Guava LLC, Arte de Oaxaca, LW Holdings and other Prenda’s bogus corporations

Guava LLC is not registered in any state, it is simply a facade for Lighspeed Media. Arte de Oaxaca is the same. It is shame that courts allow such BS complaints by bogus plaintiffs to be filed.

Guava LLC v. Skylar Case (Cook county IL)

Case No: 12-L-7363
Attorney for Plaintiff: Paul Duffy
Attorney for Defendant: Adam Urbanzcyk
Judge: Sanjay Taylor
Cook County court docket


By Raul

Allow me to preface this overview with a personal disclaimer: I do not like writing about anything of which the facts cannot be verified. So little is presently known about this lawsuit, that much of the following is pure speculation which may prove to be false.

Rotten Guava

The plaintiff in this lawsuit is a mystery; it seems as if the plaintiff’s attorney is being purposely vague in this regard. If you Google “Guava, LLC” you will discover a handful of USA corporations, none of which appear to be this plaintiff. Likewise a Google search reveals no password protected websites. Accordingly I am guessing that Guava, LLC is a an offshore corporation which is the assignee of the rights to certain pornographic works of Prenda Law’s current client base of pornographic content producers/distributors. Plaintiff’s attorney, Paul A. Duffy, is the “founding partner” of Prenda Law, Inc., f/k/a Steele Hansmeier, LLC. If you are not familiar with either law firm please search this blog and as well as the internet to get up to date, I promise it will be an eye opening experience.

Basically this is a computer hacking lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims Skyler Case and unnamed “co-conspirators” hacked into its systems and wrongfully obtained its “valuable information”. I am guessing that Prenda’s clients have pornographic pay sites which are password protected which were allegedly hacked into with compromised passwords. The complaint alleges four causes of action: violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), trespass to chattels, breach of contract and civil conspiracy. Rather than get into the lack of legal merit of these claims you should know that Prenda has previously filed lawsuits on behalf of Lightspeed Media Corp., which have been analyzed at length on this blog. In particular you should read SJD’s post regarding a motion to dismiss filed by Jason Booth, Esq., which exposes the weakness of similar claims in this lawsuit. Laura Long, Esq., has filed a similar motion after getting the state lawsuit removed to federal court (ILSD).

Prenda was able to get discovery of thousands upon thousands of the personal identifying information of the “co-conspirators” by reason of an Agreed Order, dated 7/30/2012 between Duffy and Skyler Case’s attorney, Adam Urbanczyk (signed on 7/11/2012 — less than two weeks after the complaint). We do not know what, if any, consideration the named defendant received in exchange for this agreement but Duffy received discovery and the foreclosure that this lawsuit will be removed to federal court by any of the “co-conspirators”. We think the number of alleged “co-conspirators” could well be in the five digit neighborhood judging by the list of ISPs attached to the Agreed Order.

Arte de Oaxaca v. Stacey Mullen (Cook county IL)

Case No: 12-L-9034
Attorney for Plaintiff: Paul Duffy
Attorney for Defendant: Adam Urbanzcyk
Judge: Lynn M. Egan
Dismissed: 03/13/2013

Guava LLC v. Spencer Merkel (Hennepin county MN)

Case No: 27-CV-12-20976
Attorney for Plaintiff: Michael Dugas
Attorney for Defendant: Trina Morrison
Judge: Tanya Bransford

Guava LLC (petitioner) v Comcast Cable Communications LLC (respondent) (St. Clair county IL)

Case No: 12-MR-417
Attorneys for Petitioner: Paul Duffy, Kevin Hoerner
Attorney for Respondent:
Judge: Andrew J. Gleeson

LW Systems v. Christopher Hubbard (St. Clair County IL)

Case No: 13-L-0015
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Paul Duffy, Kevin Hoerner
Attorney for Defendant: Adam Urbanzcyk
Judge: Andrew J. Gleeson



Other resources
  • Morgan Pietz created a page dedicated to this case. He is accepting defendants, and based on his performance in California, to say that I recommend him is a huge understatement.
LW Systems v. Juan Leonard (Maricopa County AZ)


