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:

    filed my MTQ, today

  2. Anonymous says:

    I just noticed on the docket:http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.docket.html

    That David Tamoroff submitted Doc #19 Motion to Quash and Doc #22 Notice re Motion to Quash #19. Are these regarding the original Motion to Dismiss/protective order or is this new and what does this mean?

    • Anonymous says:

      My MTQ was received on 5/17th but its not on the site yet…how long does it take? Shd I send it one more time?

    • Anonymous says:

      It is a complain from David on MOQ #19 that it was copied from his MOQ and he notifying court that MOQ #19 wasn’t filed by him and Robert Roe in this MOQ is not his client.

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually whoever copied this MOQ didn’t even changed David’s name and he copied his name and filed on his name. what a clown.

        • That’s crazy. I don’t think that either David or any other defense attorney would mind if a pro se defendant copied a part of his arguments: it’s understandable since a non-lawyer never dealt with court documents, but be up front with that and don’t create problems for attorneys who defend Does, and other Does themselves.

  3. Joe says:

    So, I’m getting a MTQ ready, but then I came across this (http://ia700708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.6.0.pdf), where the court tossed a bunch of MTQ’s because they were submitted anonymously. This is disconcerting, as everyone says not to put your real name in the MTQ’s (lest the trolls get a hold of it, which defeats the purpose of the MTQ). The paper does go on to say that pro se filers can have their MTQ’s (or at least their identities) kept under seal.

    Some sites I’ve read say that MTQ’s filed pro se hardly ever work. My suspicion is that this isn’t because judges just don’t have any sympathy for the defendants, but that the pro se filers are just copying and pasting other MTQ’s and leaving in a bunch of stuff that doesn’t even apply to their case or making mistakes like filing anonymously in districts where the local rules forbid it. So, in order to give my MTQ a fighting chance…

    Questions abound…
    1 – Those are the local rules for D.C. I’ve looked in the local rules for Eastern California and haven’t seen anything requiring the identity of pro se filers like I saw in D.C.’s. Does anybody know if *any* anonymous pro se MTQ’s have worked in Eastern CA?
    2 – What happens if you put down a fictitious name/address? Do they bother to check it? They wouldn’t know which DOE you were, anyway, so they couldn’t come after you for perjury or something like that, right?

    • J. Doe IV says:

      Just filed a MTQ last week and did some of the same reading. I know at lease one of the thrown out MTQ’s was because in their quest to remain anonymous, they didn’t provide any way for the court to identify them – not even an ISP number. With hundreds of Joe Doe defendants, the court had no way of knowing which one was sending the MTQ.

      Whatever address you provide will go on record and the court will then send all documents related to the case to that address. If there is no address or if the mail is returned, the court cannot provide you with service of notices. They don’t like that. Sometimes, you can pay a registered Agent to receive notices for you but I’m not sure if they would be compelled to release your true name if subpoenaed.

      • Joe says:

        Oh, and here’s another question (not finding a clear answer on this one). Do I file the MTQ with the district where the overall suit is filed or with the district where the subpoena to my ISP was issued from?

        • Joe says:

          Found the answer to my question: MTQ’s are filed to the district issuing the subpoena and *not* with the district wherein the original complaint was filed.

  4. John says:

    Does anyone know what has happened with Hard Drive Productions Inc. v. Does 1-1,495? I haven’t heard anything about this in quite a while.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been reading the sunlust MTQ’s, there good motions. I hope the judge see’s what the true nature of these requests are. A fishing expedition to extort people.

    • Anonymous says:

      My Motion was delivered on last thursday, yet it doesnt show up on the site yet…Shd i send one more copy? Also I see there is lot of MTQ’s on the site but they dont have a link to see the document itself…I wonder if mine if one of them…

      • Anonymous says:

        You could call the office of the clerk of the court to see if it was received. If confidentiality is a concern, call from a number not linked to you.
        If not already done, check that your ISP legal department has received notification, so they’ll withhold release at least until a ruling.

        • Anonymous says:

          I have confirmed with ISP that they have received a copy of my MTQ. I will try to call the clerk of the county and confirm…Thanks!

  6. Joe says:

    Before I call the clerk and get put on hold for an hour, I figured I’d ask here: What’s the filing fee for a MTQ in Northern Illinois (and Eastern Calif, if you know that one, too)?

    • Anonymous says:

      I just called the clerk and they were not able to find my motion…My deadline is May22nd which is today…What do I do now? My ISP received it but the clerk didnot..I send it thru priority mail and the tracking number says it was delivered on May 17th….pls help ASAP.

      • Raul says:

        Did the clerk indicate that your motion might be sitting in a pile waiting to be sorted and stamped?

        • Anonymous says:

          The lady on the phone checked all MTQ’s received on 17th and 18th and she couldnt find mine…She said I can fax mine but the number of pages shd not be more than 10…

        • Anonymous says:

          I would concentrate on making sure that your ISP got a copy and not worry so much about the court. As long as your ISP has received a copy of your MTQ then you should be fine. They should not release your information until the motion has been ruled on even if the paper work is still being shuffled in the clerks office.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Can someone help me resolve this mystery. Pimp Timothy V. Anderson is not licensed to practice in CO. None of his whores from Sunlust do business is in CO. Majority of defendants are not from CO. Then why the fuck is this case filed in CO?

    I will pay $2900 for the service if the pimp Tim Anderson let me fuck one of his whore in Colorado :)

  8. crushthetrolls says:

    Today I got another call from Mark Lutz, saying that they are going ahead and filing against people individually so we should expect some time sensitive paperwork blah, blah blah. Anyway, if they were to be filing individually, wouldn’t they have to first dismiss us from the original case, the John Doe case? He also said that if we wanted to see what the filing paperwork would look like, to go to their website and they have copies of it there. I’m not going to do that since I’m not sure how to do it anonymously. I wonder if anyone else has seen it.

    • Anonymous says:

      He’s full of shit. Just like “we’ve got more attorneys,” no you don’t Mark. I’ve received the same call more times than I can count over the past 5 months and I was part of a case that was dismissed. “Uhhh uhuhuh our client extended a generous settlement offer but that offer has since expired so it doesn’t look like you wanna settle and that’s fine we’ll just…individually…federal lawsuit…more lawyers…time sensitive paperwork…etc etc.” I haven’t been served with papers. Don’t go to their website w/o using a proxy because they no doubt log IPs. The “paperwork” contained on their website is nothing more than a collection of complaints.

