Posts Tagged ‘Marvin Cable’

Poor copyright troll from Massachusetts Marvin Cable has had enough troubles recently. I wrote about his failures here, here and here, but after a while, MA judges’ rulings became so consistently and predictably anti-troll that they lost their newsworthiness.

It is possible that current Marvin Cable’s losses soon be eclipsed by a mega trouble. According to my confidential source in the IBM’s legal department, this corporate giant is mulling the possibility of suing Law Office of Marvin Cable for trademark infringement.

IBM has been always very protective about its trademarks:

IBM trademarks include the famous IBM eight-bar logo and other designs and logos owned and used by IBM, as well as IBM product and service names. IBM takes great care in the development and protection of its trademarks and reserves all rights of ownership of its trademarks.

I don’t think that there is anyone on this planet who is not familiar with the iconic 3-letter logo:

 

Now visit Marvin’s law firm’s webpage or its Twitter avatar and compare:

 

Despite the difference in color, it is obvious that an outspoken fighter against the theft of intellectual property shamelessly pilfered a part of the IBM’s logo (“M”). The aggravating factor is that his law firm is a lucrative commercial enterprise, and the Lahman act’s maximum statutory fine for the willful commercial infringement is $2,000,000. According to the same source, IBM will be asking for $666,666.67: only one third of the logo was “stolen.” Additionally, IBM may demand monetary compensation for the insult caused by the terrible, amateurish, tasteless “C” next to the misappropriated yet flawless “M.”

My source does not know anything about a possible settlement offer, but he is positive that it will be just a little bit less than the cost of litigation. In addition, the inevitable demand letter will threaten to call Cable’s neighbors, parents and bar buddies — telling them that he is engaged in the dirty business of IP theft, and that because of his irresponsible (and illegal) actions children of IBM factory workers in Vietnam and Malaysia suffer from malnutrition.

(Mind the date of the publication.)

Related

A trolling lawsuit ends with style.

Judge Leo Sorokin
Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin
(Massachusetts)

Thanks to Jason Sweet and Dan Booth for the hilarious news, a must-read order denying ex-parte discovery re-requested by copyright troll Marvin Cable in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-79 (12-cv-10532-GAO), Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1-29, et al. (12-cv-10805-NMG), and Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-36 (12-10758-GAO).

While two major posts are promised and overdue¹, I cannot help posting Magistrate Sorokin’s smackdown ruling dismantling Marvin Cable’s copyright troll cases: a good excuse is that it does not take a lot of my time, as the document is self-explanatory, easy and fun to read.

Read the embedded order below. A couple of teaser quotes:

The Plaintiffs’ proposal — i.e., that the Court permits the Plaintiffs to subpoena the names of the subscribers and that the Court then leave it to the Plaintiffs to figure out the rest pursuant to informal communications — is unacceptable.

The Plaintiffs’ lack of interest in actually litigating these cases as demonstrated by the history of this litigation also weighs against permitting ex parte discovery.

The course of action the Plaintiff has stated it intends to pursue also suggests an improper effort to engage in judge shopping and evidences a disregard for the Court’s limited public resources.

…a bad faith effort to harass the third-party subscriber…

…the Plaintiffs have repeatedly said one thing and done another.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel has also repeatedly said to the undersigned, and to other judicial officers of this Court, that he intends to litigate the claims he has brought. Yet to date, counsel has sued well in excess of one thousand Doe Defendants in this District, and as far as the Court is aware, he has never served a Complaint upon a single individual defendant.

 

So, essentially, Sorokin calls out Marvin Cable on his lies in virtually every paragraph of this 8-page document with a nearly 3-D hint sticking out of a flat document surface: GTFO of Massachusetts’ courts with your ill-conceived mass cases!

No matter how unbelievable it sounds, some people are so obtuse they can miss such a hint, and I have a bad feeling that our hapless troll may put on his John Adams costume once again — to entertain us and to anger judges. And it won’t end well.

Raul adds:

A great Order that will, hopefully, resonate across the country. As Booth & Sweet pointed out in their tweet earlier today, “Judge Sorokin gave Cable just enough rope to hang himself.” The Order reads like an indictment of Cable’s overreaching, lying and overall craven behavior before the court (this indictment applies to most if not all copyright trolls). The second act of this comedy will be if and when Prenda gets rolling now that the audience has been warmed up.