Attorneys who defend Does
  • (IL) Adam E. Urbanczyk — attorney for the only named defendant, Skyler Case. I do not recommend using his services: Adam is almost certainly “in bed” with Prenda — scaring and pushing people to settle. Don’t let the fact that Adam U is listed on the EFF site deceive you: attorneys on the “Subpoena Defense” page are self-listed, and being on this list does not imply EFF’s endorsement.
  • (IL) Erin Russell — IMO she is good. She keeps us informed about this case in the comments to this page. Don’t miss her comments.
  • (IL — St. Clair county) Morgan E. Pietz, a California attorney, one of the best: no introduction necessary in case you read this blog regularly. If not, check the “Coopergate” post series.
  • (IL) Jeffrey Antonelli: an attorney from Chicago.
  • (MN) Paul Godfread.
  • (MN) Mark Santi of Thompson Hall Santi Cerny & Dooley.
  • (MN) Scott M. Flaherty of Briggs and Morgan.
Relevant posts

These cases are farcical and can be fought and defeated. There is simply no way anyone can be found liable by any jury. Pure, perfect bluff.
Do not talk to trolls. Do not succumb to fears. Do not settle. This house of cards is going to collapse soon and I hope Prenda will be pursued criminally.


1,039 responses to ‘Guava LLC, Arte de Oaxaca, LW Holdings and other Prenda’s bogus corporations

  1. These Guava lawsuits make me want to piss my pants……due to laughter.

    1.DCD 12-cv-1661
    ” MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying without prejudice [6] Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery. In order to take expedited discovery to obtain the identifying information for users of the IP addresses contained in [6-1] Exhibit A, the plaintiff must first submit a sworn declaration setting forth the basis for the plaintiff’s allegation that those IP addresses were used “to hack into, Plaintiff’s protected computer systems.” ECF No. 6, at 1. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 18, 2012. (lcbah1)” Case dismissed on 2-15-2013

    2. GAMD 12-cv-398
    Dismissal for failure to prosecute

    3. OHND 12-cv-2512
    Dismissal because Prenda by mistake or by purpose filed the lawsuit in the wrong court (improper venue) Prenda is trying to scold the judge into changing his mind but the judge is ignoring.

    4.AZD 12-cv-2158
    Dismissal for failure to prosecute

    5. ALSD 12-cv-678
    Court denied Prenda discovery of Doe info.

  2. More issues:

    pg. 12

    “First, the claim for copyright infringement was based on confirmation that the
    infringers had downloaded complete copies of the copyrighted film.”

    How can they confirm that they downloaded the whole video? They could have bought the video or had the video and then uploaded it. Thus, downloading nothing. And its nigh impossible to download the entire video from one peer.

  3. Hey I was looking through old mail and saw the big orange envelope that Comcast sent from the Guava LLC v Comcast and found my ip highlited with a pink marker since I didn’t see it till now guess they got my info lol which I can’t doubt since I recieved the settlement letter 2 weeks ago but the total ips listed is 93 as I saw still think I should ignore ?

  4. Holy Fraud, Batman!

    The first thing that should be pointed out about Mr. Gibbs OSC response is
    that somebody is mistaken (or lying) about who owns AF Holdings. On the same
    day that Mr. Gibbs special counsel filed a pleading stating that AF Holdings was
    recently sold to Livewire Holdings, LLC, an AF Holdings 30(b)(6) witness sat in a
    deposition and testified that AF Holdings sole owner is a Nevis trust. Mr.
    Hansemeier testified at the deposition that AF Holdings is not sure who formed this
    trust (other than the paid incorporator), where it is organized, whether there are any
    trust documents, what the name of the trust is, who might have a beneficial
    ownership interest in the trust, or who would have authority to terminate the trust.
    Mr. Hansemeier sat there and testified to all this with Mr. Gibbs (who, according to
    his own special counsel, at ECF No. 49. p.1, became general counsel of the company
    that acquired AF Holdings, Livewire Holdings, LLC back in January) right there at
    his side, as counsel of record for AF Holdings. In short, the story his evening is that
    AF Holdings was sold several weeks ago to Livewire Holdings (Mr. Gibbs new
    employer). But the story this afternoon was that AF Holdings is owned by a
    mystery trust. Clearly, someone is wrong.


  5. Will they’re still be a Comcast hearing or will i get pushed to the side again cause of the sh*t storm that Prenda is under?

  6. For those named in the LW Systems (or more appropriately not named) case, our names are going to be released by our ISP’s tomorrow.

    Let’s all get prepared for the phone calls, emails, etc. Hopefully SJD is correct and Prenda’s ship starts to sink so we don’t have to put up with these extortionists and frauds.

    • Did this actually happen. I looked at the case activity register (13-L-15) and it looked like there was a MTQ filed. I thought that the ISP held off on delivery until all motions were ruled on. Do we know that the MTQ’s were overruled and the ISP delivered the IP addresses? I would sure like to get an update on what happened in that case. Anyone?