      • crushthetrolls says:

        Thanks. I kind of figured it was BS but after hearing they were filing individually and then getting that call, it kind of freaked me out.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yea Steele & Company, err, Prenda (Steele ALLEGEDLY retired…bullshit) have been claiming that they’re gonna be filing individual lawsuits for months, yet nothing has shown up. Lutz is simply reading from a script (I got a call from another guy from Prenda, almost the exact same thing). The only way that you’ll get slapped with an individual lawsuit is if you pick up the phone and argue with them or tell them something like “I didn’t do it but I know who did.” Then they’ll file a complaint right away. So it’s best to just screen your calls and let the suspicious ones go to voicemail. I’m just happy they don’t have my cell number or, in some cases, my work number.

          My case is odd in that it was dismissed in January, yet they’re still calling me trying to get me to settle. This amounts to (in my opinion) extortion and attempted wire fraud. The only reason I haven’t filed a counterclaim is because I do not want attention drawn to myself because, unlike Steele, Duffy, Perea, Lutz, et. al., I have a reputation.

        • Anonymous says:

          oh it is good to hear that others have gotten this phone call. my husband and I just received it yesterday. we have been going through this for about 6 months now and are wondering when they will just give up. we screen all there phone calls and our lawyer says to just keep doing that! this phone call did freak me out about because he said they were going to to after us individually! thanks for the insight!!!

        • this phone call did freak me out about because he said they were going to to after us individually!

          As if every extortion victim does not hear this threat! And there are tens of thousands of defendants.

          Sure we witness tens of thousands individual cases being tried all over the country. More than 100,000 people all over the country were called to jury duty. John Steele bought himself an ultrasonic jet fighter to quickly fly from court to court in order to deliver passionate speeches and teach defense lawyers some lessons in the IP law.

  9. DieTrollDie says:

    Does anyone have a copy of the Mark Lutz Remix.MP3? The link I had to it is dead. I will add it to my public dropbox and provide the link.

    Thanks

    DTD :)

  10. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone else begun receiving phone calls from a Mark Lutz clone with an extremely thick southern accent? I got one yesterday about 15 minutes after Lutz called me from this guy. His accent is so thick that I can’t tell what his name is.

    • Anonymous says:

      Is this for the sunlust case vs John Doe? They started calling already?

      • Anonymous says:

        No, for my case which was dismissed like 5 months ago. I’ve never heard this guy before. “Hi (my name here) this is (unintelligible) from (unintelligible) law firm…callin about (insert my case here)….” This guy’s accent is so thick I cannot understand half of the crap that he said but it was basically the same script that Lutz goes by e.g. “…you don’t wanna settle…individual lawsuit…we have more lawyers on staff…etc etc.”

      • Anonymous says:

        I’d be happy to post a recording of the call if I can get some free time to edit my name and the case out of the call…I think he said his name is Jay Watts or some shit I have no idea but he says practically the same thing as Lutz.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Received the same call, but the guy’s name might have been JayWalfer. And yes he was reading from the exact same script as Lutz has been reciting.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well now I feel better about not being able to understand him. Since being dismissed I’ve received calls from Lutz (about 30 of them so far), this new clueless idiot, and Joe Perea (stammering the whole time while leaving a voicemail).

      • Ron Mexico says:

        holy crap, sue this guy for harassment already!

        • Anonymous says:

          I never told him to fuck off (cease and desist) because I know if I do pick up the phone I’m gonna spew obscenities at him and that is exactly what he wants. Also, by sending a cease and desist letter (which they would have to abide by no matter what), I would paint a target on my back. No, better to just let Mark Lutz spew his crap every Wednesday for the next I don’t know how many months.

  12. Anonymous says:

    how much are they asking to settle for?

    • Raul says:

      Its always in the $3,400-$4,000 range but asking a question like that is like asking how will you spend your Lotto millions (?), not going to happen.

  13. Joe says:

    So, I have a question. In order to fake some defendants out, Prenda is now getting the subpoenas issued from a different district than the original complaint. So, if the complaint is in Florida, and the subpoena is issued in Illinois, and you send your MTQ to Florida, it doesn’t count.

    So, here’s the question: If you file a MTQ *and* a MTS (sever) to the district which issued the subpoena (which you need to do for the MTQ), does the MTS get considered at all, or does the MTS have to go to the district of the original complaint?

  14. Anonymous says:

    It appears there several responses from Timothy V. Anderson, you may want to take a look. Do you think he has a leg to stand on?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Someone I know is getting sued for Blumpkin Blowjobs filed last year in Florida. The Doe lives in Illinois. Coincidence? Should he settle?

    • Someone you know should dedicate some time and read posts, pages (start with FAQ) and comments. After someone you know educates himself, he will understand that settling is like buying a million dollar insurance for an old car, in terms of probability that someone you know is actually being sued.

  16. anonymous says:

    Getting nervous now, lol. After Prenda’s generous offer by their clients to settle by x date (“So if you wanted to avoid the expense and time in a case like this”) I have been contacted several more times with extra generous offers even though the deadline passed.

    It reminds me of that Kids in the Hall episode where the guy is a professional at losing bar fights.

    • Anonymous says:

      I hope you’re being sarcastic because Mark Lutz is a lying sack of shit. Before my suit was dropped they kept extending the deadline over and over. Then they dismissed it, still kept trying to get me to settle. When he calls, Lutz always says “the copyright infringement case you ARE involved in….” I’m not involved in one. I was but then one of your masters dropped the suit because the judge said serve or dismiss. They’ll keep contacting you even after your case is dismissed (with or without prejudice…I think it’s established that Prenda has no ethics) trying to get you to settle or “be named in an individual lawsuit” (they’ve been threatening me for 5 months…still waiting Paul.

  17. anonymous says:

    Where is the “Master Troll” aka Trollstradamus?
    Quatrian 12-12-12

    A a great charlatan shall rise.
    His unethical business model shall fail
    and give rise to an even more unethical plan.
    Stomachs and courts shall sour at the flailing throws
    of a man only qualified to greet at Walmart. (if he can pass background check)

  18. Anonymous says:

    Now Mark Lutz has been replaced by a computer. I just got an auto dial from Prenda with a female voice telling me I got a letter last week (I didn’t) and that I NEED to respond (to what?).

    • crushthetrolls says:

      I got this phone call today also. What worries me is the people who don’t know any better and call them back. I wish there was something we could do about this.

    • Anonymous says:

      same here last week! then Lutz called this week. the calls are starting to come more frequent but we haven’t gotten a letter since April(the beginning of the month! I just want it to go away already!

  19. anonymous WITH prejudice says:

    time for a class-action Doe suit against Steele for this nonsense !