Media coverage
Update

12/18/2012

Judge Sorokin finally brought the hammer down on Marvin Cable today and recommended dismissing the above-mentioned cases without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants.

On 11/16 Marvin Cable replied to the Order to show cause featured in this post trying to keep these cases on life support.

Judge Sorokin was not impressed:

The Plaintiffs advance several reasons in support of a finding of good cause. None have merit. […] The Plaintiffs have no one but themselves to blame for their inability to utilize information gleaned from the quashed subpoenas. The Plaintiffs engaged in the violations necessitating the Court’s remedy by telling third parties to whom Congress has accorded some measure of statutory privacy protection (i.e., the subscribers) that the Plaintiffs had sued them (the subscribers) for copyright infringement when the Plaintiffs had plainly not sued them. Moreover, the Court did not apply the 120-day rule at that time, but rather the Court gave the Plaintiffs another opportunity to propose a discovery plan tailored, as required under the law, toward identifying the identity of the persons the Plaintiffs chose to sue. As already explained, the Plaintiffs failed to advance this type of proposal.

…the difficulties, delays and rulings in this case all result from the Plaintiffs’ actions or inaction. The Court has repeatedly given the Plaintiffs ample opportunity to proceed properly with their cases. Since the Plaintiffs filed these cases, they have repeatedly failed to advance a plan compliant with the straightforward rules of procedure for limited ex parte discovery in order to learn the identities of the persons they have sued. In light of the opportunities they have had to make such a proposal, my previous rulings on these proposals and the Plaintiffs’ conduct of this litigation, I RECOMMEND that the Court find that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to extend the deadline, and that no other reason exists to exercise its discretion to permit an extension of the deadline. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the Court dismiss these cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effect timely service.

 


¹ In Colorado, Malibu Media v. Fantalis et al docket is overwhelmed with new extremely interesting activity;    In Illinois, John Steele reached new lows in the turd of a lawsuit Guava (Lightspeed) v. Skyler Case: the hearing that took place this past Monday, and recently filed fraudulent federal cases deserve detailed attention.

Today’s surprising and Kafkaesque default judgment, as well as John Steele, who confused this blog and Twitter with a public restroom, hardly kept my mood elevated. Fortunately at the end of the day I was pointed to a hilarious document that resulted from Marvin Cable’s failure to show up on a hearing of his own motion. The opposition to plaintiff’s renewed motion for early discovery and motion for sanctions was written by Dan Booth (is there a synonym to “write” that is used exclusively do describe a poem creation?) Below I embedded the document for your enjoyment.


President John Adams
(1735 – 1826)

Poor troll Marvin Cable… Recently he embarrassed himself by comparing his questionable conduct to John Adams’s actions:

Plaintiff is reminded of John Adams’ defense of the six soldiers in the Boston Massacre, in December 1770, where he took the case despite the reputational blow to his career as a lawyer, and said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Here, the facts are that Doe defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights, and federal rules allow for permissive joinder of these defendants. There are no facts, there are only speculations, that the Plaintiff is ill-ly using the Court system to fill its belly and that this Court cannot find ways to adjudicate each defendant in one civil action. As this Court respectfully noted in it’s denial of defendant’s request to recuse a judge in U.S. v. Bulger, it is irresponsible for this Court to comply to requests where parties “have chosen to make untrue accusations in the possible hope of subverting that process, or at the very least, forcing a delay of a trial by injecting a diversionary issue into the proceedings.” 1:99-cr-10371-RGS (D. Mass) at 9. Plaintiff feels this Court would agree that Defendants’ requests to sever based on tall tales or misconduct should not be complied with.

I suspect that another Adams, namely Samuel, was the inspiration of such passion.

I’m sure John Adams is turning in his grave, hearing that his noble actions are being compared to using underage pornography to extort quick cash from people who are defendants during the day but turn ISP subscribers at night. (As a weretroll himself, Marvin seemingly does not have any problem with this transformation.)

To commemorate this flabbergasting arrogance, Marvin Cable’s nickname will be “President Adams” from now on.