  7. Does anyone have an update for today’s procedings in Guava v Skyler Case in Cook County?

    • I sent SJD a tweet, most of the people that usually report could not attend. SJD is looking for some information.

      The court docket was not updated and AU has not posted anything on his site or his twitter. My guess is, whatever happened, probably wasn’t too big and there will be another hearing in a month or so.

  8. Don’t forget, there’s also the motion to quash hearing for the Guava vs Comcast that got pushed back a week because the judge didn’t get a chance to read all the MTQs

    • I know you’re sort of half joking, but I thought about that when I posted that. That is the point of the lawsuit– to create a chilling effect to prevent people from speaking their minds in fear of being sued.

      However, I obviously stand by what I said. Find me one example of a reputable lawyer who uses robocalls, who calls people over and over dozens or hundreds of times threatening to sue them or who publically shames people by listing complaints on their website.

  9. None yet, but I just actually did get another call from our favorite number, voicemail saying the settlement date had passed and urged me to call back. Needless to say, nothing got answered again. But i suppose they’re still trying, despite that CA firestorm.

  10. I just got a call too from Guava. He said my settlement offer had experied but I actually never got a letter…whateves, I’ll wait for the summons IF it ever comes. :-D luckily I’m a paralegal AND work for an attorney that I can basically pay to appear in court for me and I’ll do all the work.

    • Those are the ones who pissed them off. (sorry, I couldn’t help it)
      Really, I have no idea.

      • Lmao that’s a good joke lol wouldn’t be a joke if it was true though I was guessing those are the ones being defended? And also has anyone heard anything on the hearing yet was hoping SJD would have something but I think with all the other stuff happening she didn’t hear about anything

        • I don’t know, but it seems there was a change of judges was done back at the 11th.. which.. is strange, as I though Gleeson walked in, and said he didn’t have the information, last time.

          Case Number: 12-MR-0417
          Filing Date: 11/20/2012
          Next / Last Court Appearance: TUE, APRIL 09, 2013 AT 8:30 AM IN ROOM 407
          Judge: HON. ROBERT HAIDA
          Case Type: MISC-OTHER (MR)
          Case Status: Open

          I don’t know the status or what happened in the 2-21-13 hearing, only that it happened. That’s from the St. Clair site, though.

  11. So there is another court date set for April with a new judge but no word on what happen yesterday?

    • Gleeson presided yesterday. He granted Prenda’s petition based on his understanding of Rule 224, but acknowledged that the rule is old and may not be up to what goes on with modern technology. There will be an order today regarding how long Comcast has to comply, and addressing the time in which the parties can appeal. Hope I will be able to obtain it.

      The judge started the hearing with a speech on civility in the practice of law and spoke about how he was disheartened by the tone of some of the motions (Leverso and Pietz, neither of whom was present). I would agree with this assessment if I read these pleadings out of blue, but knowing the depth of Prenda’s fraud it is hard to blame the tone of defenders.

      That’s all I know at this moment. Hope to learn more.

      • Is this a win for Guava or is it too early to tell? I was led to believe Guava only ever cares about the “go away” money and that they never name anyone who fights it because they don’t want to get caught up in legal battles. Am I wrong in this?

      • What do you mean by this exactly what are they granting Prenda what are they trying to get a hold of ? I just wanna know what these means moving forward for the people that didnt submit a MTQ or anything to defend themselves and they’re info got out?

        • I doubt this ruling had anything to do with the people who didn’t file a motion. Your info was sent to Guava/Prenda a while back when Comcast didn’t get notification from you that you were fighting the petition in court. Are you not getting harassing calls from Prenda yet?

      • Ok, disregard the “is this a win for Guava” post below…that’s me. I just spoke with my attorney and he said that we lost our motion, but he said he expected that and that we’re going to win the appeal. I asked why he was so confident in that and he said that the Judge from yesterday’s hearing got the law wrong on at least 3 points. He said St. Clair County basically always rules for the plaintiff and he didn’t think that would be any different for this case. I assume appeals go to the appellate court, which gets it out of St. Clair County’s hands. From talking with him it sounded like this appeals win is as sure as an appeal can be.

        • Yeah i already got a settlement letter that’s about it but i received that almost 2 weeks ago, So basically they’re fighting to get the name now of the people who submitted a MTQ? And since they already got my info should i not worry about this case and move on with my life lol?

    • No word yet…I called and left a voicemail with my attorney and asked what it meant and haven’t heard back yet. I, for one, think it’s good news though. Guava is supposedly in a ton of legal trouble (in March?) which could possibly affect the cases they have pending, like this one. This could be a tactic by the judge to see how that case goes with Guava before he thinks this one even needs to proceed. Reading this site though, it appears that since we even fought it at all, we have a better shot to quash this than the people who did nothing.