  20. Raul says:

    This is predictable if you do enough trolling in Florida but Troll Perea has crossed paths with some very pissed off senior citizens (LMAO). This will make your day, trust me http://ia600802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.16.0.pdf

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks Raul. Another 70 year old grandma targeted by Prenda Law. Way to go guys!!!! I wonder how fast they will drop this one. LMAO!

      DTD :)

      • Anonymous says:

        They’ve already fucked their public image and I doubt they even care anymore. I got two robo calls today about settling a lawsuit that was dropped back in January. They haven’t quite perfected their automated phone extortion because one of the voicemails says “This call is in reference to….This is Prenda Law calling in reference to…(repeating).”

        They have zero scruples and wouldn’t hesitate to sue senior citizens (done that), blind people (done that), deaf people (probably done that), and dead people (done that). Steele is so fuckin arrogant that he doesn’t realize the storm of shit that’s gonna fly his way if he pursues these suits. I’m just waiting for the shoe to drop.

    • Anonymous2 says:

      I wonder if Perea/Prenda will dismiss this Doe without prejudice. Other states may have laws like Florida 2001 SB 540 775.0844 that specifically protect the elderly or disabled from scams like this.

      • Raul says:

        I so love this situation, 65 senior citizens in a retirement/assisted living community with not much to do and one of their own gets threatened by a troll. So what happens? The community goes militant against Prenda. Most senior citizens I know who still have their marbles are persistent if nothing else so this may very well have some interesting consequences (I hope).

  21. Raul says:

    Just when you think Prenda can’t get any sleazier. Doe defender, Dan Simon, moves to dismiss complaint because Prenda is engaging in impermissible claim-splitting (filing 2 lawsuits against a Doe over the same timeless classic, “Fuckabilly”) http://ia600806.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864.6.0.pdf

  22. anon says:

    Received a phone call today on my answering machine with no message & complete silence. I immediately *69 the phone call to get the number & got (415)-803-3029. A reverse phone# look-up revealed that the number was a mobile# in the San Francisco, CA area , but wouldn’t reveal the persons name unless I paid $10 & subscribed to their look-up service. Prenda Law has an office in California where troll Brett Langdon Gibbs extorts from with Mill Valley only 10 miles outside of San Francisco:
    Prenda Law Inc.
    38 Miller Avenue
    Suite 263
    Mill Valley, CA 94941
    Phone: work(305) 748-2102

    Also a look-up of Brett Langdon Gibbs revealed a home address & phone number that had the same (415) area code as my suspicios call:
    Brett L Gibbs
    28 Altamont Ave
    Mill Valley, CA 94941-1318
    (415) 381-3104

    I’m a DOE in the Illinois Case from the East Coast who’s ISP turned over my info on May 24th. I don’t know anyone in the San Fran Area to be getting a phone call from-let alone from someone’s mobile phone.
    Does anyone recognize that mobile phone#: (415)-803-3029 & if it’s associated to the trolls?? Or does anyone know how they can find out the name associated with that number free of charge??

    It may turn out to be a nothing phone-call, but since my info was released last week it’s just too much of a coincidence. Hope someone can help to find out if this number is troll-related so it will be posted here for everyone’s benifit!!

  23. Donald Duck says:

    Anyone else notice that since Wong/Abrahams fought back, Hard Drive Productions suits have dropped off, perhaps stopped?

    There were a few started in the days immediately following the suits, so close that they might not have even been served yet. Since then, nothing. Haven’t seen any big new one lately. Maybe they got cold feet.

    Unfortunately, there is still a lot of pending cases out there involving HDP.

    • Donald Duck says:

      Details:
      Wong sued on 1/30.
      HDP filed three single John Doe cases on 2/15 (One may have been against Abrahams)
      Abrahams sues on 2/28
      HDP files a 1 – 54 in ND ILL on 3/2 (most likely not served yet on Abrahams)
      HDP files a 1 – 59 in SD TX on 3/6

      Nothing since then.

  24. Joe says:

    So, I had a thought… I wonder how many motions to quash and sever are due to people just copying another MTQ or MTS that they found and sending it in without changing it in to reflect the right district, case number, etc. Furthermore, suppose someone is a Doe defender in a case brought by Prenda on behalf of Hard Drive, then you don’t want your MTQ to mention things like “in a recent case from this same plaintiff (CP Productions vs. Does 1-300)…”.

    What I was thinking is that someone needs to make a web application which has a small database of various trolls and the plaintiffs who employ them, and of the recent cases wherein a judge has smacked them down. Then, a Doe defendant could go to the webapp, fill in their case number, district, home state, select a plaintiff and a troll from a drop-down box, and the webapp could auto-generate a document which was pre-filled with all of the right numbers for things like “This law firm has filed cases against XXX Does across the country and YYY Does in this state alone”, along with pasting in the best case references for that particular plaintiff and troll, and possibly court district.

    Even better, the database could be kept current with the latest cases, as it appears that courts are, increasingly, catching on to the trolls’ extortion techniques.

    Also, the webapp could ask questions like “Does the defendant listed in the complaint say ‘Doe’ or ‘Does (1-something)’. It appears that the trolls’ new tactic, as the motions to sever are being successful, is to only list *one* defendant, but to list a bunch of “co-conspirators” with the aim of including them in the discovery subpoenas. In those cases, I imagine that a motion to sever would be denied, as there’s nothing to sever (there’s only one defendant!). So, to effectively block those subpoenas, it would seem a different tactic would be needed (possibly using the “being in the same bittorrent swarm doesn’t mean they conspired” decisions by courts in motions to *quash* instead of motions to *sever*).

    Has anybody discussed the idea of putting together a webapp like this?

    • anonymous says:

      Someone did create a spreadsheet when these suits began, it was pretty comprehensive, and hosted on google docs. Unfortunately, they stopped updating it and removed it.

      • doecumb says:

        I agree in principle that a full listing with reference events and citations would be nice. Just compiling the basic names and statistics would be a start. I’ve assembled bits here and there into small spreadsheets.

        Here’s the link to an early spreadsheet compiled by EFF.

        http://www.eff.org/files/spreadsheet-dismissed-110224.xls

        Remember-early on there were only a few cases involving hundreds and thousands of Does. Now there are hundreds of lawsuits usually involving one to many dozen Does. There’s much more to track. New cases are being filed at a rate of around 2 per day, and may trend upward.

        • doecumb says:

          For simple stuff, cases by plaintiff or jurisdiction, it’s pretty quick to search RFC Express, by plaintiff or jurisdiction. Each plaintiff has one or two lawyers in a state. Each lawyer has plaintiffs they represent. The lawyers in turn belong to groups having copyright assignments. Look for cases involve Does or “swarms” in the title.

