Copyright troll subspecies: Weretroll (Mike Meier)

Troll of the week

“Weretroll” is a portmanteau of “troll” and “werewolf”, a name for a miserable kind of formerly decent attorneys who turn into trolls when the moon is full, confusing the full moon with a golden coin. Unlike a werewolf, a weretroll can bark, but cannot bite — just like any other representative of the troll genera. Like its relatives, it lives of those whom it manages to coerce into settling using deception and hollow threats.

A DC attorney Mike Meier was once listed on the EFF subpoena defense page. Although his name cannot be found there anymore, there are many articles saying that his “Copyright Law Group” defended those accused of copyright infringement in mass p2p cases:

“There are multiple reasons why the law firms may have tracked down the wrong person. For example, someone may have downloaded a movie by through a Wi-Fi network used by many people, or a minor child may have used the parents’ computer. Finally, there is the human or computer error factor, maybe the user was actually out of town when the alleged download occurred,” adds Mike Meier, of Counsel to the law firm. “Courts are still dealing with many unresolved issues in these cases where people allegedly download movies or other works from the internet.”

Moreover, in an interview to PilotOnline.com Mike Meier rightfully calls the troll tactics by the name they should be called:

Meier acknowledges the country’s long-standing copyright laws but said the lawyers’ tactics have been too aggressive.
“In my opinion, they are bill collectors for the movie industry,” he said. “They’re basically extorting money”.

However, having seen that his opponents make much more money using blackmail, Mr. Meier faced tough questions: does the so-called dignity have a monetary value? Is there a price that justifies abandoning a long and hard way of reputation building? Apparently, he answered “yes” to both questions and joined the growing army of blackmailers.

Mike Meier’s website before the transformation:

…and after the transformation:

There is a private yahoo group comprised of lawyers who defend copyright trolls’ victims. This group is attorney-only, because the members discuss strategies and tactics of fighting copyright trolls, and the group is very selective when it comes to membership. I don’t know if Mr. Meier was ever a part of this group, but if he was, imagine the harm that he is capable of inflicting now. I am not saying that Mr. Meyer will violate any attorney-client privileges, but he could still take advantage of the information once entrusted to him. Update: Rob Cashman noted in a comment below that Mike Meier is unknown in bittorent defense lawyer community. So probably the fear of acquiring some secret knowledge and using it against us is overstated.

Mike Meier employs the same “experts” as Ira Siegel – Copyright Enforcement Group (actually, Meier’s Copyright Law Group is listed as a partner) — the company that admits uploading copyrighted material to p2p networks in order to entrap file-sharers:

That’s what I meant back in September when I said that Ira Siegel participates in shameless honeypot schemes. Any accusation of copyright infringement based on such a brazen entrapment would be easily nullified based on the “unclean hands doctrine”, but remember: trolls have no intention to litigate these matters, so they don’t care about the piles of stinky filth on their hands (that’s how dirty money smells).



It came 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.


Two years after this post was published, Mike Meier tries to remove it (and other articles about him) by sending a frivolous DMCA notice to my registrar, triggering a massive Streisand Effect.


wordpress counter


93 responses to ‘Copyright troll subspecies: Weretroll (Mike Meier)

  1. I don’t know how some people live with themselves.

    People trust that individuals who offer services through the EFF share a common goal of preserving individual rights and promoting justice for citizens as the internet evolves. While the EFF clearly explains that the attorneys there are self-listed and not EFF endorsed, the act of the attorney listing themselves through a civil rights organization creates an expectation of shared principles and trust. Once again we are presented with the awful truth that for some people, money rules the day, rights be damned.

    This entire troll scheme damages the reputation of the legal profession, makes a mockery of the courts and exploits laws that have not kept up with technology. Our Congress and Copyright office have been whored out to the entertainment industry. Artists have been lied to by publishers and labels – the vampires of the culture business. Statutory penalties and the cost of defending a Federal lawsuit have rendered the average person unable to defend themselves. All of these things have created an environment where predatory persons can extort money from huge numbers of people, some guilty, some not, because regardless – no one has the money to defend against the allegations.