      • Yeah Guava is in deep shit, Dugas is in deep shit, they’re all in deep shit after that “you jerk me off, I’ll dismiss you from this case” affidavit surfaced where a defendant in the HDP v. Does 1-1495 in DCD entered into a (very illegal, unenforceable, not to mention grounds for permanent disbarment) contract to dismiss him from that case if he’d agree to be a named defendant in a Guava case and allow his computer to be “forensically examined.”

        That being said, St. Clair County is crooked as hell. It’s the bastion for asbestos litigation, it was (probably still is) listed as one of the top “Judicial Hellholes” in the U.S. (along with Cook and Madison Counties).

        • If its anything like the Guava case in Cook, it’ll probably stay open for a year or so while they harvest IPs, then when they get enough people to try to extort they’ll dismiss the case without prejudice. And continue to threaten does. At least until Prenda goes bye-bye.

          I’m basing this of the first Guava case in Cook County.

          I’m still not sure what the implications are once the case is dismissed.

        • By implications what do you mean? Isn’t it a torrent case in disguise? Or is still unknown what it is at this point? Cause the one thing I wondered is why they never anything specific in the settlement letter

    • From the looks of it, the Doe attorneys appealed and have already sent this on its way to the Illinois Supreme Court. In other words, they wanted to lose. After the judge denied the Feb. 21st hearing, the Doe attorneys moved to reconsider and for a stay denying the release of the Doe names. When the head judge denied even that a week later, they sent it to the appellate court the same day and had them immediately overrule or whatever the St. Clair court.

      Pietz and Leverso are an appellate lawyers (that’s what Leverso is known for anyway) so they probably set up Prenda to win so that they fail at the higher level and get into big trouble with the appellate courts. I heard they blasted Steele when they tried interrupting on the 12th. You probably won’t see either of those guys in court again because it’s all on paper now, which is what they wanted.

  12. Again, i’m unsure and deferring to the people with the real information as one of those with our heads firmly stuck in the sand (though, with an up periscope, just in case.) It makes you wonder how much of it he read and looked at, though, I wonder why St. Clair’s side had the change in judges on 2-11. Strange that. Still, as I understand this was simply the MTQ hearing, and that nothing’s done in the nitty-gritty range, still (and as I understand, still never get to.) As said above, I’m really interested in how Guava/Lightspeed/Prenda is hit in the coming trial in CA.

    And to wave the Pietz banner.

  13. I received a letter, certified mail to my home from my ISP that states, “IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA SEEKING DISCLOSURE OF YOUR IDENTITY”. Referencing the Oaxaca v Mullen. First letter…saying if I want to quash subpoena… I of course don’t know what 2 do…anyone else out there?

    • Take a few hours and read this blog to educate yourself first. I was in your shoes a few months ago.

      • To be honest it’s something I just need a cliff note version, I’ve read a lot looked at all the PDFs and just asking for some help as well. I’m not dumb but got a lot of personal issues going on right now and my focus is wayyyy off lol. Any help is much appreciated.

      • I’ve also thought about just getting legal counsel but do I need too now? I’m so lost. Legal mumbo jumbo is hard to dissect for me. :)

        • Legal counsel will cost hundreds of dollars at minimum. Unless a few hours of your time is worth more than that, it’s best to suck it up and read up (you’ll feel much better after you do anyways). Probably won’t even take you that long to figure out you probably don’t need to do anything.

        • Fair enough but when you’re not understanding all of this legal talk I’m just looking at something simple as you did that. Thanks again. It’s not the easiest site to navigate I’ll tell ya that.

        • Is a quash subpeona still something that should be done, cause surely don’t want my name out there.

  14. What does the dismissal of Guava LLC v. Skyler Case mean for those of us that received threats in relation to that case? Are they likely to come after people whose subscriber info they obtained now? I noticed Ruggiero filed a new case in SDNY on 2/8.

    • I really don’t think anything is different, to be honest.

      Unlike the bittorrent case, those in the CFAA cases were never truly “defendants.” Indeed, that was one of their main arguments when people filed motions to quash.

      So my, relatively new, opinion is that its just more of the same. The NY case could have been someone that decided to cooperate/pissed them off/filed a motion to quash in another case. It was also misfiled and is labeled as a copyright claim instead of CFAA. Methinks Ruggiero messed up somehow.

      But tldr; I don’t really think it changes anything at all. They’re no more or less likely to go after you. They will keep sending letters/making calls. Etc.