The brave defender of the “work of art” Dirty Little Schoolgirl Stories #4 proudly regards himself as a role model:

Another Court in this District noted there has been no report of Plaintiff’s Counsel (who is the same Counsel here in a similar case) engaging in any unethical or coercive tactics, using the content-matter to persuade people into settling. It has even been stated on the record in another Court in a similar case during a hearing (transcript for that hearing is currently being worked on by stenographer) that this Counsel (who is the same Counsel here), as opposed to many others around the country, is one of the most ethical and best to deal with. Plaintiff can nearly guarantee that every defense counsel that has dealt with plaintiffs’ counsel would agree, even those who submit fierce motions against plaintiff.

Well, Dan Booth agrees… kind of:

Note how Marvin “President Adams” Cable explained the reason why he missed the hearing: he did not check his email on a daily basis! Since courts went all electronic, dogs are dying from hunger: no more homework judge’s orders to eat. This lame excuse resulted in short but entertaining order:

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER Setting Hearing on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery (Docket # 43). Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for the hearing scheduled for October 5, 2012. The Court has re-scheduled this hearing for October 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24. Plaintiff’s Counsel is directed to check his email notices from the Court on a daily rather than weekly basis. (Chernetsky, James) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

Update

10/10/2012
Things go fast and downhill for Marvin “President Adams” Cable. The very same case, where he compared himself to Adams, just crumbled:

Docket Text: Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER severing all defendants but Doe 1 entered. Beneath the cloud of rhetoric, New Sensations, Inc., raises nothing in its Response beyond conjecture to suggest that these defendants are appropriately joined together. The court accepts counsel’s representation of good faith in attempting to litigate these cases. However, under the civil rules, in fairness to all involved, including the court, these cases should be litigated and defended in separate causes of action. Therefore, the court will dismiss without prejudice defendants 2 – 201. (Zierk, Marsha)

An anonymous commenter, who brought the news, also quoted John Adams, and this wisdom can serve as an epigraph to this site:

It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.

― John Adams

10/7/2012
Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery.

Massachusetts is becoming too hot for copyright trolls. Lawyers, such as a veteran attorney Samuel Perkins, armed with Judge Sorokin’s ruling, continue hammering hapless young troll Marvin Cable. In addition, judges’ strong discontent with lawsuit abuse is growing. Judges Stearns, Boal, Saylor — to name a few, issued orders to show cause why mass cases shouldn’t be reduced to a single-defendant ones. I’m not aware of any case when an MA judge has been lenient to Cable and the trolling “business model” in general. True, the majority of judges initially allowed fishing expeditions, feeding Marvin’s arrogance, but note that all the known mass scams in human history initially succeeded, there is nothing surprising here. There is also nothing surprising and wrong when a judge changes his opinion after he understands the situation¹. As I noted many times, this is not a sign of weakness but wisdom.

These days another scammer, Daniel Ruggiero, who represents John Steele’s Prenda Law, files dozens of frivolous cases against individuals on the East Coast, including Massachusetts². I think that MA is his biggest mistake.


Federal Judge
William G. Young

This week District Judge William Young added an especially excellent page to the Troll Exterminator’s Guide. This is one of the rulings that will be quoted widely, not less than the famous rulings by judges Brown, McMahon, Write, Baer, as well as other classical examples of responsible case law building.

The Court acknowledges without reservation Third Degree’s right to assert copyright protection of the Film and to sue individuals who infringe on its intellectual property. But after a careful weighing of the balance of potential injustices in this case and like cases, the Court determines that any efficiency gains and cost benefits to Third Degree from joining the Doe defendants in a single action are substantially outweighed by the fairness concerns and inefficiencies at trial, the potential prejudice from what seems to be a developing pattern of extortionate settlement demands, and the evasion of thousands of dollars of filing fees.

As a result of rulings like this being quoted extensively, corrupt pro-troll DC judges will be in a greater and greater isolation, and a judge who deals with trolls for the first time won’t think twice before doing the right thing.

Enjoy the entire Memorandum and Order:

Thanks to Nicholas Guerrera and Jason Sweet for keeping me updated and bringing good news. 

Update

10/16/2012
Today Judge Young severed Does from three of Marvin Cable’s cases, leaving a single Doe per each case:

  • 1:12-cv-10535-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-80 filed 03/23/12
  • 1:12-cv-10762-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47 filed 04/28/12
  • 1:12-cv-10763-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-39 filed 04/28/12

 


¹ Thanks to MA Doe defendants. Unlike in other states (except maybe for Florida), per capita rate of talented IP attorneys in Massachusetts is astounding. I plan to redesign my Resources page and list defense attorneys on the state pages: visit the Massachusetts page in a while to see the list.