          For trends and decisions, the discussions by state and by troll lawyer group are a start. It takes a little work to page through them, but information is assembled. For important and recurring topics, SJD & DTD do separate posts with discussion. There’s been talk of a wiki. All this is not ideal, but much more than was available a year ago. It is mainly thanks to a few, including SJD, DTD & others.

  25. Raul says:

    It’s true Troll Perea is representing porn producers on his “own” and Prenda is no longer officially in the picture. The question is why? http://ia601204.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396031/gov.uscourts.flsd.396031.18.0.pdf

    • Rats leave the sinking ship?

      • Raul says:

        You are probably right, first O’Malley and now Perea. Something must be going on behind the scenes.

        • But… O’Malley was never officially associated with Prenda in the first place to the best of my knowledge… Though neither they tried too hard to hide the fact that Steele and his gang are the real force behind this racket. In addition, O’Malley has departed from the case long time ago according to the papers…

          BTW Perea is closely watched by the Florida Bar Association: I don’t know the details, but I’m sure we will hear some interesting news soon.

    • Anonymous says:

      I would not assume the cords are severed. buffy MUST hide in the shadows (and he surely must know this), considering his name (and now Prenda’s too) is ever more toxic – both among the courts and the clients. Kinda like the turd in the punch bowl.

      Hey buffy, your so brilliant and capable! So this must really eat at you… Your little trolls get all the action while you must hide in the shadows, trying to pull their strings, watching their foolish amateur moves despite your superior intellect and skill. You’d think a master mind like you’res would attract only the finest to be your servants to build you’re empire. Face the music, soon you’ll just be a wrinkled flaccid memory. Back to your dark wet smelly hole now, little weiner.

  26. Anonymous says:

    One of Prenda’s / Gibbs’s to watch … 11-cv-03826 (CAND) – filed 8-3-11 as Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-130, later reduced to v. Doe 1 on 11-16-11. Doc 28 filed 2012-05-16 (Summons Issued) – it should hit RECAP soon. Defendant’s 21 day clock is ticking. Hope we see a Wong/Yuen approach taken on this one. The addresses listed for the Defendant on the summons is in CASD, not CAND. Just one of the many flaws in the Plaintiff’s ‘case’…

  27. Raul says:

    If this Troll Gibbs disaster has previously been cataloged in the ocean of Gibbs’ disasters, I apologize.

    In First Time Videos v. John Doe (plus over 100 co-conspirators) (case no. 12-cv-621) CAED Judge Brennan grants expedited discovery as to John Doe but denies it as to the alleged co-conspirators implying that Gibbs is full of shit and that the CAND have been smashing these lawsuits for awhile. http://ia700801.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.caed.236124/gov.uscourts.caed.236124.8.0.pdf

    • Joe says:

      What’s interesting about this (to me, anyway) is that the judge denied discovery for the non-plaintiff co-conspirators. In the past, the complaint would list a bunch of Does, and then there’d be a reply of a bunch of motions to sever since there’s a question of jurisdiction, as there’s a good likelihood that a defendant was out-of-state. So, the trolls are starting to list only *one* Doe, but still asking for the identities of a bunch of IP’s… listing them as co-conspirators. So, in this case, it seems that the Judge isn’t convinced by *that* tactic, either.

  28. anonymous says:

    I wonder where Buffy is?

  29. […] Collins at al v Does 1-915 (11-37821-CA-22)Lightspeed password hacking casesJohn Steele and Prenda LawCopyright Enforcement GroupDunlap, Grubb & WeaverCanada: a new frontierLiberty […]

  30. Donald Duck says:

    Gibbs got smacked again today:

    http://ia600706.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.cand.243765/gov.uscourts.cand.243765.21.0.pdf

    Apologies if already posted.

    This was the case where Gibbs submitted the “death threat” email to the court, to show how evil the defendants were.

    The judge had denied early discovery, Gibbs filed a motion to reconsider, and today the judge had to take Gibbs to the woodshed.

  31. sparky says:

    Lutz told me he was an attorney and had subpoenas issued. I asked him for copies of the subpoena. He said he wasnt doing my homework. I asked him what the style of the case was and he was clueless as to what that meant. He told in a subsequent call that he was not an attorney but a licensed paralegal in Illinois. I called the phone company and asked them if they had received a subpoena and they said no.

    • On2ndThought says:

      A paralegal can not legally claim to be an attorney. If what you say is true then you should contact the Illinois Paralegal licensing board and file a complaint. Paralegals have been taken to court and have had their licenses revoked for falsely claiming to be an attorney

  32. Mememan says:

    Totally random idea but sending Prenda a ton of “U Mad Bro?” meme print outs in place of checks would be pretty funny: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ut8yp/whats_the_best_place_to_try_and_start_a_mass_meme/

    • I’m all for giving people a taste of their own medicine (wasting others’ time and feelings), yet it needs to be with a style.

      Reddit… I have mixed feelings about them. IMO it has a heightened level of arrogance. On average — it would be silly to judge every person based on the crowd trends. Yet it is an influential site, so I often have to employ all my humbleness reserves and patiently debunk misconceptions. Sometimes very good people converge on a certain topic, but sometimes it’s a total disappointment. How to attract a proper crowd? Good question.

  33. Raul says:

    In the CAED in the lawsuit CP Productions v. Unknown (12-cv-616) Nick Ranallo is taking on Troll Gibbs. I predict this will not end well for Gibbs http://ia600804.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.caed.236089/gov.uscourts.caed.236089.docket.html

  34. Raul says:

    Prenda’s website maintains a section entitled “Recent Sampling of Cases filed”. So I thought it would be educational to check in with the sampling to see how Prenda is faring with each of the touted lawsuits.