    • Maybe I’m misunderstanding what “parent corporation” means. Nevertheless Troll Dugas’ email address is on that Guava Corporate Disclosure as mkdugas at livewireholdings dot com. How this passes a judicial smell test in MND is beyond me.

    • I wrote the above statement, and I don’t think perjury applies since it’s not an unsworn statement “under penalty of perjury”, so this may not be perjury, and I retract that comment. My understanding that Guava can amend the linked declaration, too. Still, it seems strange that Livewire Holdings is not listed in the declaration as the parent corporation of Guava.

  15. I have a question when you tal about CFAA some of the people who have a well understanding of Prenda think or know its a torrent case in disguise but TAD previously said that they don’t claim copyright infringement but when i got my letter from Comcast it doesn’t say CFAA it says downloading or uploading a video without permission but then when i got the demand letter its the same exact thing as the one SJD recently posted so basically what im trying to ask is what the heck are they really trying to say you did and why do they include both CFAA and and sharing stolen files through bit torrent im guessing they are saying you shared something other than “Videos” im i wrong cause whats been in the back of my mind and has put my mind at peace is that they dont include any name of videos or say videos just “Files” but Comcast mentions videos i may be wrong might have to double check but its really confusing lol ive read a lot over the past 2 weeks and understand a lot know but this specific case with Comcast just confused the hell out of me if someone can please put it in simple terms it would help me a lot understand better :) Thanx in advance

    • The reason i wanna know this is cause i wanna know exactly what people in these cases are being accused of so i can know the statue of limitations…..:)

    • These complaints are confusing because they are copyright infringement lawsuits gussied up to look like a CFAA claim with ancillary state claims like conversion for example. However these claims are all based upon the allegation that someone stole their protected “files”, in other words copyright infringement. The argument has been made that, as a consequence, these lawsuits are preempted by the Copyright Act.

      These complaints are also confusing because Prenda is hiding some of its clients behind these phony corporations and these clients have different business models. For example Lightspeed Media Corp. runs a porn site that requires you to log on to access its content and another client, Hard Drive Productions, produces porn DVDs. So one client might feel he had been wronged by a pirate using a “hacked password” to access his content while another might feel he has been wronged by a pirate “Bittorenting” his content.

      It is all a con to get the personal identifying info behind the IP addresses so the shakedown tactics can begin.

      I discussed the statutes of limitations awhile back

  16. I was just re-reading the Guava federal cases and noticed this:

    Judgment against Defendant’s co – conspirators aided him/her in committing computer fraud and abuse against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g);

    There’s only one IP address in the complaint. So are they trying to do the same exact thing they did in the county courts in federal court now? Attempting to amend the complaint at a later time to get more IPs?

    • Regarding Duffy’s response, I still fail to understand how the hell they can send extor..settlement letters, demand they not delete anything on their computer, and then deny them any judicial protection simply by saying their “non-parties.”

      If they’re non-parties, how the hell can they be legally required to do anything?

  17. Received another message today. Same voice, same phone number, same everything EXCEPT claiming to be Guava this time instead of Prenda/Anti-Piracy Law Group.

        • I just recieved the exact same call, and I am a part of the exact same case…
          So this makes (in the course of about 2 weeks) 3 seperate calls from the same person from the same number claiming to be from 3 different places, lol!

          Boy they sure are an unorganized bunch lol!

  18. So the MTQs for the Guava vs Comcast was denied? Any news on what’s going on with that case?

    • My attorney in this case said the appeal is basically a slam dunk because the judge got at least 3 points of the law incorrect. Plus appeals take the case out of crooked St. Clair County I believe.

  19. I have a quick question does anyone know where they even got some of these ips from in the Comcast case? i cant seem to find my answer on the blog since the alleged date for me was in October of 2012 and i saw a comment where Raul posted

    “It was assumed by most that the Guava suits were a hodge podge of old AZ pornogrpher lawsuits masquerading as new. For example we know Lightspeed Media Corp., Hard Drive Productions and, possibly, CP Productions are hiding behind the Guava facade. The personal identifying information, it was thought, was obtained in previous lawsuits such as the LMC state suits in IL, the HDP federal suit in DCD as well as the state pure bill of discovery suits in FL. Now, however, the alleged infringement/hacking date of October 2012 puts these assumptions at risk of being partially wrong.”

    i was just wondering how they got these ips specifically in the Comcast case

  20. I just noticed on the Hennepin County District Court records page that 27-CV-12-20976 is now closed (2/28/13) and a “Show Cause” hearing set for 4/23/13. Does that sound like Good News or what?