    The most important thing any Doe can do is write your Congressperson and tell them what is happening. Write the Attorneys General of your home state and any other state where a case has been brought against you. Write your Governor. Write the Bar Associations of relevant states. Write the President. Write anyone who you think can make a difference.

    If anyone questions the inherent harm in the Stop Online Piracy Act, they need look no further than Copyright Trolls.

  2. ALSO, the US Copyright Office is conducting an inquiry and requests comments from the public as follows. Tell the Copyright office what is happening, and why it needs to change.

    II. Subjects of Inquiry
    The Office seeks comment on how copyright owners and defendants use
    the current legal system for small copyright claims, including information
    on the obstacles and benefits of using federal district courts. Additionally, the
    Office requests comment on potential alternatives for handling copyright
    claims that have a relatively small economic value. The Office is interested
    in comment on the logistics of potential alternatives, as well as the benefits and
    risks presented by different types of processes.

    III. Conclusion
    The Office hereby seeks comment from the public on factual and policy
    matters related to the treatment of small copyright claims. If there are any
    additional pertinent issues not discussed above, the Office encourages
    interested parties to raise those matters in their comments. In addition, the
    Office is considering having one or more roundtables or formal hearings on the
    matters raised above in the coming months. It is also likely that, following
    receipt of the comments in response to this Notice, the Office will publish a
    further Notice of Inquiry posing specific questions and possibly exploring
    additional alternatives.

    Dated: October 24, 2011.
    Maria A. Pallante,
    Register of Copyrights.
    [FR Doc. 2011–27824 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am]

    DATES: Comments are due January 16, 2012.

    ADDRESSES: All comments and reply comments shall be submitted
    electronically. A comment page containing a comment form is posted on
    the Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims.

    More Information can be found in the Federal Register here:

    Click to access 76fr66758.pdf

    • Well, the goal of proposed small claim copyright courts is to allow copyright holders sue infringers without spending too much. So it is possible that creation of such system will make the problem of copyright trolling even worse as it does not say anything about the statutory reform, the main driver behind abuses that we discuss here.

      It does not mean that we should be silent and ignore the opportunity to voice our concerns. It must be not a small blogger though (especially anonymous) but a reputable advocacy group. I’ll try to reach EFF via different channels to make sure they are aware.

  3. I agree, and recognize that the Copyright office’s premier concern is giving back to their corporate sponsors rather than the public good, but it is at least an open invitation to make voices heard.

    I definitely agree that statutory reform is needed most.

  4. I hope there are few if any settlement,because if you settle for one, there could be another letter from the same or different lawyer about another movie you supposedly downloaded. It’s difficult to know what to do. If it’s a porno movie the trolls uploaded shouldn’t the Justice Department be notified, since the porno trolls are not protecting children when they upload or cause to have the movie uploaded to use as bait. Anyone consider doing that?

  5. Wonder what the D.C. Bar would think of this. They have rules for these types of situations:


    Rule 1.7—Conflict of Interest: General Rule
    (a) A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.
    (b) Except as permitted by paragraph (c) below, a lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if:
    (1) That matter involves a specific party or parties and a position to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter even though that client is unrepresented or represented by a different lawyer;
    (2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client;
    (3) Representation of another client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by such representation;
    (4) The lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests.
    (c) A lawyer may represent a client with respect to a matter in the circumstances described in paragraph (b) above if
    (1) Each potentially affected client provides informed consent to such representation after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation; and
    (2) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.
    (d) If a conflict not reasonably foreseeable at the outset of representation arises under paragraph (b)(1) after the representation commences, and is not waived under paragraph (c), a lawyer need not withdraw from any representation unless the conflict also arises under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4).

    Rule 1.10—Imputed Disqualification: General Rule
    (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless:
    (1) the prohibition of the individual lawyer’s representation is based on an interest of the lawyer described in Rule 1.7(b)(4) and that interest does not present a significant risk of adversely affecting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm; or
    (2) the representation is permitted by Rules 1.11, 1.12, or 1.18.
    (b) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a person in a matter which is the same as, or substantially related to, a matter with respect to which the lawyer had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that person and about whom the lawyer has in fact acquired information protected by Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter. The firm is not disqualified if the lawyer participated in a previous representation or acquired information under the circumstances covered by Rule 1.6(h) or Rule 1.18.
    (c) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client who was represented by the formerly associated lawyer during the association and is not currently represented by the firm, unless:
    (1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
    (2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter.
    (d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
    (e) A lawyer who, while affiliated with a firm, is made available to assist the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia in providing legal services to that agency is not considered to be associated in a firm for purposes of paragraph (a), provided, however, that no such lawyer shall represent the Office of the Attorney General with respect to a matter in which the lawyer’s firm appears on behalf of an adversary.