² I plan to write about Ruggiero’s sanctionable activities soon.

Attorney Samuel Perkins is understandably angry. In his motion to dismiss Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29 case (12-cv-10805) on behalf of one of the Does, he explains why. This time I don’t want to summarize the motion for an unusual reason: I think of the summary as a spoiler — and I want everyone to read this document from the first to the last paragraph. Most of court filings are logical yet boring. Sometimes we see anger that hopelessly buries arguments: such motions are usually easily rebutted and not taken seriously by judges. It’s a fine art to balance on the edge between anger and clarity of a logical mind.

I hope that this motion will result in equally harsh, truthful and precise order by the judge who is already unhappy with Marvin Cable (to put it mildly), and Massachusetts will join the list of states that recovered from the judicial plague of copyright extortion.

Exhibits (Marvin Cable’s extortion letters) 1, 2, 3.

Update

9/1/2012

On 8/27/2012 Samuel Perkins filed another, even more harsher, motion to dismiss in the Celestial v. Does 1-28 (12-cv-10948) case. Enjoy:

I would like to bring a new addition to my page “Counter actions against trolls” to your attention. You remember a recently widely covered event, when a pro se defendant Jeff Fantalis fought back in a powerful way, while answering to Malibu Media’s complaint. Likewise, the defendant in Discount Video Center, Inc v. Does 1-29, (Massachusetts District, 12-cv-10805) has also combined his answer to complaint with a set of counterclaims against a few parties: a porn purveyor Discount Video Center, a “forensic” expert Jon Nicolini, and a Mafioso-like troll clan Copyright Enforcement Group.

Although it has been almost three weeks since this document was filed, I somehow overlooked it. DieTrollDie covered this case in detail:

Even Marc Randazza crashed the party with his amicus curiae brief defending the copyrightability of pornography¹. Yet no one has pointed out to the following beautiful Answer and Counterclaims prepared by attorney Samuel Perkins (and his colleagues from his firm Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten) on behalf of Doe 22:

 

The best part is beyond this document: it is in the knowledge that this offensive is just a beginning. Samuel Perkins, Jason Sweet, and other “troll slayers” are very serious in their intention to end the copyright trolling plague (at least in Massachusetts), and are looking for brave Does, who are willing to serve as plaintiffs in impending lawsuits against Copyright Enforcement Group, its clients and attorneys. You can secure your place in history and improve your Karma if you come forward, and (do I really need to say this?) you will have our infinite support.

 

 


¹ I don’t want to look like a tinfoil hat connoisseur, but… did anyone else notice that there are only two trolling cases where defendants fight back by means of counterclaims, and these are exactly the two cases where Marc Randazza intervened with his briefs? There are more than two cases where the copyrightablity of pornography was questioned, but others were ignored so far… Coincidence?

About a month ago I was amused by the appearance of a well-known copyright bully Marc Randazza as a counsel for a defendant in a copyright trolling case Media Products, Inc. v. Does 1-120 (3:12-cv-30100) brought by a weretroll¹ Marvin Cable in Massachusetts. This discovery has triggered a twitter exchange with Randazza. One particular statement seemingly described Randazza’s credo in less than 140 characters:

@fightcopytrolls You fail to understand. You don't have to choose one side or the other. You advocate for your client best you can.

 

This principle is not new and most of lawyers think of it as a must-follow rule. I don’t see any problem with it either, however, if this rule is applied without any ethical safeguards, it becomes pure evil. This concept is a relative (or even a derivative) of the Machiavellian ends justify the means, which is wrongly understood by many as an absolute paradigm. Actually, Machiavelli applied this principle narrowly and advocated that it should be used only by governments and only to help their citizens. He believed that private associations and individuals (including Randazza’s clients) cannot ethically use this philosophy for personal greed or profit.

So, what would you say if a lawyer advocates for his client “best he can” while this “best” is prone to significant collateral damage? Imagine if you are one of the negotiators in an armed hostage situation and you are responsible only for a single hostage out of many. Will you provoke bloodshed if you are sure that gunpowder smoke and chaos would allow you to smuggle your client to safety? Logically, this kind of behavior would make you an expensive, demanded negotiator. Yet do we, the society, want such “professionals” to succeed?