    02/28/2013 Stipulation
    04/23/2013 Order to Show Cause Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Bransford, Tanya M.)
    04/23/2013 Motion Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Bransford, Tanya M.)

  21. What’s the status of the Arte v Mullen case, I see a lot of Guava, but not a lot of Arte case! What do ppl do with this case?

    • Well, all you have to do is to scroll up and find out that the latest motion was filed on 2/19, not a long time ago. The same day order set the hearing to March 20. What else do you need to know? Unfortunately the majority here cannot read judges’ mind and enlighten us about her inner thoughts.

      • Sorry, think I scrolled too fast, there’s also a date that’s wrong, 2014, hasn’t happened yet for motion to quash by Duffy. So with that being said, what’s your opinion on what will happen next in this case with all these ppl who received letters from their ISP’s?

        • Thanks for catching that (2014). Nothing old, nothing new will happen: I think that Arte case will be dismissed pretty soon. All the information the scumbags have managed to get will be used to harass, but Prenda lost their teeth, and the ability to bite as a result. True, they still file individual cases, but the latest ones were vexatious and vindictive: in MN all new cases were filed against those who filed motions in the Merkel case, they don’t even hide this fact. Deja vu. This will boomerang and hit them badly sooner or later. Given that all the federal Guava cases are disaster in slow motion, I would say that this is more like a fashion show by a naked king.

          I understand the anxiety of those who found themselves victims of Prenda’s scam less than a week ago: I’ve been there and felt that, but if it happened more than a month ago, I expect people to make up their minds and move along with their lives. The scumbags feed on fear and being poisoned by laughter.

  22. in OH, and getting ISP letter, with the concern that shows, I’ll just sit pat, and not quash subpoena, which is what it sounds like is the best solution for one to do (not legal advice I know lol)…? Correct, since they’re losing their skin…

  23. I think Godfread and Cooper will be fine because truth is an absoute defense to libel. This is basically a SLAPP suit being used to punish them for speaking out. There is a good reason why people hate the legal system, and that is that it can make your life miserable for a long time even when you didn’t do anything wrong.

    I think the true threat is that they are also going to go after this board. For obvious reasons, I’m not going to share my feelings about the folks from Prenda, but some of the comments here did cross a line. I don’t blame people because the behavior of this firm was so unprofessional and infuriating (robocalls, calling people multiple times a day, publically humiliating people, etc.). However, even I would read some of the individual comments and wonder if they could be true.

    This board serves a very important function. Lawyers in general (and not just copyright trolls) thrive on FUD. The law is all about making things more complicated than they have to be and scaring people into thinking lawyers are necessary when they usually aren’t. Boards like this one serve an important check on the tyranny of the lawyers, and I would hate to think that may end because of this lawsuit.

    • Be careful there Anonymous @7:49pm, you just called the firm “unprofessional”. In their complaints, Prenda, Duffy, and Steele list comments just like that as “libelous _per_se_”. I really hope SJD, DTD, Raul, etc. are not deterred by this. The ACLU would be nice to see coming to the aid of these Does — this would be exactly the kind of case they’d take in the ballpark of copyright trolling. It’s hard not to see this as a 1st Amendment issue.

      FYI, looks like Steele’s complaint (30+ pages!) hit RECAP:

      • Anonymous @8:07pm, I know you’re half joking, but I actually did think about that. That is the whole point of lawsuits like this one– to create a chilling effect so that people are afraid to speak out.

        That’s why I included specific examples to back up what I said. I challenge anyone to find a reputable attorney who uses robocalls, calls people over and over again dozens and even hundreds of times threatening to sue them or publicly shames people by listing complaints on their website.

        I think a lot of what has been said on this board is helpful and beneficial. And I think a lot of the anger and hatred is understandable. I also think it is telling that the complaints fail to mention that Steele or someone purporting to be an insider from his organization would post on here and on Twitter trying to rile people up.

        However, reading his examples out of context– especially if the judges don’t know the whole story, I think this board could be at risk.

        As I said, I am not a fan of lawyers or our legal system, but the one thing it is best at is destroying. I hope this community is not its latest victim.

        • Can this board be at risk? Yes. Will it be? Doubtful. Calling a firm “unprofessiinal” is an opinion. It cannot be libelous. However, what it does to is open the door for SJD et al to drag in the drunken boasts of Steele and others wherein they mock the Does.

          It IS a kamikaze attack, but the problem is the Steele plane is riddled with flak long before it gets near the battleship FCT. Between the defensive flak from SJD, DTD, and others, plus the hammerblows from the judicial system, I don’t think this suit goes far. You don’t poke a stick in the eyes of a lawyer like Godfried without getting a couple of Sidewinders up the tailpipe.

