ticket.

    • Anonymous says:

      The whole crew is way out of their league. Many of the players in Copyright Trolling are basically fresh out of law school, Steele included, and looking for easy money. Gibbs is also dying of brain cancer so probably not too worried about his rep long term and just looking to pay medical bills and hopefully set his family up.

      John’s latest rant on Rob Cashman’s blog also reveals their inexperience. Steele was talking about the “huge step” of naming defendants when that is in fact normally Step One of civil litigation, these cases stand out for their lack of named and served defendants. I don’t know of a public records database that allows you to query for filings by attorney, but I strongly suspect that some of the Prenda crew, Gibbs and Steele included, have never actually argued a case through trial in front of a jury.

      There was obviously never a Plan B for what to do if people don’t buy the threats, so you see these half-hearted attempts like single-Doe cases instead of really naming defendants, then letting those cases sit on the docket without a summons, cases dismissed or settled when the target gets an attorney, and on and on. The robocalls and informal discovery are just more pathetic attempts to make up for a lack of ability and will to litigate. For the last year we have seen mostly reactive moves instead of proactive, and the few praoactive moves (the robocalls, really!?) have been pathetic, which just shows they are trying to avoid court as much as they can.

      Gibbs has been a particular embarrassment though. He was perhaps the first troll who was cornered into admitting on the record that the subscriber and infringer may be different people. Then he filed that notorious declaration where they copped to failing to name and serve any defendants. He also ended up settling the Wong case, which I’m sure made Paul Pilcher happy. Oh and lets not forget Trollmageddon in the Northern District of California last fall, where he helped render perhaps the entire state radioactive to Trolls, creating some of the most decisive and useful rulings on the joinder problems in mass-Doe cases and leaving the state mostly unsympathetic to his more recent Trolling attempts.

      I’m surprised he’s still on Prenda’s payroll, but I suspect it’s getting harder to find local attorneys to do this. And it could very well be that until things turn really ugly for the Trolls, the guy is turning a profit.

      • Raul says:

        Could not agree more, what would be nice to see is a judge who is fed up with this nonsense consolidate and then rocket docket a bunch of these lawsuits to demonstrate that Prenda is lacking in the juice department.

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t forget Gibbs’ declaration in support of (another) ex parte application that he, not Hansmeier, uses a “whatismyipaddress.com” to geolocate IP addresses.

        I pulled this out of the website’s terms of use:
        “You may not use a script, agent, application or otherwise query this website in an automated fashion without prior written permission.”

        How much do you wanna bet that they use a script to geolocate IPs? Doing it manually would take a week, maybe two if you did it non-stop. Depending on the amount of IPs, it could take a month (and I’m low-balling it) if you actually stopped to piss, eat, maybe sleep.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I am one of the Does in 4:11-cv-04501 and I’ve been reading some articles that make it seem like I can’t be served at all? Particularly, this one:

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/26/to-the-point-judge-wilkins-kicks-prenda-in-the-junk-misc-action-no-12-mc-00150-rlw/

    Do I need to be a subscribed to Comcast for that to be applicable? And does that article/judgement/whatever basically state that the Does in 4:11-cv-04501 can’t be served or am I misunderstanding? My ISP is not Comcast, and all that legal stuff is quite confusing. I’ve already received a settlement threat letter, and have the intent of giving the Richard Pryor response but haven’t had an opportunity yet.

    It would be great if I could put my mind at rest completely on this matter.

    P.S. Does the #Ref number in the settlement threat personally identify me?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hello Doe,

      The Ref # on the settlement letter is an internal Prenda tracking # for you and your Ip address.

      As far as that court order. If you were part of the 351 Comcast subscribers, then Prenda is only going to get the City & State that you live in – NOT your name or other personal information. If they want this information, they will have to file separate cases in the proper jurisdiction and repeat the process. As this would mean a second dismissal for the 351 Comcast subscribers, the Does cannot be sued IAW FRCP 41 (Two Strikes). NOTE: This doesn’t mean Prenda wouldn’t file a case in another State and push for a subpoena. As they are only interested in getting the subscriber information, pushing the limits of ethical behavior is not beyond them. A trial would never come of it. But if they get the contact information they will be happy.

      If you don’t live in TX, then I say laugh at the next Prenda goon that calls and give them the RPR. To come after you, they would have to dismiss you from the TX case and then refile in the proper jurisdiction. Two Strikes and you are “Safe!”

      If you do live in TX, I still say give them the RPR and wait it out. They have nothing but a public IP address (weak evidence) plus they obviously judge/forum shopped this case – look really bad for them.

      They could serve the TX Does, but they had better be ready to fight it out. Would love to see a counter claim suit to be filed in TX. This one is ripe for showing Prenda at its normal slimy best.

      DTD :)

  19. that anonymous coward says:

    To the AC from /. I hope your here with us soon.

  20. Johnny Doe says:

    It looks like Prenda filed an AF Holdings case against a named individual in Michigan’s Eastern District today. Is this an outlier where the person did something stupid to make himself a target or a sign of things to come?

    • Johnny Doe says:

      Also worth noting– and this may be a mistake– AF Holdings is listed as a pro se plaintiff. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure a corporation cannot file a pro se lawsuit. Very odd!

      • SJD says:

        Yes, this happens before with Marvin Cable and I almost made a fuss about it, but it appeared to be an error: unless complaint is signed by a pro se plaintiff, it is most likely a system error.

  21. Anonymous says:

    If I was part of the Sunlust case from CO, I would need to be named in my state, correct (I don’t have any connection to CO)? And if I would be named, would it be listed as Sunlust or could I be named under AF Holdings vs me? Prenda hasn’t done anything in my state but AF Holdings is active. Just today, I got a 2nd letter from Duffy saying I have a last chance or get a lawyer.

    • doecumb says:

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

      Rest easier. Only Sunlust’s trolls could name you.

      If discovery was granted (here, with improper jurisdiction) in CO for a single plaintiff, it would normally be only that plaintiff (here, Sunlust) that could be the plaintiff in the unlikely event that you were named.

      If Sunlust used its “power” of discovery to share your identifying information with a different plaintiff (even with the same attorney), it would go beyond the limited discovery granted by a court. Trolls sharing information about the same Doe for different cases would be trouble for both troll plaintiffs. If caught, that unlawful sharing could threaten troll operations. This is not to say it hasn’t been done-only that AFAIK they haven’t been caught.

      To spot this wrongdoing, Does should be clear how their information was released to the trolls. (Don’t speak to the trolls to ask them.) The legal department of the Doe’s ISP should be able to answer this.

    • PissedOff says:

      I’m part of the same case. I have received two letters and about a dozen calls (Lutz and RoboCalls). I haven’t heard anything from them in a little over a week. I’m in California. I’m waiting this thing out. I hear California is not too troll-friendly these days. Stay strong!

      • Johnny Doe says:

        I think they are shifting tactics again. I was hearing from them 3 or 4 times a week. I received one call at the beginning of last week and haven’t heard from them since then.

      • Anonymous says:

        I was getting a couple per week for months and then they stopped last week. Who knows what the hell they’re doing, I don’t really care anymore. “You are part of a lawsuit” (no, actually I’m not but thanks for lying on my voicemail).

    • Johnny Doe says:

      That was one of the most unprofessional press releases I’ve ever read. These guys are something else.

      • Anonymous says:

        I follow MarketWatch on Twitter and that press release popped up…and I about gagged. I do love this wholly unprofessional part:
        “Prenda Law Inc. is a leading intellectual property law firm in Chicago, Illinois and representing clients nationwide.

        SOURCE Prenda Law Inc.”

        No shit!? “We’re a leading…according to us.”

        Oh yeah and they forgot to include Miami, Tampa, and Washington, DC (I’ve received calls from there too).

    • Anonymous says:

      Best of luck to Prenda (not really), they’ll need it since they’re fighting multi-billion dollar firms with so much cash to throw at this frivolous suits it’ll boggle your mind. Then when Comcast and AT&T pound Prenda into the ground, counter-action will follow.

      • Ron Mexico says:

        so they sued ATT/Comcast because they didn’t turn over subscriber data? Even after the IL Supreme Court order?

        • Anonymous says:

          This has nothing to do with AT&T and Comcast not turning over subscriber data. It’s a whole different animal. They’re suing AT&T, Comcast and the officers of the corporations for “civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer fraud, unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act” (815 ILCS 505/). It has to be State of Illinois because you can’t exactly allege violations of a state law in federal court since there is no jurisdiction. All I have to go by is the article since I can’t find the complaint yet, but I can tell you that this amended complaint is a complete and utter horse manure and will go nowhere. It looks like Duffy grabbed the entire United States Code (and ILCS for good measure) and decided to pull the “kitchen sink” approach.

          Accusing officers of multinational, multi-billion dollar media conglomerates of civil conspiracy because some of their customers ALLEGEDLY obtained the plaintiff’s content via illegal means? Good luck, Duffy. He compares this to the Pinto case. Ironically, one of my b-law professors was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Grimshaw case (appeal). This is NOTHING like the Pinto case…people haven’t died because some people allegedly downloaded ten year old pictures of meth and crack-addled 18 year-olds from Steve Fucking Jones’ shitty unsecured website (I believe he deliberately compromised his own site’s security for this specific purpose). In Grimshaw there was actually a solid case (memorandums, engineers testifying against Ford, all kinds of shit). In this case, well, look at the rest of Prenda’s cases. If they actually had cases they would’ve litigated. Prenda has IP addresses, no smoking gun, nothing.