    • If he is no longer representing those clients, as in he settled those lawsuits then there would be no conflict of interest if he switched from defense to offense. If however, he sued a batch of IP addresses on behalf of his new client and it turns out one of the IP addresses belonged to a former or current client then he would have to recuse himself, and almost certainly his law firm as well. To prevent that from happening his current or former client would probably be dismissed with prejudiced immediately. If they weren’t the attorney would be facing a disciplinary action he would most assuredly lose. Its doubtful it would result in a suspension or disbarment though.

  6. I speak to and correspond with many of the bittorrent attorneys, and I have NEVER even heard of this guy. If anyone would know him, I would say I would have known of him. Seriously, I have never seen a thing from this guy. He may have been on the EFF list, but I’ve never seen him do a thing for any accused downloaders. I’d be surprised if he ever even represented any of them.

  7. Amazing. He hasn’t even bothered to change his domain name from copyrightdefenselawyer.com to something more relevant. It’s also amazing that he kept the same horrendous color scheme. In fact, the only major visual difference is that the guy pulled his face off the site.
    I guess hiding your face in shame is a small consolation to a big, big payoff.

      • Cute?! You have odd taste … my first thought was that his toupee was sitting a little off to the side.

        Also interesting is that the Attorney Profiles tab is gone. Meier isn’t the only one who wants to hide his face apparently. Can’t blame them, since they’re jumping in both feet on the “porn shame” angle, with every suit on behalf of internet porn companies. I wouldn’t want my face associated with “Illegal Ass 2”, either.

        Where did you grab the screenies from? If the site is embedded in a web archive somewhere, I’d be interested in seeing who else they had in their profiles page.

  8. I got a letter from my ISP regarding the Meier suits.

    Should I bother filing a motion to quash? It sounds like the judge will ignore it and the trolls don’t care what your explanation is, legit or otherwise.

    Also, if nobody else files a motion (or only a handful file), then Meier will know which of us filed anonymous motions to quash.

    It seems like the best thing to do is nothing — ignore everything unless it’s a court summons. But from what you guys say, there won’t BE a court summons unless the trolls somehow get information on you that’s better than an IP address, which is impossible if you ignore them.

    Am I right on that?

    • I received, I’m guessing, the same letter from Comcast yesterday and I have been reading everything I can about it — needed to be educated about it to calm my fears. I thought I’d file a motion but from this thread, I think it’s best to sit it out. Am I correct?

      I know, for sure, I’m not going to settle and give the trolls satisfaction. I also don’t want the expense and anxiety of litigation. Nor would I appreciate harassment.

      Praying the case gets tossed ASAP!

  9. Oh, they’ll likely get your info from your ISP if you don’t settle or the case isn’t tossed out before your ISP’s deadline. What isn’t likely is ever getting a court summons. They’ll get your info and there’s a good chance they’ll bug you for several weeks with letters and phone calls urging you to contact them and settle, but it would be very unusual if it actually went to court unless for some reason you seem like a good candidate for a default judgement in favor of the trolls. You’re very right, never ignore a court summons, but again, you’re not likely to ever get one. Just don’t respond to the trolls. Keep the letters they send you just in case, save their phone messages if you’re so inclined to do so, but don’t engage them or provide them with any incriminating information outside of what they can get from the ISP and their claim of copyright infringement. These guys don’t care whether you’re innocent or guilty are are just looking for people they can bully into paying up.

  10. Right, so why file a motion if very few others do? It will just give the troll a reason to look at you separately. I mean if 20 out of 150 guys are on one ISP, and out of the 20, one or two file a motion to quash anonymously, it won’t be too tough for the troll to realize which two they are.