          No, I don’t think Prenda has a case. At worst, it’s a distraction.

        • lol don’t worry randazza will step up and file amicus briefs in them through his FALA persona.

  24. I find it hilarious that these complaints are chock full of things that poke holes in their other complaints… That being associated for suing someone over offensive titles (public record) is offensive…same thing they’re doing to plenty of innocent people…counterclaim them and cite their complaint. Also, the fact that they point out that in the hacking cases, hundreds of people could use the same password. I know next to nothing about IT security, but I’d put $100 on a freshman cs major being able to create a system that detected multiple password attempts, logged those attempts, and shut out any future attempts. There goes mitigation of damages and their complaint in those cases.

  25. How can you tell which Does Steele is going after? He’s stating 10 of them, but I can’t think of 10 high profile ones off the top of my head. Does he list them anywhere in the exhibits?

  26. here’s another thing to add to your filing Steele – You are such a (possibly inebriated) dipshit you don’t notice a ton of pages scanned in upside down in your complaint.

    These suits will be tossed fairly quickly, I imagine, I don’t think you can collectively sue a blog for libel, particularly when most (all?) of the statements can be backed up by press or even judges comments.

  27. Exhibit A for the defendants with regard to exposing Steele to hatred (as though his actions and Forbes article didn’t already do that): From Steele’s LinkedIn profile: “My goal is to be hated by pirates, loved by clients, and to enjoy the wonderful life god has given me.”

  28. One thing to chew on: This might be a blessing in disguise. Even if the suits against Alan Cooper and Paul Godfread provoke them enough to settle (i.e., dropping their suit), suing Does (assuming SJD, DTD, Raul, and some commenters) opens Duffy, Steele, and Prenda up to subpoenas and depositions where the entire enterprise is fair game. Steele will have to answer such questions as who AFH, I13, Guava, Oaxaca really are, the veracity of the porn star on Twitter who said she was filming for BittorrentBull (supposed Twitter alias of Steele), the suits with VPR, his comments on this site (thought to be under the name “Mr. Troll”), pretty much everything in Pietz’s filings in the Gibb’s sanctions case, and so on. This now includes stuff beyond the Alan Cooper issue which they were already in danger of telling the truth. Heck, Steele might have to answer a question asking him about how many drinks he has in a week given its mention in his complaint. Seems like a massively bad move for the Plantiffs if they actually plan to follow through. My view on it is that they want to scare the “community” (as they put it), get identities, and maybe get some settlement money from Does too scared or indigent to fight.

    I’d like to point out that a great way to anonymize web browsing is with the TorBrowser. It’s free and available for all major operating systems.

  29. Hey SDJ, let the community know if you need anything. say donationwise to help with your fees. I would be the first to donate since you’ve been such a godsend to us all

  30. Newest letter from Duffy (Re: St. Clair County IL case) states:

    “In any legal matter, there are anonymous sources of information that claim to offer legal advice, we highly recommend you consult a licensed attorney. We have dealt with many people in the past who have ignored the seriousness of our client’s claims and the illegal acts involved due to misinformation from their friends or blog sites, only to find themselves expending unnecessary money in court.”

    Better watch out for them “blog sites.”

    • Is your guava the same old password hacking or is it a copyright suit? I read some posts about passwords and others about films, both from Guava. Also any idea what website they operate besides their “secure computer systems”?

      • Anyone please lmk if they have recieved anymore letters from the Guava v Comcast mine doesn’t name files or a website

      • I also received the letter from the Anti Pussy Licking Group yesterday. It was not as soft as charmin, but just as effective.

        • What does it accuse you of? mine doesnt make sense they claim 2 things dont name movies or sites and dont even say my IP lol

        • Just received my third phone call. 2/7/13, 2/21/13, and today. Number now was 1-888-588-9473.

        • Funny, that’s the number for LiveWire Holdings AND the number that Steele used for himself in his defamation suit in FLSD

        • Quote from DTD: Now depending on what CA Judge Otis Wright decided to do with ex-Prenda attorney Brett Gibbs (and the other members of the clown posse), the AF Holdings LLC cases could slow down.
          In reality I don’t expect Prenda to stop until they are placed in a jail cell with no phones or Internet access.

          Truer words have never been spoken.

        • I’m also expecting my third call from these guys this Thursday, in regards to the Comcast case. I’m wondering what the guy will say this time, because the second call went something like: “so we gave you some time and haven’t heard from you, so if you don’t reply back soon, we will go ahead and file a complaint with your name in it. If you want to avoid the time and hassle, call back at blah blah blah”.