          First off, I HIGHLY doubt that Duffy, who likely specializes in something other than corporate law or intellectual property law, will be able to convince any judge (even a corrupt ass one) to hold Comcast’s and AT&T’s officers personally liable for actions of the subscriber(s) in question. The burden of proof for piercing the corporate veil is extremely high and as such it rarely occurs. Unjust enrichment? I’m not familiar with how this type of allegation would be treated since (from what I gather from Prenda’s “press release”) that Comcast, AT&T, and the officers of the two firms were allegedly unjustly enriched by the actions of the subscriber(s). Aiding and abetting, again, I’d need to see the complaint. Civil conspiracy against the two firms and their officers? Need the complaint.

          Paul Duffy has taken a page out of the Steele playbook…interpret the law the way that will line your pockets with the most money. The tactic is the legal equivalent of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it’ll stick. Comcast and AT&T are gonna come after Prenda and Lightspeed loaded for bear. I’m gonna really enjoy seeing what happens when the whole topic of Arcadia Security comes up. I really don’t think Duffy has any idea what he’s done, but it’s gonna be fun to see the docket. Duffy (and likely some local scumbag trolls) representing Lightspeed, shit ton of lawyers who are smarter and more experienced than Duffy and said local scumbag trolls representing Comcast and AT&T. Gee I wonder how this is gonna pan out.

        • Raul says:

          This whole thing smells of a drunken PR stunt to grab attention. AT&T and Comcast will immediately have the lawsuit removed to federal court where it will be crushed, just watch.

        • Anonymous says:

          Drunken PR stunt or not, Prenda has just gone off the deep end and pissed off the wrong people. The thing is that Steele seems to find other egomaniacal, greed-driven lawyers to do his bidding so I wouldn’t be surprised if Duffy actually believes that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning. There’s no reason for a federal or state judge to not believe that this case is outright fraud upon the court. I’d just love to read the complaint and see Duffy’s fucked up legal logic.

        • Anonymous says:

          Check out the St. Clair civil docket for 11-L-683.

          http://www.circuitclerk.co.st-clair.il.us/Civil+Court+Records.htm

          Comcast, SBC (aka AT&T) and an individual named Mr. A. Smith have been named as defendants and served summons. The race is on! Which one of the three will get it removed to federal court first?? :-)

        • Anonymous says:

          Well color me surprised, Prenda is semi full of shit. On one hand, they were stupid enough to amend a frivolous suit and add two of the three largest telecommunications firms in the Fortune 500 as defendants. On the other, and I’m not surprised here, they didn’t go after a single officer of either firm. They did go after the “one of the alleged ringleaders of the hacking gang” Mr. A. Smith.

          Messrs. Hoerner and O’Malley are WAY WAY WAY out of their league taking on these two telecom behemoths who have not only bottomless pockets to make an example out of Prenda but also have attorneys who are experts in IP law due to the fact that they own actual intellectual property rather than pictures of topless 18 year olds splashing each other in a pool located in Steve Jones’ backyard *cough*not zoned for porn!*cough*.

          The only two things I’ve seen may (or may not) cause some issues with getting this case removed to federal court is the joinder problem and the allegations of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Then again the crooked ass judge could just dismiss that part of the complaint, sever the defendants, and get this case off his docket, which I’m sure he’d have no problem doing seeing as how he doesn’t want a figurative bloodbath in his courtroom. As of last year, AT&T’s Legal Department employed 4,825 people, its legal budget is MASSIVE and they’ll fight someone tooth and nail over a couple hundred dollar phone bill. Comcast is no small fry either. Its legal department is more than 70% on staff and its budget was ballparked in 2010 to be between $75M and $100M. These two firms would drop a tens of millions of dollars just to get this kicked to a federal judge and dismissed but something tells me that they won’t be just going for a dismissal.

          Maybe Duffy or even Mother Troll Steele will have to step in to try to avoid the complete and utter destruction of Prenda. One last question (or thought? whatever): what in the FUCK was whoever pulling the strings at Prenda thinking when they told Hoerner and O’Malley to pull the trigger and file a frivolous lawsuit against two Fortune 50 corporations? This is, in my opinion, the most IDIOTIC thing they have done and I’ve got a lot of examples of idiotic things Prenda has done. You don’t go after one of these firms, much less two of them (especially for something like this) unless you’re either trying to bankrupt yourself and ruin your career, lose every dime to your name, lose your dignity, and destroy your reputation. Never mind those last two…trolls don’t have any dignity or a professional or personal reputation.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Wow ballsy for sure. Do they understand that, unlike most of us here, Comcast and AT&T can actually afford to fight them?

    I would bet they are trying to get Comcast and AT&T to “give up” the fight. They are trying to convince them that it is more expensive to fight Prenda than it is to just hand over the info and lose some customer’s money.

    • Anonymous says:

      What is often lost in these discussions, especially with COMCAST AND TIME WARNER, is that they are media conglomerates that own approximately one metric shit-ton of content themselves, and generally have no problem enforcing their own IP rights. If they thought that Prenda’s scheme was a legitimate way to protect IP rights you can bet your sweet sweet ass that they wouldn’t be fighting this fight.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I seem to be late to this party… But I’m confused.

    I received a letter from Prenda in the mail a couple days ago. Its allegations suggest they contacted my ISP to receive my subscriber information. I contacted my ISP and they confirmed they have never received a request for any such information (to my non-surprise) from anyone, let alone what would require them to identify a customer.

    How does that work? What am I missing here?

    • Raul says:

      Not sure but maybe you are a victim of the state “pure bill of discovery” lawsuits. Check out the Discussions subtopic above and ignore the letter for now. If this pure bill of discovery BS ever gets before a federal judge expect fireworks.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Raul, I’m a total newb, so bare with me.

    From what I read, this was mostly a Florida thing. I’m part of Prenda’s Guava v Skyler Case. I don’t read anything about a ‘pure bill of discovery’ if they would be located as part of the court documents that were filed.

    Someone got into my eMail earlier this year (they didn’t do anything except steal information probably)… are these events likely unrelated?

    I’m not sure how one would identify someone well enough to be able to send a letter without either contacting my ISP or by way of nefarious activities.

    I’m also no expert on tech law.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Thanks very much Raul.

    Just to prove how stupid I am, I’m going to ask. My case is the Guava v Skyler Case which was filed in Illinois by Duffy. How would I know if it was a “Pure Bill of Discovery” lawsuit. From what I understand that’s a Florida thing.

    To add a little more weight to the initial question, I am confident that my ISP would never have provided that (mailing address) information. How else could they have acquired it?

    As I’m not too concerned about the accusations, I am very concerned about the methods that someone (non-government) could legally use that would be able to reveal another individual’s identity.

    I had a security breach in my personal eMail earlier this year and am really hoping the two events are unrelated.

  26. Anonymous says:

    sorry for the double post. please ignore first one. For some reason (probably on my end) it didn’t post until I’d already written a replacement.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Ha! a day later and just crickets… Do I know how to clear a room :)

    Another day of questions and answers and then more questions. Thanks to some knowledgeable friends I have now discovered that in addition to my eMail being compromised, my home network appears to have been attacked as well and the events are very likely to be related… apparently my wifi has been compromised for quite some time. Whoops. Told ya I’m a newb.

    In the very least I’ve become a lot more knowledgeable about locking down a WiFi network since this whole experience began.

    But the original question still stands:

    If Prenda didn’t contact my ISP, how did they get my name and mailing address?

  28. doecumb says:

    I don’t know the answer to how Prenda got your information. Here’s a few possibilities on first consideration:

    1) The phantom Doe that hacked in left a trace, either deliberately, to throw trolls off the track or carelessly.

    2) Someone else is the neighborhood was accused and falsely implicated you.

    3) Prenda might just be phishing and has some phishing type strategy. For instance, they could pick neighborhoods or demographics where their rate of allegation is high and widen their targets. It’s not know how low Prenda stoops, in light of past behavior.

    4) It’s just a mistake. These surely happen, for all sorts of reasons, at different links in the chain. Trolls wish to hide this, since it threatens their lie about 100% accuracy.

    5) The internal communication in your ISP is not ideal and one part did release information but another part does not know about it.

    I agree that it’s concerning that you received an allegation without apparent discovery process.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah I had the same deal happen to me, never heard from my ISP but I recived a letter from prenda as well in the Guava vs Skyler case, still trying to figure out exactly what the defendent did(like as in what he stole or something)…still in the dark on this one

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you SOOOO much for posting. It’s nice to know you’re not alone when tactics shift. I’ve got the same questions that could only be answered by more details about the defendant and what he/she allegedly did.

        In the letter you received, did they include a ‘data sheet’?

        All I was sent was the letter, a payment authorization form and a conditional release and settlement agreement. My IP address isn’t listed nor is the name of the alleged pirated content. I thought that was a mistake, but if you ended up with the same package maybe this is a ‘new and improved strategy’?

        As for the previous poster, thank so very much for breaking down the possibilities. I’ll try to provide more info.

