This is the fifth blog post documenting a Washington defense attorney Christopher Lynch
’s letters to a local copyright troll David A. Lowe
). The previous coverage:
Each letter demanded a dismissal of Lynch’s clients and threatened to proceed with discovery otherwise. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that such discovery would uncover multiple frauds upon the federal courts. For example, Guardaley illegitimately obtained more than 500 subpoenas using fake declarations by a fictitious “expert”; this fact alone is enough to understand why the infringement monetization cartel fears exposure. Not surprisingly, each Lynch’s demand was met: as of today, claims against fourteen of his clients were dropped.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, while all the letters have a lot in common, each explored a unique topic. The letters #13 and #14 are not different in that regard. Both defendants (dismissed on 6/6/2017) were on the same case, ME2 Productions v Doe 1 et al (WAWD 17-cv-00099).
Defendant # 13
The defendant #13, Raymond Crockett is
[…] a retired, disabled veteran of the United States Navy. Mr. Crockett served two tours in the Vietnam War on a Patrol Boat behind enemy lines.
Has your blood started boiling just by reading this? Mine too. Yet I’ll try to constrain my emotions and concentrate on this letter’s payload instead.
The topic of this letter is “who is the real, undeclared party of interest”?
In investigating for Mr. Crockett, we looked into the real party in interest issues that have continually clouded the transparency of your client’s foreign representatives’ invoicing program. Assignment of a bare right to sue for copyright infringement is not enough to confer standing under the Ninth Circuit’s 2013 Righthaven v. Hoehn ruling. But, a true exclusive license coupled with an agency agreement may be enough to confer standing under the Ninth Circuit’s 2015 Minden v. Wiley ruling. But in both cases, the parties need to be identifiable. Here, the real parties in interest are opaque.
In this case, as in many others, “A&T IP Inc.” was declared as a party of interest. However, as Mr. Lynch wrote to Lowe,
[…] our December 13, 2016 letter to your law firm pointed out that “A&T IP, Inc.” of Nevada had a status of “default” with an “expired business license.” Nevertheless, your law firm continues to identify “A&T IP Inc.” as the owner of some of your clients including LHF Productions, Inc., Criminal Productions, Inc., and ME2 Productions, Inc. This includes Dkt. #4 in this case, filed January 24, 2107.
Although its status in December 2016 was in “default” – now, in May 2017, we can no longer find “A & T IP Inc.” on the Nevada Secretary of State’s roster of corporations (or California’s.) Nevertheless, we see the continued filing of FRCP 7.1 statements identifying A&T IP, Inc. as the owner of ME2 Productions (and Criminal Productions and LHF Productions).
We tried working backward from the A&T IP, Inc. corporate ID number E0609522012-5 and found a record for a “Millennium IP, Inc.” also showing Messrs. Lerner and Short as principals. So, maybe A&T IP Inc is now Millennium IP, Inc.? In any event, the FRCP 7.1 statements being filed by ME2 Productions, Inc. are not only incorrect, they are misleading in a manner consistent with the opacity that your client’s foreign representatives have employed for years while abusing our United States District Court system.
Now you understand why I used “Smoke and Mirrors, Inc.” in the headline.
In my view, the Guardaley shell game (which isn’t new) is not much less illicit than Prenda’s, whose principals were indicted last year in part because they created shell corporations to obscure the real parties of interest.