    1. The first two are recently filed AZ Lightspeed Media Corp., state lawsuits in which issue has yet to be joined. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearchResults.asp?lastName=&FirstName=&bName=lightspeed These suits are junk IMHO and I believe future developments will prove me out. New Prenda Troll Goodhue appears to be a property manager/restauranteur not a true litigator.http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2011/10/chef_robert_mcgrath_leaves_ren.php

    2. The third one is AF Holdings v. Doe (CAND 12-cv-2048) and it is pending before Judge Howard R. Lloyd and Doe is being represented by Master Doe Defender Nick Ranallo. No matter how you do the math, Troll Gibbs’ lawsuit is dead in the water with a motion to dismiss currently pending. http://ia600601.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254108/gov.uscourts.cand.254108.docket.html

    3. The fourth one is AF Holdings v. Doe (CAND 12-cv-2049) and it is also being defended by Nick Ranallo with a motion to dismiss pending. Troll lawsuit is doomed.http://ia700506.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254125/gov.uscourts.cand.254125.docket.html

    4.The fifth one is Boy Racer v. Williamson (CAED 12-cv-3072) in which Judge Newman denied Troll Gibbs’ move to further harass the defendant and told him to move forward or shut up (the Judge suggests that Gibbs is lacking in the gray matter department). Defendant has admitted liability and Gibbs is still scratching his head trying to figure out what to do, incredible! This lawsuit demonstrates the true nature of the hollow threat of a troll lawsuit with the troll not moving forward on what looks like a slam dunk. I expect this case to be dismissed shortly. http://ia700801.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231985/gov.uscourts.caed.231985.docket.html

    5. The sixth one is Pink Lotus Entertainment v. Doe (FLSD not sure which one but will look at 11-cv-24257 as being representative) in which Judge Altonaga tells Troll Perea to serve or get out of town. Of course troll drops lawsuit-YAWN. http://ia701203.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.390849/gov.uscourts.flsd.390849.docket.html

    6.The seventh one is Pink Lotus Entertainment v. Doe (ILND 12-cv-8338) and the Doe has been dodging court ordered depositions. Both Troll Duffy and the Judge have their panties in a bunch.

    http://ia600804.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.262677/gov.uscourts.ilnd.262677.docket.html

    7.The eighth one is Hard Drive Productions v. Doe (ILND 12-cv-8333) with not much happening with it since it was filed in November of 2011. Way to bust your balls hounding a Doe, Troll Duffy!

    http://ia600807.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.262672/gov.uscourts.ilnd.262672.docket.html

    8. The next five are all EDCA lawsuits.with four pending before Judge Newman (12-cv-33080, 3073, 3076 and 3077) and one pending before Judge Delaney (12-cv-3073) and both judges denying Troll Gibbs the ability to harass the Does who are ignoring the ineffective troll. You can expect that these lawsuits will be dropped shortly as they are nonproductive. http://ia700806.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231999/gov.uscourts.caed.231999.docket.html and http://ia700704.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231998/gov.uscourts.caed.231998.docket.html and http://ia600803.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231986/gov.uscourts.caed.231986.docket.html and http://ia700805.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.231992/gov.uscourts.caed.231992.docket.html and http://ia700805.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.caed.232002/gov.uscourts.caed.232002.docket.html

    9. The last one is Hard Drive Productions v. Seth Abrahams (CAND 11-cv-5634) :)

    Impressive record of unqualified successes (for Does) that must make Prenda’s clients cry in shame when looking at their return on investing their trust with this troll firm.

  35. Anonymous says:

    I’m reading the joint case management statement for Abrahams v. HDP. This is laughable, Gibbs is so eloquent.

    Under “Facts:”
    “Hard Drive: In a separate case, Hard Drive brought a John Doe lawsuit alleging infringement. (See Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Doe, 4:11-cv-05634 PJH, hereinafter referred to as “Hard Drive I.”) In that lawsuit, Hard Drive identified Abrahams as the IP account holder whose IP address was used to infringe on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. Nothing more….Ironically, Defendant has never stated that Plaintiff was the infringer of its copyrighted works. Yet, Abrahams still brings this case to proclaim his alleged innocence while also making some outlandish allegations.”

    Right, because you always sue, depose, and make feeble attempts at coercing people to opening their checkbooks in exchange for dropping a potentially embarrassing lawsuit. Oh and the whole “Top 25 Pirates” list doesn’t help that claim along with Mark Lutz harassing him day after day.

    Under “Settlement and ADR:”
    “Hard Drive: Abrahams has in fact served two Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 offers to Defendant. First, such an offer made by a plaintiff shows how unfamiliar Abrahams’ attorney is with the federal rules, and how he is simply wasting everyone’s time and money in this case. Second, and relatedly, those offers to Defendant emphasized attorney’s fees above all else, and, in turn, divulging Abrahams’ attorney’s motives in this case (something that was admitted at his deposition). Clearly, Abrahams’ attorney is trying to run up a large bill on his client through pointless efforts in the hope that, somehow, he will be able to recover such from Defendant. Either way, Abrahams’ attorney’s law firm gets paid, and very likely Abrahams will be footing the entirety of the outrageous bill.”

    Yuen doesn’t understand federal rules…hahahaha. Simply wasting everyone’s time and money, as opposed to Prenda’s lawsuits. “Clearly” Yuen is just trying to run up the bill…”very likely Abrahams will be footing the entirety of the outrageous bill” no, HDP will very likely be doing that.

    Narrowing of Issues:
    “Hard Drive: Defendant was willing to narrow the issues in this case, and cut out the irrelevant and unproductive jargon that seems to dominate the Amended Complaint.”

    Yes because Prenda hates to waste court resources that could be devoted to other things (like filing more frivolous lawsuits).

    • Raul says:

      Prenda and its employee are truly adept at charting the waters of a federal lawsuit after it gets beyond expedited discovery, don’t you think?

  36. JDS says:

    Judge Lloyd bitch-slaps Gibbs again!! Check out the order issued on June 7. Motion for reconsidering earlier order denying early discovery denied :D

    http://ia700706.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.cand.243765/gov.uscourts.cand.243765.docket.html

    “In what must be a misreading of the March 30 Order, plaintiff in effect seems to chastise this court for sympathizing with, and, plaintiff would argue, insulating infringers from plaintiff’s reach. The court had no such purpose or intent. Instead, it expressly sympathized with the plaintiff and other victims of infringement. It said nothing sympathetic about infringers. It was deeply concerned about non-infringers who, based on plaintiff’s prior use of early discovery in other cases, would almost certainly be caught up in plaintiff’s dragnet aimed at achieving an extrajudicial remedy.
    Accordingly, plaintiff having failed to offer valid grounds for filing a motion for reconsideration, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.”

    Keep trying Gibbs, this is so much fun to watch!!!

  37. Raul says:

    Prenda’s Minions Are Getting Sloppier!