        1. Completely possible. How would one leave a trace in terms of name or mailing address? I don’t know much about bittorrent (learning a lot right now, thank you Wikipedia) but I didn’t think you’d need to provide that information to download whatever. I can’t imagine my hacker did (if that’s what happened). He/she seemed to be satisfied by having access to my network (and likely computer/email) as they were on it for so long. ‘Don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ and all that.

        2. I’m new to my neighborhood so it’s unlikely someone was accused and sent my information along. Nobody in my neighborhood likely knows my name unless whoever compromised my network was doing so over my WiFi and would therefore not find it too difficult to harvest my name since they would already have a pretty good idea about my address.

        3. Basing their phishing strategies on neighborhood demographics and settlement rates is possible, but very unlikely. My neighborhood isn’t in the United States (see Anonone).

        4. I think it’s possibly a mistake, but even if it’s a mistake, Prenda ‘mistakenly’ matched the correct name to its correct mailing address. This is scary for me as I do a lot to keep those two pieces of information separate (for no real reason, it’s just a habit). If it wasn’t through my ISP how did they get that information? Even when I geolocate myself based on my IP, it shows me living in a VERY different part of town.

        5. I’m not too concerned about my ISP’s involvement here. Without giving away too much information, they are practically a mom-and-pop outfit and pride themselves on the protection of a free-and-open internet, maintaining the privacy of its clients and being small enough that customers tend to be on a first-name basis with tech support, accounting and customer service. They were the ones encouraging me to have this threat documented and investigated as they feel subscriber information may have been compromised without due process.

        And breathe.

        Obviously in general a big piece of this puzzle is missing: Which (or whose) IP address have they (Prenda) harvested and what was allegedly pirated?

        Sorry for the long-windedness, but I thought I’d add some info.

        • Anonymous says:

          Some comments on your…comments :)

          1. It’s not a bittorrent case. It’s a CFAA-type case but it’s a State of Illinois (as opposed to federal) case that alleges violations of Illinois statutes against computer “hacking.” I read the complaint, it’s sloppy as hell and completely ambiguous as it doesn’t even outline what specific acts of piracy occurred. I doubt a lawyer even drafted it and Duffy probably just signed it without even reading it. It just says “defendant broke into Guava.” OK, and what the hell happened after that? Hell, it didn’t even include a demand amount. That had to be handwritten in by someone with the initials “BG.”

          2. The WPS hack is very easy to obtain and very easy to use. Don’t broadcast your SSID? No big deal. That can be hacked Then once the person has your SSID they can hack your router. The ONLY way to truly secure your router is to use MAC filtering (I do now).

          3. Tell them to eat shit. You’re a foreign national. They’d have to spend thousands of dollars in court costs to MAYBE show that they have personal jurisdiction over you. They have no jurisdiction over you, especially not in the State of Illinois. Remember, this isn’t even a federal case. A state judge would be extremely reluctant to allow something like this to happen to a foreign national with (what I assume) very few or no ties to the United States, Illinois, and/or Cook County.

          4. They can’t geolocate your IP to a specific address, just lat/long, ZIP (if you live in the US), and area code. I’m sure there’s a way to convert latitude/longitude to an address but I’d go after the accuracy of the geolocation itself…especially since you say your ISP wasn’t even involved. Your ISP is the only credible source for this type of information but somehow they snaked around that which makes me wonder. Just look yourself up using the same website that Prenda uses (and violates its terms of service), whatismyipaddress.com

          5. I wouldn’t worry about my ISP, especially since you’re a foreign national. Your ISP will likely tell Duffy to screw off because there is no personal jurisdiction. ISPs are also getting really sick of complying with subpoenas in these cases since it costs them quite a bit of money for each IP list. I doubt that subscriber info was “compromised” but this case smells funky as to how they gathered IPs.

          What was allegedly pirated? No one knows. Apparently the letter that people have been receiving says that an IP list is attached but there is no attachment. The complaint, as I said, is sloppy. It should have included a specific offense, not just “defendant violated this statute.” How did he do it? I also have no idea how they got IPs and matched them to addresses if they did not subpoena ISPs, which it appears they did not. This case is extremely questionable…it’s filed in Cook County which is in the top five of “Judicial Hellholes” (Google it), I’m sure that’s no mistake.

        • Anonymous says:

          You’re a king!! Thanks for taking your time to look at this. Thanks also to everyone else who have contributed their time and knowledge. I truly appreciate it.

          My initial fears, which almost entirely stemmed from my complete ignorance as to why or how I would get the letter have now turned to true OUTRAGE!! Welcome to the club… I know…

          I spent an hour with my ISP today. They are taking this very seriously. They log any and all legal threats and/or information requests and assured me that without a doubt, if Prenda had contacted them they would have noted it. If Prenda had contacted them and mentioned my name, they would have noted that and informed me.

          On a side-note, the only times my ISP has provided subscriber information has been to our national law enforcement agencies. Such is the law as it stands in my country. it doesn’t take much of an imagination to guess how legitimate those requests would need to be.

          Bottom line, no contact has ever been made between my ISP and Prenda according to my ISP.

          I’ve been checking out anything related to IP and geo-location… the best I can do to find myself is it gives me the location of my local server which I share with at least 10,000 other subscribers according to my ISP. It’s a rough number, there’s probably a lot more given the density of the neighborhoods that would surround the server.

          I’m also apparently unlisted.

          I’ve spent the last few days Googling myself (I feel completely narcissistic) and am coming up completely cold. I’ve got a few tech smart friends doing the same with identical results.

          ====

          But BEFORE this letter opened my eyes to the dangers of the internet (ha), my eMail had been compromised (in December and January for sure and possibly before that) AND it turns out my damn Facebook account, an account I thought I’d deleted, did contain information that could identify me personally including (don’t laugh) my mailing address.

          Without a complete shock the information sharing with ‘Friends Only” probably wasn’t enough.

          ====

          In any event, acquiring personal information including a name and mailing address by circumventing an ISP is reserved for the G-Men and criminals in your country as well, right?

        • Anonymous says:

          Glad your ISP is taking this seriously because mine sure as hell didn’t. They just bent over for John Steele. Now they’re fighting Prenda, but too little, too late. No contact with Prenda and even if they did have contact with Prenda, your ISP would probably laugh at whatever idiot from Prenda who makes contact seeing as how you’re not a US citizen, in the U.S. on a visa, or even driving your boat in U.S. waters (does that give courts jurisdiction?). You’d have be suspected of doing something REALLY bad for your ISP to turn over information on you but it sure as hell wouldn’t be to some porn trolls. I can’t figure out how they are gathering IPs, much less home addresses without information from ISPs. IP geolocation is about as accurate as a polygraph. No, I take that back. Polygraphs are more accurate and those aren’t even admissible in court. I geolocated my IP using several different free sites and sometimes it’s accurate (although I’ve never verified my home’s coordinates) and other times it’s WAY off (like says I live in New Jersey which is halfway across the country). Another, California. Halfway across the country from me but in the other direction. Geolocation shouldn’t even be allowed due to how unreliable it is.

          As far as I know, it’s not possible for any entity, government or otherwise, to circumvent an ISP and using solely an IP address still acquire accurate personal information on someone’s internet-related activities. That is, the government may circumvent ISPs for foreign purposes (e.g. terrorists who they plan on killing anyway) but for the purposes of a case that will be tried in court, the plaintiff may as well say “please dismiss my case” because the evidence is basically shit. It’d be like taking a list of IPs, using some program (that Steele apparently has), pumping out names and addresses, then taking that to a judge and saying “admit this as evidence.” How reliable is it if the ISP hasn’t produced it? Probably not very and whatever method they used, it has never been used to try a case. Oh wait, these assholes have never actually tried a case in court. Nevermind that one.

          For domestic purposes (U.S. citizens), and I’m oversimplifying here because I’m not even talking about AT&T installing fiber-optic splitter(s) for the NSA, if it’s not some matter of national security, any of the domestic federal law enforcement agencies may issue a subpoena to the suspect’s ISP. For the purposes of foreign nationals in the U.S. and U.S. citizens suspected of doing really bad shit on U.S. soil, and this was designed for foreign intelligence operating in the U.S., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applies and the government must go to a secret court (FISC) to apply for a FISA warrant, which is almost always approved. Overseas (intelligence purposes), it’s all DIA, CIA, NSA, and the proverbial alphabet soup of federal agencies.

          Either way, if they want the case to be solid (obviously Prenda doesn’t…just look at their cases over the past 2 years), they’d subpoena your ISP because that’s really the only way to get truly accurate information and I don’t even know the laws where you live with regard to holding citizens liable for tortious acts allegedly committed in the U.S. They’d need to establish personal jurisdiction against you first, good luck with that one. Remember, this isn’t even a federal case. It’s a State of Illinois case. Big ass difference. I HIGHLY doubt some State of Illinois judge up there in Crook…err, Cook County is gonna risk creating an international shitstorm. If I were you I’d just sit back and watch the show.

  29. Anonymous says:

    i am still curious what this guava company is considering how vague their complaint seems to be. infact it is so vague that you can’t hardly mount a legit defense.