Copyright troll Marc Randazza

Revenons à nos moutons. Randazza has finally filed his first motion, but it was… a motion in opposition to another defendant’s motion!

Doe 120, via his counsel Nicholas S. Guerrera, filed a motion to sever all Does but one arguing wrong joinder. This year we witnessed the case law in making: currently more and more judges opine that it is a huge stretch to claim that the same swarm participants are “the part of the same transaction or series of transactions” — a necessary condition of a proper joinder. Moreover, it is clear as day that the real goal behind lumping together tens and hundreds of Does is the strategy to save on filing fees and paperwork in order to obtain contact information of putative victims as cheaply as possible; judges finally started to get this simple truth.

So, now Randazza argues that the joinder is proper and the frivolous lawsuit must proceed. He presents twisted arguments, some of which are impudent lies, lies that even Brett Gibbs is not capable of conceiving (emphasis is mine):

If this Court severs all of the defendants, the Plaintiff will then likely file 120 separate claims, forcing each of the 120 defendants to stand alone facing a much larger, and well-financed, opponent, causing unnecessary expense to all parties involved…

Randazza’s arguments are disingenuous to say the least because he knows from experience (or ought to) that severance in a CEG lawsuit equals the end of it for all intents and purposes. Therefore, because, based on previous troll lawsuit experience, severance would mean the end of the litigation for his client with 99.9% probability, he is either (a) trying to run up the Doe’s legal fees, (b) pursuing a not so hidden agenda, or (c) both.

Read this masterpiece of hypocrisy:

I would probably fall from my chair after reading this presumably defense motion, if I did not know that Marc Randazza is a troll himself and has filed dozens of mass bittorent cases similar to this one, albeit he is on the other side of the isle this time. Obviously, beside the best interest of his client, Randazza also cares about his current and future lawsuits and wants to destroy a major defense, which is almost settled as a law, and destroy it from within. The Fifth Column indeed. We already see the results of his sabotage: it did not take long before troll Mike Meier quoted Randazza’s reasoning to justify improper joinder.

I’m sure Randazza will come up with another set of twisted arguments to drag his client out of this lawsuit while letting the other 119 sink. Yet I hope that the judge will learn about Randazza’s other role as a plaintiff attorney and adverse interests derived from this fact. Then, I hope that someone will refresh the judges’ memory of the Rule 1.7 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

[8] Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer’s ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the others. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.

While what’s going on here is so obviously slimy, I wonder if Randazza made a slightest attempt to stop admiring his reflection in the vanity mirror for a moment and question whether his actions in fact are severely reputation-damaging, maybe not among his numerous devotees, but among attorneys in general and prospective clients with deep pockets.

Update

As I finished writing this post, I learned that an anti-troll EFF veteran Ray Beckerman has picked up the fight against Mike Meier and attacked the applicability of Randazza’s arguments:

Then, in a manner suggesting a quote from a court opinion, or at least a neutral commentator, Plaintiff’s attorney inserts into his opposing memorandum of law in this case (at pages 6-7) a lengthy single-spaced self-serving block quote from a memorandum of law submitted in another BitTorrent case in Massachusetts by a Doe defendant purportedly represented by Marc Randazza, Esq. Said attorney has sued hundreds of BitTorrent users in the last year on behalf of copyright holder plaintiffs, which raises the question of how and why he came to be making a motion, purportedly on behalf of a Doe defendant in that case, that clearly goes against the interests of the defendants in that case.


¹ I use the word weretroll, a portmanteau of werewolf and troll, to describe a copyright troll who used to defend alleged file-sharers in mass bittorent lawsuits, but couldn’t resist the call of greed and changed sides to pursue quick yet dirty money. Mike Meier and Marvin Cable are typical representatives of these troll species.

Funny fact: Before deciding to destroy his karma, Marvin Cable used to defend Does from Liberty Media in lawsuits filed formally by Aaron Silverstein, but actually by Marc Randazza. So, while the chess players have turned the board, victims’ families, careers and even lives are continuing to be destroyed over obscene material with a highly questionable value.

The story about a copyright troll Terik Hashmi who was caught practicing law without license in Florida was widely covered this week (DieTrollDie, EFF, ArsTechnica, TorrentFreak, Rob Cashman). As a result, the judge put his 27 mass bittorent cases on hold pending investigation.