    On 10-25-11 Troll Duffy files the lawsuit Openminded Solutions v. Does 1-565 in DCD (11-cv-1883)
    http://ia700601.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838.docket.html One of the listed IP addresses is 96.252.136.69

    Down in FLSD Troll Perea on 3-19-12 files Openminded Solutions v. Doe (plus oodles of co-conspirators) (12-cv-21098) however the John Doe is identified as having the same IP address 96.252.136.69 as is in the DCD case. Accordingly Doe Defender Daniel Simon makes a motion to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that is duplicative of the DCD lawsuit on 4-1 (improper claim splitting). Trying to salvage this lawsuit Perea has Duffy drop this John Doe from the DCD lawsuit which he does on 4-16 “with prejudice” http://ia600601.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838.14.0.pdf Judge Ungaro is not buying into this sleazy game and orders the complaint dismissed with leave to refile but opines that it would have a problem as the Doe had been dismissed “with prejudice” in the DCD lawsuit http://ia700804.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396863/gov.uscourts.flsd.396863.15.0.pdf

    The DCD docket is here http://ia700601.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838.docket.html and the FLSD docket is here http://ia600804.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396863/gov.uscourts.flsd.396863.docket.html

    Perea has a similar problem with FLSD lawsuit Boy Racer v. Doe 1-34 (12-cv-21099) http://ia600806.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864.6.0.pdf

    I wonder if this Prenda problem is widespread and Doe defenders are just starting to take notice?

  38. Jackbenimble says:

    I have believed from the git-go that once your IP has been fingered then it gets bounced around all over the place. Sort of how telemarketers work. In my case, I think this is going to be going on for quite some time. (LSM/Illinois)

  39. Anonymous says:

    I was reading an article on dietrolldie and I got curious. I looked at the copyright info for Sunny Leone – Goddess and I noticed the publication date was 2012-1-23 and the registration date was 2012-2-6.

    http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=sunny+leone&Search_Code=TALL&PID=45Qam45MgznvzDAAetDJteW0-j&SEQ=20120613020531&CNT=25&HIST=1

    Does this mean that it was made available to buy on 2012-1-23, but not copyright until 2012-2-6? And what does this mean for the Does who are involved with Sunlust LLC vs Doe who supposedly illegally downloaded this before 2012-2-6?

    http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.27.0.pdf

    • Anonymous says:

      It seems like the cancer mailed in the registration Friday 2012-2-3 and started harvesting right away and the copyright date was granted that following Monday 2012-2-6.

      http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-what.html#certificate

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Sorry but Copyright law can be a bit confusing. You are correct on the 1st published date (23 Jan 12) and date of registration (6 Feb 12). What does it mean? Because Plaintiff was able to get it registered within 3 months of the 1st publication, they can go after infringers for statutory damages ($150K per instance) and legal fees. Details on this area of Copyright law can be found at – http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html (§ 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement)-see below

      If for example, Plaintiff screwed up and didn’t get a registration until 30 May 12, then the only thing they could go after any infringers prior to registration would be for actual cost of the copyrighted item (movie, pic, etc.) It is not cost effective to go after infringers for only the cost of the movie. Note: The Trolls will still threaten you with statutory damages even when they know they can’t get it – they just want you to settle. Any infringements that happens after registration allows for statutory damages and legal fees to be sought.

      DTD :)

      ———————————————–
      § 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement
      In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408(f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for —

      (1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or

      (2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.

  40. Raul says:

    Prenda’s website “Recent Sampling of Cases filed” section now lists a boatload of so called “serial infringer” lawsuits against single Does in CA, FL and IL. New business model?

    • Well, yes, new FUD injection. Crooks can afford $20,300 in filing fees for these 58 cases, especially given the fact that all complaints are the same, word-to-word. Same con artists: Illinois: Duffy; Florida: Perea; California: Gibbs.

      This may designate the beginning of end for Prenda. When a single person is outed, intensives to fight back are orders of magnitude bigger than for a Doe in a mass suite, where it is reasonable just to sit tight and wait. And we know the fate of the previous single cases: Raul nicely outlined it recently. Sorry, still have no time to convert that comment to a post, but I will, especially given today’s developments.

      Oh, and the title “serial” is misleading again: none of the cases allege multiple infringement, which opens the door to a defamation claim once again, like with “pirates” before. Even without “serial,” calling suspects infringers prior to judgement is plain stupid for a lawyer. Well we know what kind of lawyers our trolls are: third-rate that made their way through law school via cheating. Everyone: please make screenshots ASAP, here is the proxied link.

      • Anonymous says:

        Does their disclaimer at the bottom – “Neither the Defendants, nor anyone listed as an account holder, in any of the above cases have been found liable for any wrongdoing at this time.” – make it OK for them to call people “infringers” in giant bold font? Even if it doesn’t, I’m sure that’s their intent for that statement.

        • Raul says:

          I don’t think that lame caveat gets them off the hook so easily. As alleged lawyers they should be held to a higher standard than that of a layperson.

        • DieTrollDie says:

          It really must be taken in totality of the situation. Initially, I would say their disclaimer is OK “Cover Your Ass” (CYA). If you look at it in combination with what their complaints and various motions have said about the “Does,” that little disclaimer gets beat up pretty bad. It is the same reason why you don’t see John Steele make his stupid comments under true name or from some of his actual IP addresses. Because it can be used against them to destroy their cases – show what they really are doing – shows they constantly lie to the court saying, “You honor, we don’t think the Doe actually did it.” While telling the Doe that you are a dirty pirate and we know you did it – Pay up or else!. The case listing is just one little effort to try and shame people into settling, regardless of it they actually are the infringer.

          DTD :)

        • Anonymous says:

          I’d love for a defamation claim to be made against one of the LLC’s members (hint hint John Steele) personally. It’s obvious these puds cheated their way through law school because I’ve never encountered lawyers with this level of incompetence. Even a sophomore level undergraduate b-law course teaches you to not do what they’re doing.

          On another note, I used a proxy to access their “litigation” section and turn the web page into a PDF which I could post to scribd if anyone would like. I bet they’ll sue me for that too hahaha. I love how it lists “Serial Infringers” then says (paraphrased) that “these people aren’t guilty of anything.” Then again an IP is not a person so how could a computer be a serial infringer? For a bunch of attorneys they sure do love to throw around words indicative of guilt.

      • Raul says:

        I was a little started to see a innocuous title “Popular Demand”, rather than an embarrassing one as is usual. Was wondering if it is a reaction to the increasing number of judges who find that linking Does to an outrageous pornographic tile amounts to a coercive settlement tactic.

  41. Raul says:

    Doe addresses fleeing a sinking ship (I pray for Howell’s redemption)? Forgot whether AF Holdings was a party to the FL pure bill of discovery lawsuits.

    Keep looking for that illegal harvest to surface.

  42. Anonymous says:

    I’m surprised there hasn’t been any postings of receiving letters/phone calls from Prenda et al for settlement of the Sunlust case yet.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sunlust, Sunny Leone Goddess Case:

      Case is in Colorado. I live in one of the other 49 states. I received a packet in the mail asking me to settle a day after i called a particular dude in FL. First of all, does anyone have to worry if they are outside of the state? Secondly, for others, does anyone within that state have to worry? Thirdly, could a lawyer go on the offensive against Prenda and stand to make a good deal of cash?