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s because whoever drafted the complaint was in one big ass hurry. So big of a hurry that he (or she) forgot to even list the demand amount. That would’ve been funny if someone hadn’t have penciled it in last minute.

      According to a Doe who posted on the Guava LLC v. Skyler Case (IL Cook County 12-L-7363) page, Guava LLC is apparently a shell company of a parent porn company specializing in, uhh, “niche” porn. Parent incorporated the shell LLC (can’t find the articles which is puzzling) and sold the all of the rights to the shell corporation (Guava LLC) and did this because apparently when Lightspeed sued all those people, he received a nasty denial service attack. My heart truly weeps for these people. I shouldn’t be surprised that a lawsuit filed on behalf of a shell company of a porn company is suing who knows how many Does over allegedly compromising their computers is actually going forward in Illinois.

      Subpoenas were apparently issued and copies were sent to Does, but I’ve only read of one person (same person who allegedly spoke with the named defendant’s lawyer) receiving a subpoena from his/her ISP.

  30. Johnny Doe says:

    If you check out Prenda’s website, they are in the process of upgrading it to make it look more professional and legit. They didn’t take it offline while they are doing it, so it is a bit of a mess right now.

  31. John says:

    I just made a payment to them out of fear before i started reading through people’s experience with them. I called my credit card company to stop the payment and am wondering what are the repercussions of doing this and what can i expect to happen?

    Any help will be great because i know i’ve dug myself a hole.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Hah, quote from the ars article (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/porn-copyright-troll-sues-att-and-comcast-says-they-side-with-pirates/):

    “But now, with the ISPs as named defendants, they will be strongly motivated to win the case and ensure that no one tries this tactic again. Lightspeed and Prenda will likely face the full force of Comcast and AT&T’s vast legal resources, and irritated AT&T and Comcast executives will now be even less inclined to give an inch when Prenda sends them subpoenas on behalf of future clients.

    “We believe the lawsuit is without merit,” an AT&T spokesman told us by e-mail. “An appellate court has already ruled in AT&T’s favor in this matter.”

    He noted that, at AT&T’s request, the case has been moved to federal court, taking it away from the plaintiff-friendly judge in downstate Illinois who has handled it so far.”

    Irritated Comcast and AT&T execs? I believe they’re way past irritated and into full-blown “pissed as hell” with Prenda going after their employees personally, especially after all of the shit they’ve done for Prenda with compliance. The bully always picks the wrong fight, it’s just a matter of time but this fight is like me picking a fight with an entire NFL offensive line.

  33. Anonymous says:

    This is completely unrelated to copyright trolling.

    SJD,

    What’s this I’m reading on your Twitter feed about how John Steele, Prenda, and the father of an epileptic child perjuring themselves on DCFS documents in order to take custody of an epileptic child? If you have a link to an article, a docket, or anything about it that I could read, I’d appreciate it. Thank ya :)

    • SJD says:

      Well, I don’t really know but I suspect that the authors of those tweets have some evidence of Steele’s douchebaggery related to his divorce practice. I’m going to approach them and ask for details some time next week.

      I received some emails in the past, which indicated that Steele-divorce lawyer behaved no better than now: intimidated victims and counter-parties, lied to court, in one occasion he “identically” filed pages from a sealed document revealing really private information about child’s health condition. So Steele was a crook before trolling: I understand that it’s hard to believe, but it’s true.

      You may want to approach @IncJane yourself, I’ll vouch for you: I’m sure she is willing to raise awareness of Steele’s crimes.

      • Anonymous says:

        This is just out of curiosity, I was paging through #Prenda Tweets and came across the one about Steele and it piqued my interest. I never even looked into his actions as a family law attorney and was under the impression that he was retired except for being admitted pro hac vice in some trolling cases. However, I’m not the least bit surprised. Once a douchebag, always a douchebag….although I was a douchebag and have since reformed :P I cannot understand how he gets away with this shit time and time again and the IARDC and State’s Attorney doesn’t seem to care. It’s so blatant too, he’s basically giving regulators and law enforcement the middle finger. The man shouldn’t be just disbarred, he should be in prison.

        Again, just out of pure curiosity, if you get any info via email would you please forward it my way. I don’t even have a Twitter account (I think I’m the only person) and I’ve got a busy, well, 6 months coming up. Thanks again.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Its so quite for past couple of weeks…no calls what so ever. Wonder whats cooking?

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I think they realized how ineffective the robocalls were. They actually were probably counterproductive as they look bad to the courts and pissed off their targets.

      My theory about the human calls (and this is just a guess) is that Mark Lutz– who almost always made the calls from Florida– is actually an employee of Joseph Perea and not Prenda. Now that Perea has allegedly cut his ties with Prenda, he isn’t going to waste his guy’s time calling Does he isn’t actually involved with suing.

      If you look at Prenda’s new website, it looks like it is basically a one-man operation of Paul Duffy’s. I think what they are trying to do is make their website seem more professional and recruit lawyers in other jurisdictions other than Illinois and California– “We provide the IP addresses, the potential defendants’ contact information and the initial pleadings templates. You decide how to get the people to settle or whether to sue them. We take a cut of whatever money you get.”

      Anyway, I have no inside information, but that is what I am guessing.

      • Anonymous says:

        Lutz’s public LinkedIn profile shows him to be currently part of Prenda in Chicago’s offices. If I remember correctly (don’t hold me to it) It used to say that he was part of Prenda in Miami.a couple/few months ago. I’m sure if one of us attempted to contact him, he could confirm or deny (I know, bad joke)!

        http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-lutz/14/b8/414

        So it appears that he is still employed by Prenda, but that Prenda no longer has a Miami/Florida office. If they still do have a Miami office, then it seems Lutz does not report through it.

      • Anonymous says:

        As far as Lutz goes, read this::

        http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=F11000004516&inq_came_from=OFFFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=R&ret_names_cor_number=&ret_cor_web_names_seq_number=&ret_names_name_ind=&ret_names_comp_name=&ret_names_filing_type=&ret_cor_web_princ_seq=&ret_princ_comp_name=LUTZMARK&ret_princ_type=

        That’s a link to Prenda’s records with the Florida Division of Corporations as of about 2 minutes ago. Mark Lutz is and always been the registered agent for Prenda Law, LLC, Since he’s the registered agent for Duffy’s company, acting on Perea’s behalf would be a bad idea.

        About Duffy’s business model, appears as though he’s franchising Prenda’s operations. That is way beyond disgusting. The franchising of extrajudicial extortion, what the hell happened to this country.

        • Johnny Doe says:

          Thanks for the info. Like I said, I was just guessing. Perhaps they realized that calling people over and over with the same message wasn’t all that effective?

          A lot of the people on these boards seem to think that Prenda is bluffing about filing individual suits. I am not quite so optimistic. My guess is they will find enough ignorant and/or desperate lawyers that they will be able to file individual lawsuits in more jurisdictions. Most of these cases are losing cases, but if they file enough of them, more people will be scared into settling.

        • Anonymous says:

          “My guess is they will find enough ignorant and/or desperate lawyers that they will be able to file individual lawsuits in more jurisdictions.”

          DTD, TAC, and especially SJD (see her post on Brett Gibbs’ hiring scheme re a new attorney in Florida who ditched Prenda) have shown that they can put a dent in the “ignorance factor” before new trolls get in too deep.

          But I agree with you on the “desperate” factor. Those are the newbies that we’ll have to be on the watch for (at least a little bit). But if they are that desperate, it’s likely because they are young and wet behind the ears OR they are experienced and have hit hard times. But I’d like to believe that an experienced attorney with solid litigation and deep experience would be marketable elsewhere and thus less likely to be in hard times (desperate), even in this economy. You’d have to be a reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyy good litigator to win one of these in trial on merits, and I don’t think they’ll find too many of them to sign up.

      • Anonymous says:

        “We provide the IP addresses, the potential defendants’ contact information and the initial pleadings templates. You decide how to get the people to settle or whether to sue them. We take a cut of whatever money you get.”

        “Anyway, I have no inside information, but that is what I am guessing.”

        The problem with franchising is that they would only be able to provide the IP address over the long haul. They’d only be able to provide contact info for new cases if they got that info from a subpoena where they sought expedited discovery in jurisdictions where they are licensed to practice (Duffy and Gibbs currently, appears limited).

        So unless they get contact info from IL (Duffy) or CA (Gibbs), they’d have to get a “franchisee” attorney to file the subpoena in other districts, which makes more work (not a sure thing) for the franchisee with no guarantee of ROI.

        Now this could work for them for existing cases where they already have the contact info from subpoenas for which ISP compliance has already been achieved and where statute of limitations haven’t run out yet, but that has a max 3 year shelf life from this day forward. So this business model may only help with their existing backlog. Anything older than today has less time obviously.

        To drum up new business, they’d have to be able to give a franchisee more than just an IP address to make it worth his/her while. In sum, it seems like a (relatively) short term and 1/2 baked business model (speculated, of course).

        • Anonymous says:

          You are correct about IPs. Those attorneys would be paying out of pocket for court fees. Only a desperate attorney would associate him or herself with Prenda and desperate attorneys are usually straight up bad attorneys, greedy, need fast money, or a number of things and any of those reasons would put the case at risk. Just look at Nicoletti’s filings in Illinois (see the Illinois page). He fucked up like half of the cases he filed in both NDIL and CDIL by not signing the complaint, not following rules, his ex parte application was denied by Judge Baker so he appealed but to the wrong Circuit then fixed it, and more.