Many knew that the website of a copyright bully, Copyright Enforcement Group, listed Terik Hashmi’s “Transnational Law Group, P.L.L.C.” as a partner:

CEG Partner List

If you visit this webpage today, you will not find “Transnational Law Group, P.L.L.C.” there anymore. Obviously, the settlement factory rushed to distance itself from an alleged felon (practicing without license in Florida is a 3rd degree felony, and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and $5,000 fine.) No one in this “business” wants too much attention: trolls dwell in dark corners and are afraid of light (publicity).

The list of partners still includes the following members:

  • Law Offices of Ira Siegel. No introduction necessary. Ira was quiet recently, after judge Maria-Elena James became the last Northern California judge who finally had had enough of trolls and killed his two monstrous cases.
  • The Copyright Law Group, P.L.L.C. It’s also a wide-known troll (or rather a weretroll), Maik Meier. Meier and Hashmi know each other for a long time.
  • Carroll Law Firm. I don’t know anything about this firm. Let me know if you have any interesting information.
  • Law Offices of Marvin Cable. This is a puzzle. Marvin Cable is listed on the EFF Subpoena Defense page (Update 3/23/2012: not anymore), represents Randazza gang’s victims and does not file lawsuits against unnamed Internet users. While being related to a settlement factory does not add to an attorney’s reputation, I wouldn’t categorize him as a troll and leave it between him and his understanding of ethics. Update 3/23/2012: Although I tried to give a benefit of a doubt to the guy, the prospect of quick and easy cash has finally won over dignity. Confirmed: Marvin Cable is a troll.
  • Schulenberg & Schenk. This is a German lawfirm, Guardaley’s co-conspirators in multiple extortion schemes in Germany. A Berlin court found that Guardaley’s IP collection methods are flawed, however it did not prevent Guardaley from extending extortion business to US using various decoys (“IPP”, “Baseprotect” etc.)

CEG’ website was redesigned recently and now looks professional and creates an impression of a reputable company. Obviously, some good designers and marketers were hired using money shaken down from semi-random Internet users. It is still no more than a settlement factory that has automated already inhuman process of sending out hollow threats and scaring innocent (and not-so-innocent) ISP subscribers into paying.

And it all started…

A less known fact: Ira Siegel and his partner Owen Onouye started a trolling business “Hammer Law” back in April 2009. Then, Onouye became one of CEG’s founders and its registered agent. Prior to these events Mr. Onoye served 2.5 years in prison: police caught him with 48 pounds of marijuana and he was convicted in 2005. It took a while for the California Bar to catch up (did they ever hear about the trolls?), but finally Owen Onouye’s license was suspended in August 2011.

SUSPENDED!

The story of Mr. Onouyo’s moral downfall is an interesting read: Onouyo claims that he agreed to be involved in drug delivery because his financial situation was dire. As we know, Ira Siegel’s is in a similar predicament: he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2010. Still… No matter how bad your finances look, improving the situation by turning to questionable methods, whether it is drug trafficking or copyright racket, is always a wrong answer. Karma police does not need court approval to watch inside everyone’s soul.

Update

04/04/2012

Terik Hashmi
Copyright troll Terik Hashmi

There were some events surrounding the consolidated case — all-in-one 27 cases fraudulently filed by Terik Hasmi in Florida: order to show cause why this case shouldn’t be dismissed, Hashmi’s tearful reply, and substitution of disgraced attorney by weretroll Mike Meier. On April 3 Judge Hinkle finally dismisses this case.

Rob Cashman covered this story, and EFF did.

Adult industry’s main news outlet, XBiz, also wrote about this event calling plaintiffs some of the top studios in the adult entertainment. I laughed wondering who are the bottom ones then, and what kinds of predatory assaults on the general public they are capable of (with the little help from some ethically challenged lawyers).

8/7/2012

CEG changed its name to CEG TEK, probably to commemorate TEriK Hashmi.

It was brought to my attention that Mike Meier was sanctioned in the amount of $37,415.00 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 on 9/20/2011.

Schulenberg & Schenk is not listed as a partner anymore. Matlock Law Group appears instead. Anne-Leith Matlock, a layer from this firm has already started filing mass bittorent cases.