      It’s sad that people have to deal with extortionist who wrongly accuse. God bless.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        IMO you have less to worry about if you live in another State. Note: Prenda does seem to be sticking to CA, DC, FL, IL, AZ, and CO. It doesn’t mean they can’t find some in-debt local attorney (with questionable moral) somewhere to file in your location. Either way, the history of Prenda is they have not named and served Does. The only reason they are doing this to a small number of Does now, is because they got called out on this fact in a court and had to disclose that “ZERO” was their favorite number since 2010 (Nobody was served a summons!). This way the next time they get called out, they can stated, :”No your honor, we have named and served a few defendants. Still pretty sad – 100 defendants served out of 15K – 0.0066666666666666666666666666666667. I believe the number of Does is actually higher now. A couple law firms in CA have gone after Prenda – a judgment was recently made against Prenda in the Wong case. The Abrahams case will go the same way as Wong. The Hatfiled case is a little different, but Prenda will still run.

        DTD :)

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Can you also send myself and SJD a copy of your settlement paperwork? It will be redacted so no personal information is released out. Thanks in advance.

        DTD :) doerayme2011@hotmail.com

      • Anonymous says:

        Can you tell how much they are asking and what is the final date to settle in your letter.

        • How much they are asking? That’s probably the least important piece of information unless you allow fears to push you to settle. I hope you understand that paying absolutely does not make any sense.

  43. Anonymous says:

    I’ve received 2 phone calls to my home and a extortion letter already. Regrettably I shredded the papers…stupid move, but I was just angry and annoyed. I think the letter came 1 week after the date my IP was to turn over my info, 2012-5-22.

    Both calls received where from Mark Lutz one was a message (deleted, again regrettably) and one was a note left by someone else in the house.

    Im keeping track of everything now.

  44. Anonymous says:

    I find it interesting that the online Google translator translates the Italian word PRENDA to the English word TAKE.

    translate.google.com/#auto|en|prenda

    Coincidence?

    Maybe Avvitare would have been more appropriate.

    • Raul says:

      Prenda=Pricks Rendering Evil Numerous Dickhead Actions.

    • Anonymous says:

      Or they could call themselves Estorsione (Extortion) Law. Idiota (Moron, Idiot) Law, Rubare (Steal) Law, and my personal favorite, Racchetta (Racket) Law.

  45. Doeeyeddeer says:

    This is (maybe) unrelated–article doesn’t say who the law firm is so it could be Steele–but I think this is the first individual porn star lawsuit I’ve seen:

    http://www.xbiz.com/news/149902

    Joanna Angel is suing her fans now apparently.

    • Doeeyeddeer says:

      Oops–guess it does say “Angel’s Belleville, Illinois-based lawyer, Alvin C. Paulson, said he’s not sure all 525 Does are in Missouri, but believes most are.”

      I find the “he’s not sure” part pretty laughable…

      • Paulson is the same scumbag that picked up Lighspeed’s case in St. Clair when O’Malley resigned. Sure this lawfirm of con artist is Prenda-connected.

        • Raul says:

          With this recent expansion I wonder what will happen to quality control (such as it is). Do these guys see the handwriting on the wall and are going full bore for the last few chances to grab some easy money before the judicial system rids itself of this pestilence?

      • Anonymous says:

        Docket:

        http://ia600405.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.moed.120856/gov.uscourts.moed.120856.docket.html

        I can’t help but laugh my ass off at this one:

        “‘If people want to see my gangbang legally, and not risk getting sued — they can either buy that movie or watch the scene on BurningAngel.com. I fucked eight guys at the same time —have some respect, and pay to see it,’ Angel said.”

        “I fucked eight guys at the same time” and “have some respect” should never be used together. “Pay to see it,” ok sure, but never ask for respect.

        And then there’s this lovely gem:

        “Angel’s Belleville, Illinois-based lawyer, Alvin C. Paulson, said he’s not sure all 525 Does are in Missouri, but believes most are.”

        Not sure…believes? I hope that’s good enough for a judge. Oh wait, it’s not, which is why he didn’t allow discovery, then bailed and requested that it be reassigned.

        I picked three RANDOM IPs from the Exhibit and used several geolocation services. One told me that it is located in Illinois, another two of them told me it’s in Indiana. Two more IPs are in/around Boston. Improper venue, anyone?

        • You can take the girl out of the trailer park, but not the other way around.

        • CTVic says:

          Dear god, the people sitting next to me at Starbucky’s think I’m insane for literally laughing out loud.
          That article is so wrong in so many more ways than you’ve just hit on. The respectful gangbang bit is definitely LULZ-worthy, but the third-to-last line is most attention-worthy, and most telling about the attitude of these scumbag lawyers:
          “It’s not different from being charged with theft,” Paulson told the Times. “If you go to court and you have an alibi, then you shouldn’t be prosecuted for the crime.”

          If you have an alibi, then you are NOT PROSECUTED for the crime, and are NOT SUBJECT TO COURT! You do not have to pay thousands of dollars for a defense attorney, and are never in a position to fear a years-long, bankruptcy-inducing Civil Copyright Infringement case!
          This is NOTHING LIKE being charged with theft! For all of their problems, law enforcement is a million times nicer than these mafia-esque extortion-peddlers!

        • Anonymous says:

          Well he weaseled his way out of the improper venue defense because he’s TECHNICALLY only suing one Doe (although expect a mass lawsuit to follow once discovery is granted). This co-conspirator shit is getting ridiculous.

          Paulson is a fucking idiot. Another moron who cheated his way through law school (he went to St. Louis University School of Law where the median LSAT score is 151, 48th percentile).