          Is one attorney allowed to give another attorney discovery documents obtained via subpoenas issued prior to their professional relationship being established? Something tells me “hell no.” It’s like giving someone a trade secret then hiring them. You still gave them a trade secret when that person wasn’t an agent of the firm and hiring that person is not a remedy or defense against a lawsuit for violating multiple state and federal statutes. The lead attorney would need to bail on the original suit, then the franchised attorney would need to file a fresh complaint, ex parte application, etc.

          If they start filing individual lawsuits, oh well. They won’t litigate. Their evidence is garbage, they use Hansmeier who, according to pro se defendant, perjured himself in a declaration and doesn’t have any formal education in computer forensics. Hansmeier is also not licensed to do what he does. It’d also cost them a lot of money to depose and forensically examine each defendant’s computer and with a 30% error rate, hello counter-action. There’d be a flood of cases like those filed by Wong and Abrahams. All in all, Prenda will be opening itself up to a shitload of liability by filing individual suits and actually proceeding with litigation. The most likely thing that will happen is that individual suits will be filed and they’ll bully the defendant….which isn’t any different from what they do now except the defendant’s name will be public which is not good. They only get two cracks, so they’d have to litigate or at least begin (by “begin” I mean commit perjury by feeding the judge BS) proceedings. See below concerning FRCP 41.

          FRCP 41(a)(1)(b) states that a defendant may only be sued twice for the same offense, even if dismissed with prejudice the first time. “Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Basically, 41(a)(1) states that a second dismissal equates to the defendant winning in court. This would force Prenda’s hand. I don’t believe for one second that any individual case would go to court. They’d bully the defendant and BS the court enough to make it look like they’re gonna litigate, but it won’t happen. Then a second dismissal, bam, you’re done and if they contact you post second dismissal, they’re in trouble.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Facciola crawled out of his hole in this HDP v. Does 1-1495 case in DC. Took a nice 4 month vacation, shit I wish I could do that. He or his clerk drafted a sloppy memorandum in haste, shot down basically every motion (not EFF) and dissolved the stay on the ISP subpoenas that was issued by Bates last November. He denied: improper joinder, lack of jurisdiction, claim of innocence, that information sought is privileged, and four motions claiming improper joinder along with seeking severance and assertion of lack of jurisdiction, and denying motions for a protective order. Docket nos. 19-22, 36, 38, 40, and 42.

    One good thing is he’s allowing all documents (MTQs etc) submitted while Bates was presiding to remained sealed “as a courtesy.” He only addressed enough to get the stay lifted that was issued last year. He did not address the amicus brief or any motions related to it filed by the EFF and he acknowledges that. Link to memo below.

    http://ia600708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.49.0.pdf

    I believe that Facciola’s forcing Duffy’s hand because he knows Duffy won’t do anything, trying to get this case the hell off his docket because it’s a royal pain in the ass, both of the aforementioned, or he’s pulling a Judge Howell (least likely). So, any Doe involved, get ready for Prenda to tighten the thumbscrews and harass the living hell outta you because unless your ISP gets involved, Prenda will have your info soon. Duffy’s gonna be VERY VERY busy with the case in SDIL. IMO this memorandum effectively starts the Rule 4(m) clock…120 days for Mr. Duffy to name and serve 1477 people (1495 minus the 18 Does dismissed by Duffy).

    • Johnny Doe says:

      The one positive thing about decisions like this one is that it means the trolls will be more and more overwhelmed. They will make stupid mistakes, and they can’t really go after thousands of individuals because they don’t have the infrastructure. Also, there is always the possibility of a nice class-action lawsuit against Prenda and company in the future. Strength in numbers!

      • Anonymous says:

        Definitely. If I were a Doe, the worst thing I’d expect is a few overtly threatening letters and phone calls. Suing this many people is just a bad idea because now you’ve got over 1400 pissed off people, some of them who likely have the financial resources to take the fight to Prenda the same way Shirokov (sp?) is taking it to DGW, Barker (and recently added plaintiff) is taking it to Patrick Collins and several other pornographers, Wong and Abrahams going after HDP, and the defendant who turned the tables on Malibu.

    • Anon says:

      Ugh Facciola references Howell’s recent decision here. He was just waiting for someone else to do his work for him.

      Troll friendly DC :(

  36. Melange says:

    Facciola denied all the motions, does this mean our info is going to be handed out in the very near future? There was an amicus brief from the EFF that Facciola hadn’t ruled on.

    He cites Howell (the DC court’s resident RIAA lobbyist) who is pro-troll but doesn’t mention Judge Wilkins (also DC) anti-trolling positions.

    Write or fax him, making sure he is aware of the split in the DC court.

    • Anon says:

      It seems like he’s aware, he just is lazy and doesn’t give a shit.

      • Anonymous says:

        Note to SJD: The docket link you tweeted this morning for Facciola’s ruling in the HDP v. Does 1-1495 case (1:11-cv-01741) was wrong (pointed to a Lightspeed case, not this one). The correct docket for this case is:

        http://ia700708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.docket.html

        • Anonymous says:

          Ugh, looks like the spam filter just ate a nice long reply I just posted on the Facciola ruling. SDJ, can you retrieve it?

        • SJD says:

          Hmmm. I don’t see any. It happened to me before when I posted via TOR.

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t find this Facciola memorandum to be completely horrible (only mostly). The one bit that gives me hope is this part:

        “Second, none of these John Does have been named as actual defendants in this action and
        they may never be. In this context, I must note that in West Coast, I cautioned plaintiff that I
        would allow it to name, as a defendant, an individual who did not reside in the District of
        Columbia only if it could do so in good faith and consistent with the responsibility imposed upon
        them by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. West Coast, [#23] at 15.
        In this case, I note from the various addresses provided that none of the movants live in
        the District of Columbia. Thus, at this moment, it is at best an open question whether any of the
        movants will be named defendants. Since that is so, the movants’ complaint that the case may
        have to be dismissed if they are named as defendants, does not present an actual case or
        controversy over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Los Angeles v. Lyons,
        461 U.S. 95 (1983).”

        While the logic at the end is pretty twisted, I believe this is essentially telling Duffy: “Don’t bother trying to name non-DC defendants in this case, as I will just dismiss them unless you can present stong individual evidence that they belong in this court.”

        I read this to mean that if you don’t reside in DC (99+% do not) then you have a miniscule chance of being named (and by extension, of being an actual defendent) in this case.

        Prenda will have to go after people individually, or in small groups, by proper jurisdiction; and given that 12-15 months have now already passed since the alledged infringements were alledgedly recorded, that seems extremely unlikely (i.e. much fresher meat exists for the exploiting).

        • Anonymous says:

          Plaintiff HDP has (to my knowledge) filed exactly zero new cases since being hauled into federal court in CA via countersuits by heroes Wong and Abrahams. I’m guessing they have seen the downside of these troll lawsuits firsthand and have lost the will to “fight piracy” in this financially risky and extremely shady way.

          As an aside, ever notice how these porn companies never use the actual trade names of their websites in these cases? Maybe that’s because they are afraid of ruining their reputations with current or potential paying customers. Perhaps we should pierce the veil…

          HDP = Hard Drive Productions = AmateurAllure.com If you are thinking of joining AmateurAllure.com, here’s my review: Don’t! AmateurAllure.com sues their customers.

          Malibu Media = X-Art. If you are thinking of joining X-Art.com, here’s my review: Don’t! X-Art.com sues their customers.

          I think a comprehensive such list of which websites are sueing their current, former or potential customers needs to be easy to find with Google, Bing, etc, so that these websites get hit in the pocketbook for this sleeze. Googling “X-Art review” needs to return “Copyright troll” in the top ten hits.

        • Anonymous says:

          Duffy’s got 120 days from when the ISPs turn over discovery to start naming and serving otherwise Facciola will have to kick this case to the curb. Anyone wanna take bets on whether ISPs will get involved? They’ve objected to almost every subpoena issuance in multiple Doe cases as of late, or so I’ve noticed not to mention cost of compliance for this case will be outrageous and they have to eat the cost.

    • Anonymous says:

      As far as I’m concerned, Facciola ruled the amicus brief filed by the EFF on a de facto basis since the issues argued in the amicus brief were also issues raised by all of the other motions that he denied.

      Right to engage in free speech by filing anonymous MTQs, allowed but only retroactively and as a “courtesy” to Bates.
      Personal jurisdiction, well according to Facciola it’s too early for that one.
      Mass joinder is improper, Facciola also addressed that in another motion that he denied…it’s too early to establish that.

      • Melange says:

        The weird thing is that this new order directly conflicts with Case 1:11-cv-00058-RMU-JMF Document 20, where Facciola started denying discovery. The two orders look to be written by completely different people. The new order is in the first person, the older order is written in the third person and with a better vocabulary.

        There is a split not only in the DC courts, but also in Judge Facciola’s rulings.