  31. Anyone know a good lawyer in pennsylvania for these law suits? I think i need one.

  32. I think it’s dumb how they sent me this and don’t name any movies or sites yet they want me to for over 4K for basically free they didn’t say any movie specific or a website I don’t get it

  33. I understand people are trying to express innocence and I know many are, but can someone with access to any exhibits or (without admitting anything) direct me toward which website they were “alleged” of hacking? Everyone is saying GUAVA has no websites, but if anyone remembers a website “without any guilt admission” please let us know, since it could be used in a defense. We are already as anonymous as it gets on this forum, so anyone who has details should share what they remember/were told happened.

    For all I know GUAVA might have signed a contract with Pxxxhub giving them the right to sue people accessing their sites. Also do these sites have the torrents they are alleging were then distributed after hacking? I would think you hack into a site to stream content not dl torrents.
    Any thoughts?

    • Does yours say you distributed something? did you receive a letter saying that?

  34. does anyone have the judgment document that was listed on the hennepin county court site in regards to the merkel case?

    • Seconding your question. The Merkel affidavit was or should have been explosive. From what I can tell from the site, the case has been closed, but unlike federal case documents, these are not easily available. I don’t know if anyone has these.

  35. Same, got my bi-weekly letter, this time from the anti-piracy law group. Looked awfully familiar to the guava, LLC one with a few minor changes. Even got my bi-thursday call from Mr. Lutz, who said that the settlement time had expired, and would like me to tall them to avoid getting named. Lol. (for reference, they “graciously” extended the settlement date to 3/14 in the APLG letter.)

  36. Would it be wrong to list Paul A. Duffy’s home address in Oak Park, Il so that others may send him spam mail and various legal threats?

    If not: [sjd: redacted]

    Found with a quick google search. anyone?

    • NOT COOL. SJD Please take notice and redact Purposely Anonymous’ comment giving an address for Duffy.

      • I redacted it, but mostly because of the current situation: everything said on this blog can and will be used against me and active commenters if (god forbid!) WordPress is compelled to reveal the information in the ongoing defamation lawsuits.

        Saying that, it is not illegal per se in the US to publish someone’s address (especially publicly available), but couple with inducement of harassment it may be call for a trouble.

        I’m split on the issue of using such information. Clearly I’m against harassment (although I can understand the schadenfreude of harassers taste their own medicine), especially I’m against families being involved. Nonetheless, using such information in a certain way — to respectfully notify neighbors about the potentially illegal activities (like in the example of Lightspeed shooting porno in his house, which is too close to a school) — may be acceptable and perfectly legal. Use your judgement, and always remember that if you stoop below a troll, an upward blow is a less effective one and sometimes it can be self-defeating.

        Oh, almost forgot: the address I redacted is wrong anyway :) Also: Duffy is allegedly a marionette, a nominal-only Prenda’s boss. Should be clear to everyone studying March 11 related events. He is a bad guy, no doubt, but in my opinion, he does not make any decisions and even write/sign the pleadings.

  37. Looks like Michael Dugas might be getting out of the business — all of his cases are closed or on their way to be closed — including the Guava ones file last month. Good for him if he decided this isn’t what he went to law school to do.

  38. Is it known who is the security experts for Arte/Guava/LW Systems i read for like the Guava/Arte ones its Arcadia and i was just wondering how one would know if these time stamps are BS wouldn’t you have to file some kinda document by a “REAL” security expert saying they did what was being said cause in some of these cases i don’t see that, like the Comcast one has IP’s with timestamps but no sworn security expert saying they did something just Engineers observed this I’m guessing the timestamps can be bs? i just cant seem to get it through my head which security expert they used for some of these like Comcast or the LW Systems one which are the most recent ones with a lot of people involved.

    If someone with a lot of knowledge to these cases can answer that i would appreciate it and i have done a lot of research but just cant seem to understand how they don’t have to have a sworn statement by a security expert saying that these people did something..

    right now it seems like all they say from my personal view is
    at this date and time you stole something we cant tell you what but give us 4K and we wont sue you….if you ever get sued and i say big IF by them cant you show the demand i mean settlement letters to the judge and say look they sent me these saying settle for 4K but wont tell me what files were allegedly stolen wouldn’t name a site and i never saw a document by a real security expert just them saying i did it!

Comments are closed.

Pingbacks & Trackbacks

  1. Guava LLC alleges “Conversion”, sues in New York | copyrightclerk