          “It’s not different from being charged with theft” and the “alibi” comment…if you have an alibi, the cops automatically drop the charges. If you have an “alibi” in one of these cases, they still sue you. They don’t care if someone broke into your house while you’re on vacation and downloaded porn. I can picture a Steele memo now stating “you should have properly secured your home with trap doors” and “someone breaking into your home is not an affirmative defense.” I’d much rather deal with local law enforcement than these crooks since law enforcement actually treats (most) people with courtesy and respect.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, she’s not new at all, look for Boy Racer v. Doe cases, that’s the name of her company. Gibbs’ making a mess of their cases in Northern California was a major part of the tide turning against the Trolls last year. One of the Boy Racer cases was infamous for having all the Does but #1 severed and then Gibbs asked for discovery on every electronic device in the remaining Doe’s home. This was after telling the court in previous documents that the ISP discovery was everything necessary to name a defendant, which seemed to piss off the judge. He got shot down, then tried to appeal, got shot down. I forgot about the case but it looks like it dragged on until May when the judge dismissed it due to Prenda’s lack of litigating it. I’m sure the Does in her new cases are scared now.

      http://archive.recapthelaw.org/cand/240573/

      I’m surprised she’s back for more but I guess it’s not going to cost her anything, at least until she gets her company sued like Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

      • Anonymous says:

        More fun stuff about Boy Racer v. Does 1-52. I realized after posting there are many new readers these days who may not remember the many smackdowns Gibbs took in CAND. You will all enjoy these, that was an exciting time for people watching these cases.

        http://www.ettorneyatlaw.com/boy-racer-v-1-52-plaintiff-admits-court-isp-info-insufficient-proof/

        and:

        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/p2p-lawyer-ip-address-not-enough-let-me-search-all-pcs-in-the-house/

      • Raul says:

        Sorry, was referring to the recent outbreak of Trolls Paulson, Goodhue and Dumas. Trust me I am quite familiar with the debris of Boy Racer lawsuits that litter the judicial landscape.

        Just viewed Joanna Angel’s compilation performance with others in x-biz to persuade their loyal customers that going after Does does not make them assholes. Sympathize but am not persuaded. With the notoriety of customer credit card abuse that goes on in xibiz how is a customer going to trust that his IP address will not be negligently or purposely turned over to a troll?

        • wearewatchingu says:

          Paulson works with Kevin T. Hoerner, the attorney listed on the register of actions list(St Clair civil court records) that replaced Michael OMalley as Lightspeed’s Troll in the Illinois Case. If you remember Hoerner is running for office this November- St. Clair County Precinct Committeeman, Stookey 4 as a Democratic. We’re still waiting for his Republican opponent to be named so we can make him aware that Hoerner is a Troll for the Porn Industry. Paulson & Hoerner Troll Headquarters are:

          Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.
          Attorneys At Law
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, Illinois 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020
          or (618) 271-1600
          Fax: (618) 235-8558

        • Anonymous says:

          Ha you obviously have never been to St. Clair County. I have. There’s no way a Republican would win down there. As long as the candidate’s a Democrat, they’ll win. It doesn’t matter if there’s pictures of the guy with hookers, clubbing baby seals, assaulting elderly people, whatever. But we can at least give his opponent some ammo.

        • CTVic says:

          Dumas? There’s actually a troll with a descriptive last name these days? HAH!

        • Yep, Dumas. Yet if this genius ever decides to write about the musketeers, I bet that despite trying really hard, the result will be a book about gangbangs and blumpkins.

    • Sword of Damocles says:

      Awesome. Think of every bad actor you’ve ever seen in a porn film pulling the trigger on a lawsuit. That’s gonna be one big court building that can hold all that crap in one place. Whoa, Nelly, the trolls are going to regret what they’ve unleashed on the judiciary this time. Good luck with that next extortion plot. After the bad actors (literally) get into it, there won’t be one that’s going anywhere. anytime soon. You have created a Frankenstein, Steele, you fool.

    • Sword of Damocles says:

      If you watch her stuff, you deserve to be sued — for bad taste.

  46. Raul says:

    Oy Vey! His client is a wee bit more honest:

    Angel said the content was uploaded to a torrent site and was downloaded by more than 500 people. “The lawyers are tracking down the IP addresses — but as of now, we have some proof that a few of the people are from Missouri, which is why the case was filed there. We do plan on going after all 500 people, it will just take some time.”

    • Anonymous says:

      Has it ever been outed as to where they troll? Any particular bittorrent sites? Public v. Private bittorrent?

      • Anonymous says:

        there aren’t really “bittorrent sites” persay, there are just tracker search engines/sites (isohunt, piratebay, torrentfreak, etc) and most of the search sites have duplicate tracker info. the torrents are not hosted, just the tracker info.

        the retarded (and more than likely drug curdled) “actress” does not even know how this stuff works other than in might make her more pretty moneis…….

        if the movies were “uploaded to a site and then downloaded by 500 people” then the hosting site would be liable and there would be no case for the willful distribution by the end “infringer.” not to mention they would have to subpoena the ip’s from the content hosting site before they could even get them to use to subpoena the isp’s (and in all likelyhood the hosting site would not have kept 100+ day long records of what ip’s dl’d what content)

        also i would not be surprised if her movies are already uploaded to several different tube sites where people can download without infringing at all (fair use anyone??)

  47. Anyone receiving robocalls from Prenda, please contact me.

    Update: Thanks to everyone, I hope there is enough instances. I would keep expectation low to avoid disappointment, but it’s not improbable that something can be done about it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Interesting timing of this request. I got a random robot call from a woman’s voice about a letter that I didnt receive referring to a case that was dismissed almost 5 months ago. This was random because this was the first communication of any kind from these crooks since dismissal. Did they set robs all to go through every number they have!? More sloppiness from these clowns…

    • Simon Templar says:

      I’ve Received three to four, the latest being earlier today. Their loop message is all screwed up and starts midway through the message then picks up at the end. I stated elsewhere that I believe these calls are illegal as per my state and want to know who in the state I can contact.

    • anoninFL says:

      I got a call from the recorded message today also. I could swear it said it was from Prenda law which I thought was replaced by another attorney. Is Prenda allowed to call me legally if they aren’t representing Sunlust?

    • Anonymous says:

      These robocalls are hilarious. I was recording the one from 7 am (yeah that’s an FDCPA violation) and was trying not to laugh my ass off while I had the mic up to the answering machine.

      These dickheads can’t even figure out how to set up a computer to automate their extortion. First it says “calling in reference to a letter we mailed you last week…” (I never got a letter last week, or the week before, or the week before). Then it loops back and says “This is (my name) with Prenda law….” and then the entire message repeats including the part at the beginning.

    • Many thanks to everyone!

  48. Raul says:

    I am on the iPad so am unable to cut and paste but you can look this up quite easily at rfcexpress.com. Just type “doe”as the pary and press search

    In a move that I am sure will delight the IL federal judiciary as well as Prenda’s minions, Scumbag Troll Nicoletti has started filing lawsuits in IL (as well as oodles in MI). Nicoletti’s history makes the trolls at Prenda fearful that their sleazy reputation is now being challenged.

    • Anonymous says:

      All Malibu Media I see. There are also some in DC filed by Jon Hoppe. One Patrick Collins case in CASD filed by Leemore Kushner. Prenda’s “territory” is being encroached upon.

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