        • Melange says:

          I followed up on this. In Case 1:11-cv-00058-ESH-JMF Facciola document 23 Facciola allowed discovery with strict limitations:

          “C. Third Condition: To Alleviate the Burden on the Doe Defendants 1
          Case 1:11-cv-00058-ESH-JMF Document 23 Filed 08/06/12 Page 15 of 16
          As I noted above, I am concerned by the prospect of plaintiff’s making settlement offers to the Doe defendants when these individuals may not be aware that they have legitimate defenses, particularly the defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, and improper joinder. I have no inclination to dictate to plaintiff (or any one else) what they may or may not say during settlement negotiations. However, I have decided to preclude plaintiff from communicating directly with the Doe defendants prior to plaintiff’s naming these individuals as actual defendants in the complaint. Once they are named, further communications with them will require my permission.
          D. Fourth Condition: Good Faith Requirement
          Finally, I am requiring plaintiff to name as actual defendants only those Doe defendants who it believes, in good faith, to be amendable to the assertion of jurisdiction by this Court over their persons and as to whom venue is proper in this forum. I am not prejudging any argument as to either of those issues. While plaintiff will have an opportunity to address them in the ordinary course, if this case survives the naming of the defendants, I remind plaintiff that I purposefully identified the relevant principles pertaining to personal jurisdiction and venue. I expect that they will be ready to establish why this Court may assert personal jurisdiction over the Doe defendants who do not reside in the District of Columbia and why venue over any non-resident is proper in this judicial district

        • Melange says:

          This is actually a followup to the next comment:

          In 1:11-cv-01741-JDB-JMF
          Facciola makes no similar restrictions, which doesn’t make any sense to me. On 8/13 in 1:11-cv-01741-JDB-JMF he dissolved the stay order on discovery and that was it.

          Does this make sense to anyone? Is it reasonable to assume such an order is coming? 1:11-cv-00058-ESH-JMF document 23 is much better written and organized than 1:11-cv-01741-JDB-JMF document 49

          0058 docket: http://ia600409.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.146062/gov.uscourts.dcd.146062.docket.html

          01741 docket: http://ia700708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.docket.html

        • Anonymous says:

          It seems like he put actual thought into the Patrick Collins case and just didn’t feel like doing anything about the HDP case or didn’t want to contradict Judge Howell. You know there’s political bullshit going on behind the scenes in these courts. Howell already created a split that’s gonna have to be resolved by the an appeals court. Facciola, on the other hand, is completely inconsistent. He says one thing about one case, and contradicts himself in another and the details of the cases are exactly the same with the exception of the plaintiff and the number of Does. This makes NO SENSE. If Facciola didn’t write the older orders, then his clerk must have but it would’ve been on his direction or vice versa with the new memorandum. Either way, he pulled a 180. This shit makes no sense. There’s a long long list of reasons why Facciola would do this and I don’t like any of them.

          The only logic that I see is that he did state that he noticed that no IP listed in the infringer list is located within the District, or so he noticed. So he put Duffy on notice. Duffy knows he can’t pull this case off and Facciola will Rule 4(m) his ass but not before he gets a couple hundred thousand in settlements because people will start getting letters in a few weeks and panic will ensue. At the very least, he should’ve allowed limited discovery with discovery being delivered to the court, not the plaintiff’s counsel or only the information necessary to serve a defendant which would be the subscriber’s name and home address…NOT their phone number or email address. He’s facilitating interstate phone harassment, mail fraud, wire fraud, and extrajudicial extortion. Even if you don’t pay (I didn’t) and ignore them and are dismissed, they still won’t leave you alone. I have a feeling this isn’t the end of the motions though. ISPs involved may step in as they did in the AF Holdings case that the ACLU and EFF intervened in.

        • Melange says:

          in 00058 Facciola writes: “I am firmly convinced that it would be a gross abuse of discretion for me not to impose certain conditions upon plaintiffs being permitted to take the jurisdictional discovery they seek. There is simply nothing ordinary about these cases and they require something more than ordinary judicial passivity while service is accomplished.”

          This was 1 week before the recent, as yet unconditioned, order in 01741. There simply has to be another order coming or he would be accusing himself of gross abuse of discretion! These are only a week apart in time, his views can’t have changed…

          What is the best way to send an email or fax to Facciola?

        • Anonymous says:

          Judges do not have personal email addresses, but his website with two phone numbers (I wouldn’t suggest calling him to tell him he’s wrong) is http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/facciola
          The website explaining how to contact a Judge is http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/contact

  37. Anonymous says:

    Paul Duffy you’re a bad boy. Check out the docket for this AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe (1:12-cv-05080) case that was just chucked by a Judge Conlon in NDIL:

    First he fails to appear for no good reason so she denies his ex parte application:
    MINUTE entry before Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon: Plaintiff did not appear in court for the motion hearing. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to take discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference 6 is denied. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 07/12/2012)

    Then he files for a continuance, saying he’s gonna be out of state on “legal business” and that he tried to get someone else to appear out of state (I wonder what state?) here’s what she thinks of that:
    MINUTE entry before Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon: Plaintiff’s untimely motion to continue the status hearing tomorrow, August 8, 2012 10 is denied for lack of good cause. The August 8, 2012 status hearing was set more than a month ago 8 . The court notes that plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for a hearing on a motion he filed and noticed on the court’s docket on July 11, 2012. Another failure to appear shall result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

    So instead of just showing up to court, he decides to refile almost the same motion for a continuance and what happens?
    MINUTE entry before Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon: Case called for status hearing twice. Counsel for plaintiff failed to appear. This case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

    I checked out another AF Holdings v. John Doe case (1:12-cv-06128) and found an assignment agreement as an exhibit as part of the complaint. I Recapped it but the exhibit won’t upload. Here’s the docket: http://ia600606.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.272435/gov.uscourts.ilnd.272435.docket.html

  38. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone looked to see whether the Prenda Law calls, robo and otherwise, violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC 227 et seq? If so, each call could result in a $500 statutory award, plus attorneys fees, and if you can get a class action going, that $500 per pop would sure drain down the trolls’ ill-gotten gain….

    • Anonymous says:

      Take a read over the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
      I actually analyzed the whole law, had a write-up done, and just deleted it because and I really don’t see Prenda being held liable for a single penny under this law. Prenda’s autodialer calls are exempt under the TCPA, look up the exemptions in subsection (a)(2)(B).

      You could, however, contact your local FBI field office and inform them of these calls as they are likely a violation of criminal law under at least one statute, 47 USC § 223. If they attempted to coerce you into settling AFTER your case was dismissed, then that’s attempted wire fraud. The only real civil remedy I can think of would be suing them for an FDCPA violation (or 50) since people like Lutz have turned Prenda into a de facto debt collection agency. The FDCPA is pretty strict. Look up FDCPA violations.

  39. doecumb says:

    My reading of the TPCA is different. I think Prenda/trolls are NOT sheltered under the TCPA. The exemption cited turns on an “established business relationship”. Trolls have only an allegation. This is not a relation of business to client through prior agreement. A troll demand does not meet the letter or the spirit of this regulation IMO.

    It’s very possible trolls are liable. Like other parts of the scam, trolls are relying on potential Doe embarrassment to dodge challenges to improper or borderline tactics.

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

    • Anonymous says:

      I interpreted based on (b)(1)(B) since that’s the only one that I see being applicable.
      “(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B);”

      “(B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe”
      Key word, MAY…not does, will, etc. Semantics. It’s not absolute.

      If not that exemption then which do you see because I don’t see anything else. In all likelihood, my brain is mush after analyzing the Guava complaint.

  40. Clueless Doe says:

    Just when I thought I’m off hook from Prenda, I got another call yesterday….Anybody has update on 1:12-cv-00656-CMA-KMT CO?

    • Anonymous says:

      I just pulled the docket and my first impression is that it’s a giant clusterfuck. 88 docket entries, 4 different lawyers representing several defendants, pro se defendants proceeding under their real names (BAD BAD BAD BAD idea), seems like the judge isn’t granting any motions to strike, quash, etc. The latest docket entry was almost 3 weeks ago:

      “MINUTE ORDER granting 85 Motion for Extension of Scheduling and Planning Conference. The Scheduling Conference set for 8/8/2012 is VACATED. The Scheduling Conference will be reset by separate order. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/27/2012. Text Only Entry (kmtlc2) (Entered: 07/27/2012)”

      • anonymous says:

        i got another letter from prenda giving a warning that we ignored the settlement letter personally signed by duffy getting a little worried here

        • Anonymous says:

          Is there a date to respond by on that letter?

        • anonymous says:

          yes there is a date for the response…..does that mean its serious now?

        • anonymous says:

          please help T_T

        • anonymous says:

          should i get a lawyer now?

        • Anonymous says:

          If it has a “call us” or else date on it I would take it as another threat letter like always. That is just my opinion though.

        • Anonymous says:

          I have the same letter but I am going to ignore it…This advice has been repeated time and time again on this forum. Keeping my fingers crossed…

        • Anonymous says:

          They state “you have until (insert date here) to settle or we will (empty threat).” I have a policy with them that stands to this day. My “fuck off” policy where I reserve and exercise the right to ignore their asses and put the ball in their court. I got so many letters with “final dates” and calls with “final dates” it’s not even funny. The letters are just threats. If they wanted you, they would serve you with a summons. They’re calling to get you to incriminate yourself. The letters are just a scare tactic.

          I was a Doe in a lawsuit for 7+ months, I exercised my “fuck off” policy, and the case was dismissed. I was then harassed for 7+ more months, ignored them, the calls stopped. When ALL they have is an IP address as evidence then the odds of them actually coming after you are considerably below what is considered “statistically insignificant.”

          (The usual boilerplate: please do not construe this as legal advice. It is for discussion purposes only)

        • anonymous says:

          the letter states that i should get a lawyer and let the lawyer contact them before the due date because i didnt settle -_-

        • Anonymous says:

          Well Prenda’s tactic of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) is working well in this case. I got a lot of letters that said that. Again, I exercised my policy “fuck off” (or “blow me,” interchangeable) and ignored them. They went away. “You have until (insert date to settle)….” Blah. I’m telling you what I did, not what to do, but when I ignored them and never gave them a shred of evidence against me, they left me the hell alone. If you choose to ignore them, just know that they will harass the shit outta you but if you can weather the storm, the odds of you being sued (for real, as in named) is so incredibly low that you’ve got a better chance of being hit by falling airplane parts than being named by Prenda. If I were you, I’d ignore them. Make a file and file every single letter they send and use a digital voice recorder or your phone to record every single voicemail they leave on your machine. They’ll (likely) go away, it just takes a while ~7-8 months unless one of the Does decides to fight or ISPs step in.

          Whatever you do, DO NOT let them scare you into settling. If you do settle, do it via an attorney because Prenda backdoors their settlements and I don’t believe that the agreement completely releases you from all liability. Just know that by feeding these trolls, you’d be effectively giving them more fuel. The day that people stop paying them and taking them to task for what they’re doing is the day that they stop filing these cases because they will NEVER litigate one.

  41. Anon says:

    For the HDP case #01741, it seems like the motions-to-quash were denied, but the subpoena are still stayed from the order #5 way back in November 2011. So I would think Judge Facciola needs to explicitly lift that stay with a new order for the ISPs to actually release the names.

    But I’m not a lawyer, and maybe I missed an Order somewhere in the big list.

    • Anonymous says:

      He issued the order to dissolve the stay in a minute order. It’s not in the docket that’s been Recapped but I just pulled the docket off DCD’s CM/ECF (PACER).

      “MINUTE ORDER: The motions to quash having been resolved, IT IS ORDERED that the stay imposed by the Order of November 2, 2011 5[RECAP] is dissolved. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/13/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/13/2012)”

      • Anon says:

        That’s disappointing. I was hopeful that the stay would not be lifted until he could impose restrictions on the results of the discovery like in that other case.

        Funny thing is that since this all went down I moved and changed phone numbers from what Comcast has, so it’s unclear if they will ever even find me.

        • Melange says:

          This is so mysterious to me. Facciola wrote: “I am firmly convinced that it would be a gross abuse of discretion for me not to impose certain conditions upon plaintiffs being permitted to take the jurisdictional discovery they seek. There is simply nothing ordinary about these cases and they require something more than ordinary judicial passivity while service is accomplished.”

          He wrote this when imposing conditions on discovery in the other case, yet in 01741 he imposed no conditions. It’s baffling. Everyone, write his chambers!

        • Anonymous says:

          He made a ruling. No matter how baffling and inconsistent it may be, and while I agree with your sentiments, it’ll stand if only because he doesn’t wanna look like he made a bad ruling by reversing himself. You can pound his mailbox all you want, but it won’t change anything.

        • Raul says:

          Might be tangentially related to Obama’s fundraising needs in CA? Hope not, as I am a Dem.

        • Anonymous says:

          Facciola didn’t just contradict precedent in DDC, he contradicted his own precedents. That puts him in a bit of a pickle. I’d love to see his rationalization behind it and please don’t bait me into politics (it’s not that hard to bait me into it) on this blog of all places hah. Let’s just say I’m not an Obama supporter, he was one of my Senators back in 2006-2008, and I didn’t like him then and still don’t…leave it at that. We all have one common enemy, one common goal.

  42. Anonymous says:

    I know this doesn’t belong on this page but it’s so fucking crazy I thought I’d post something about it.

    In the matter of Lightspeed v. Smith et al, Duffy just fired the first (cheap) shot by filing an emergency motion for discovery. To satisfy the burden, Duffy goes way beyond alleging criminal activity. He unequivocally states that subscribers have committed criminal activity…you cannot state that someone has committed a crime unless they have been convicted of it.

    “The Conspiring ISPs subscribers have permanently destroyed Lightspeed’s computer systems, engaged in identity theft against Lightspeed and Plaintiff’s counsel, attempted to incite fellow hackers to murder Mr. Jones and even committed bank fraud against Mr. Jones’ family.”

    What we have here is Lightspeed STATING (not alleging) that subscribers have committed: criminal damage to property (expensive property), identity theft, (my personal favorite) conspiracy to commit capital murder, and bank fraud. What Lightspeed never did, or at least doesn’t show here, is file a single police report. Since Prenda is stating subscribers committed ID theft, they need to file a police report as well. Here all we have is Duffy smearing ISP subscribers. I smell defamation and libel. This is total bullshit on Duffy’s part, an act of desperation. I hope the judge tears him a new one on the 20th and hopefully the judge slaps him with sanctions or at the least an order to show cause. If the judge doesn’t slap him with sanctions, I’d like to think that defendants’ counsel would file for sanctions.

    • Donald Duck says:

      Did you notice in there Duffy says because Lightspeed filed this case he’s been subjected to death threats, id theft, damage to his website etc, due to backlash from the hackers in the case.

      He then goes on like a paragraph later and complains that the ISPs have not notified the subscribers about the lawsuit so their criminal activity goes on.

      So which is it? They know about the case and are harassing your client or they don’t know about the case?

      Thank god that case is out of the local circuit court.

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t forget the DDoS attacks too…by people who don’t know they’re being sued apparently. Duffy directly contradicts himself and if the ISPs haven’t filed an opposition to his motion already, they will before the hearing on Monday or raise it during the hearing. In my opinion (to avoid a libel suit :) the guy has too many irons in the fire and is incompetent on top of that. He’s handling this Guava clusterfuck, multiple cases in NDIL, the HDP and AF Holdings cases in DDC, and now he’s gotta deal with two pissed off ISPs who have enough money to bog this case down until Prenda and Lightspeed run out of money. He (Duffy and Lightspeed) should’ve cut bait and run like hell a long time ago but people get greedy when they’re raking in money hand over fist. Oh well :)

        Common sense would tell you that if you wanna stop a crime being committed against you, you actually do something about it not sit on your thumb and let it happen then bitch about it in court. Fuck, these people just aggravate me. This is a clear cut case of pure horse shit. Let’s just hope the judge sees it for what it is. I’m not even a Doe in this case (or any other since January) but this shit just pisses me off.

        • jess k says:

          Interesting about Duffy and the expensive wife..just out of curiosity, is John Steele also married???

  43. Anonymous says:

    Paul Duffy education breakdown. His B.S. in chemistry is verifiable but I couldn’t give two shits about that because every person I know who has a B.S. in chem or bio is now an MD. Elmhurst is also a ridiculously expensive private school. So he goes from protecting the environment to extorting tens of thousands of people? How the fuck…? However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Paul Duffy is lying on his resume, although I’d have to check with an independent source to verify. He claims to have an MBA from Loyola University of Chicago yet it’s, well, difficult to verify.

    He either doesn’t tell his employers about all of his degrees, such as Freeborn & Peters: http://www.freebornpeters.com/docs/pdfs/PaulDuffy.pdf

    Also not listed on another one that I just found (link below) as well on his public LinkedIn profile. It’s not listed under his little CV on the Chicago Baseball Museum Board of Directors site here:

    http://www.chicagobaseballmuseum.org/chicago-baseball-museum-board.php

    Or on martindale.com.

    http://www.martindale.com/Paul-A-Duffy/940659-lawyer.htm

    In my experience, If it smells like shit it usually is shit and a lot of it.

    From http://digitalcase.case.edu:9000/fedora/get/ksl:mps17-ihrlistaff199400000/mps17-ihrlistaff199400000.pdf

    “Paul A. Duffy’ (8/93-present)
    J. D., DePaul University College of Law; B. S. (Chemistry), Elrnhurst College. Member
    of the Illinois and Massachusetts Bars.
    Mr. Duffy began providing pro bono services to the Rapporteur on August 18,
    1993. He has been with the Chicago law firm of Katten Muchin & Zavis since October 1992,
    when he joined the firm as an Associate in the Environmental Department. Mr. Duffy has over
    10 years of experience as a chemist in the environmental field. Before joining Katten Muchin
    & Zavis, Mr. Duffy worked for WMX Environmental Technologies, Inc., as Senior Quality
    Coordinator in the environmental monitoring division. Before that, he worked at Commonwealth
    Edison Co. as a chemist in the areas of environmental, industrial hygiene and nuclear chemistry.”

    So I guess now we know what he did right after he got his JD, no mention of an MBA before that though.

    Gee, if I had an MBA…oh nevermind, I do have one, I do list it on my resume, and my employer does love that I have one and I make more money because of it. Hypothetically speaking if I were Duffy and I hold an MBA, then I’d be listing it on my resume…everywhere, from between 1987 and now but it’s nowhere to be found. Only on a few obscure sites that no one visits. However, if I didn’t have an MBA or any other degree that I claim to have, then I probably wouldn’t list it anywhere that I could get caught lying about it. Paul, if you’ve actually got an MBA but are you’re ashamed of your GPA, that’s OK. Feel free to lie. You’ve been lying to us for years, why stop now?

    He’s also a member of the State Bar Association of California which begs the question, what the fuck is Gibbs doing?

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/224159

    • Anonymous says:

      http://massbbo.org/bbolookup.php

      According to this his bar status in Massachusetts is currently inactive. If you type in the names of other attorneys known to be active in MA, this site affirmatively shows their active status, so I believe the site provides accurate and up-to-date info.

      • Anonymous says:

        I WAS gonna give him a pass on the MA Bar claim, but it’s listed on his latest profile posted on wefightpiracy.com.
        Under “Admissions and Registrations” he lists:
        “Commonwealth of Massachusetts
        U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts”
        Wow, that’s funny since the MA Bar Association says otherwise
        “Paul A. Duffy
        Chicago IL 60602
        Admitted to the bar on 01/20/93
        Current status is Inactive ”
        Well, he may have been admitted in MA, but he sure as hell can’t practice there.

        Paul Duffy is apparently the Founding Attorney of Prenda Law, practicing IP law for 20+ yrs::
        “For more than 20 years, Mr. Duffy has been fighting to protect his client’s intellectual property rights…ad nauseum”
        He’s been practicing IP law for 20+ years? Unless you count suing for e. coli outbreaks as “IP law” then nope, lie. Founding attorney? John Steele is the founding troll, Steele|Hansmeier morphed into Prenda, Steele cut bait, it’s well-documented.

        Education:
        “Mr. Duffy received his law degree (J.D.) from the DePaul University College of Law, and his Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Chemistry with a minor in Physics and Mathematics from Elmhurst College.”
        Notice no MBA. This self-aggrandizing son of a bitch wouldn’t miss a chance to promote himself to idiot pornographers.

        He lists community service work…no record of association with any of those organizations.

        What really piques my curiosity is his progression from being essentially an environmentalist as both a chemist and attorney, then all of the sudden he starts filing frivolous copyright trolling lawsuits. What’s the motivation? My first and only guess, MONEY. It’s not like experienced environmental lawyers are underpaid either. Especially someone like Duffy who has a background in chemistry. Likely because of his wife who appears to be high maintenance and their lifestyle….half million dollar condos in Lincoln Park.

        • SJD says:

          Very interesting observations. If you could put it together as a short article, we could post it, I would add a snapshot of wefightpiracy.com with arrows pointing to lies. No pressure. People googling for “Paul Duffy” should find more relevant and truthful information: isn’t it Google’s goal :) The bastard is lucky to have a common name and too many unrelated people pop up on the top. We must change that :)

        • Anonymous says:

          I’ll definitely get on it later. Just covering the lies on wefightpiracy.com or all of the Duffy family’s real estate transactions and the other crap I’ve dug up? I had a bit of a rough night :P Now headed to go do some fishing since the damn War (won’t say which one heh) reenactors are finally done blowing shit up by the lake. Let’s make it our goal to make this site #2 (can’t make it #1 with wefightpiracy.com up there) when people Google “Paul A. Duffy” :)

        • Anonymous says:

          If he thinks he was doxed before, he has no idea how much (more) information someone is capable of gathering given the proper level of motivation, yet is unwilling to disclose because of morals and some semblance of respect for his family (but none for him). That’s the distinction between us and them. We don’t screw with families unless they’re complicit and even then I’d still have issues with it while they don’t think twice about fucking with anyone and everyone who gets in their way of a few bucks, couldn’t care less about the person’s reputation or their family.

          That being said, posting property transactions would expose his wife, which I will not do. Families, off limits. That being said, I hardly believe she can plead ignorance but if she is ignorant as to what’s going on then she’s either an idiot, which she doesn’t appear to be, or so wrapped up in her little world that she’s clueless. Either way, she and the rest of his family will eventually find out the truth, but that’s not my concern nor should it be. He obviously doesn’t care if they do.

        • jess k says:

          Is John Steele married???

        • Anonymous says:

          I don’t wanna know why you asked twice but yes, he is. He got married last year as far as I know. Who says office romances don’t last? Mazel tov, Erin go Bragh, and whatever the hell else, asshole!

          If you look around, you’ll be able to find pictures from his wedding.
          He’s shitfaced such as here:

          http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/05/25/who-and-where-is-prenda-law-what-happened-to-john-steele/

          His wife’s name is not listed on here, nor will we ever utter it (even though she is complicit) but we all know who she is. John Steele, In my opinion, is a full-on sociopathic narcissist and it is beyond me how he can maintain a healthy relationship with anyone let alone an intimate one. Maybe she just married him for his money? That shit happens.

        • SJD says:

          As a matter of fact, her name is mentioned in the post you’ve linked to. As you all know I strongly discourage targeting troll families (discussing them is OK to some extent, but harassing or encouraging harassment — not). Steele’s wife Kerry is a slightly different case since her name surfaces in the troll machinations (again, re-read the article).

        • Anonymous says:

          OK SJD I’m gonna get on the “Prenda Lies” write-up tomorrow. I have CPE bullshit all day because I’ve been lazy all year and need, well, a lot of hours to make up for what I’ve missed but can do most of it from my laptop seeing as how I get 2 hours of CPE for watching some asinine webinar put on by a former partner at my former firm who is also the former head of my current firm…oh how lucky am I.

        • The Tod says:

          Yes leave Mrs. Eckenrode alone. oke993

  44. Anonymous says:

    Subscribe

  45. Johnny Doe says:

    Anyone else get a call from Prenda? I was hearing from them 2 to 4 times a week, and the calls abruptly stopped at the end of July. If you heard from them, what did the message say?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yea they were harassing me twice or three times per week until the same time period, then it just stopped one week and hasn’t started back since. I don’t know what they’re up to. Maybe diverting resources? They can’t afford to be calling every single person they’ve sued, even if they’ve been dismissed like me. The phone bill for that three times a week for months on end must be enormous…unless they’re using VOIP, not Vonage though since Vonage doesn’t allow autodialers. Methinks that Nolani Marketing (the company that the number reverses to) is unaffiliated with Prenda and that 1-800-380-0840 and the number is a call center because I’ve Nolani Marketing is owned by Synergeo One, who operates call centers, tech support, business consulting…fuck, they offer EVERYTHING. They also own a company that designs software. I’d bet money that they designed wefightpiracy.com and they operate Prenda’s call center, probably their computer network too…and I wouldn’t be surprised if their autodialer was operated by them as well.

      I found this, same number dunno how old:

      http://www.123outsource.net/company_details.php?uId=2787

      Click on the little dot over Florida and you’ll see the same number:

      http://synergeoone.com/global-address.html

      Those dickheads can’t even build a website in house, operate a call center, or even host their own website so how the hell are we supposed to believe that they can use “flawless” software and that they spent $250k on anything, much less software. What the hell happens with all of this settlement money?

      Got a good laugh out of this one. The rating is funny and so is the pie chart further down.

      http://optimizer.builtwith.com/seo/wefightpiracy.com

      And this one…wefightpiracy.com is hosted by GoDaddy.com hahaha

      http://www.whoishostingthis.com/wefightpiracy.com

      Domain registration was proxied…pussies.
      “Domain name: wefightpiracy.com
      Registrant Contact:
      Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
      Whois Agent ()”

  46. Doe, John says:

    EFF has filed a “Notice of Submitted Matter” in 1:11-cv-01741 (Hard Drive vs Does 1-1495)

    This document reminds the court and interested parties of EFFs motion challenging the decision to disallow anonymous motions from Does, and:

    “More broadly, EFF moved for reconsideration of the grant of early discovery in this case due to serious constitutional and procedural problems.”

    EFF notes that no decision has been made on its motions and they “remain ripe for decision”.

    Document #51 on the docket here (thanks to whoever uploaded it):

    http://ia700708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.docket.html

  47. Anonymous says:

    Appearently Luts has got his lowlife job back with Puppy duffy. He called again with a diffrient FL phone number. left a message that their client wanted him to reach out to me before filing a lawsuit with my name. SOB.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      Yeah, I got a call, too. It is really unbelievable the way these guys operate.

    • Anonymous says:

      I didn’t get a call today but I’m expecting one tomorrow and I haven’t been in a great mood lately heh. “Reach out” and by that he means “Pay us” without saying it, therefore no attempted extortion. A great rule of thumb is if someone threatens you over 100 times, they won’t do it. If I’m gonna kick someone’s ass (in self defense or in my younger days for the hell of it) I don’t provide warning. “Oh, you took a swing at me…I’m gonna dislocate your kneecap now.” Pfft…you don’t telegraph your punches unless you’re either stupid or inexperienced (in Prenda’s case, both). Same applies here.

      I know to not answer the phone if he or any other Prenda idiot calls because I’d fly into a rage and then there would be a legitimate criminal case…against me. That or I’d tell him to put his money where he thinks his balls are (supposed to be) and I’d end up named in a frivolous lawsuit that I’d have to defend against and be forced to incur tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses related to the counter-action I’d file just to bury them.

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