    They get 18 names from the ISP, then they get two more names withheld until the motion is overruled. Then they know who the two troublemakers are.

    • You need to determine what is best for you. TrollTrasher is correct about the Trolls motivation – money! Depending on the case and numbers, the Troll may be able to determine who possibly filed motions. Regardless if you are a “troublemaker” or not, taking a Doe to an actual trial is a gamble for the Troll WITHOUT some good evidence (not just the IP adress) OR information that the Doe wants to settle. If you didn’t do this and there is NO evidence the Troll can use, I say keep filing.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • Another thing to be aware of is that some judges, especially in DC, are not only denying sealed motions to quash these things, but also unsealing those motions after they’ve been denied. You could essentially be paying top dollar for a fancy DC lawyer in a suit to try to protect your identity, only to have the judge serve it up on a silver platter with the stroke of a pen.
        In the end it doesn’t make much difference, because the ISPs will likely have to hand the info over – but if you’re on a budget, you may want to save your lawyer money until things get “real”.

  11. Eh, again, the trolls are interested in money, not vendettas. It’s not like them realizing who filed motions to quash makes those particular Does any more likely to have the money they want or be willing to pay up. They’re going to come after both those who filed and those who didn’t if they get the info from the ISP’s, trying to scare as many as they can into paying.

    Don’t be afraid or intimidated by them. It’s your right to file if you want to.

  12. If I recall correctly, Mr. Meier had a video on his website as well as a transcript of the video where he explained that the purpose of the lawsuits was to get settlement and that none of the plaintiffs really wanted to go to trial.

    These trolls are not going to go away. They will only multiply unless people start going on the offensive. My suggestion is that people start to also file motions to get these attorneys sanctioned where and when appropriate. In Mr. Meier’s case, for example, if he has started filing lawsuits against individuals using the same shady evidences as other copyright trolls, his previous statements on his website may be appropriate grounds to try to get him sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits in some states since from his own previous admission, he’s filing lawsuits without really intending to ever go to trial, but instead is filing to force people to settle with the threat of a lawsuit. His own words in the interview cited above can also be used as evidence as he’s admitting that he’s basically extorting money from people.

  13. Here is a written interview with one of Mr. Meier’s Attorneys


    These are the best two paragraphs

    “These law firm letters often tell you to talk to a lawyer, but also that hiring a lawyer is more expensive than just paying the penalty. That is not good advice. There are cost effective ways of defending such cases,” says Ms. Soyoung Lee.

    “There are multiple reasons why the law firms may have tracked down the wrong person. For example, someone may have downloaded a movie by through a Wi-Fi network used by many people, or a minor child may have used the parents’ computer. Finally, there is the human or computer error factor, maybe the user was actually out of town when the alleged download occurred,” adds Mike Meier, of Counsel to the law firm. “Courts are still dealing with many unresolved issues in these cases where people allegedly download movies or other works from the internet.”

  14. What would you call a (or The) Super Troll who converted Mike into a Weretroll? I want a new cool nickname. Pirate Slayer is so 2010.

    Mike is only the first, as I have been busy in ‘retirement’.

    • What’s that John? You don’t like what you’re being called?

      How about “the Jack Sparrow of Douchebaggery”? Capt. Slimeball? Johnny McGreedy? Steely F*ckface?

      No? Don’t like any of those? Then maybe you should stop being a d1ck and get a real job … or just stay retired, like most people in Florida 🙂

    • So you’re laying claim to converting an ambulance chaser to a porn torrent chaser? Congratulations. >>slow clap<<
      What's next for your retirement? Converting Gonorrhea to Syphilis? They're both seedy, painful and mildly threatening if allowed to run their course unchecked. Bacteria's one of the lowest forms of life, so I think it's a fitting metaphor.

      I'll just hang tight and bust out the popcorn for when the courts give us a dose of penicillin.

  15. So they have resorted to filing smaller cases and individual cases, what does this mean? You think they are actually going to take to court? They are blinded by the “money shots” of their clients content I guess! I saw the most recent string of lawsuits filed they didn’t even bother to pay the fee required! It’s some hack in Michigan by the name of John S. Hone.

    Pirate hunter…I thought it was pirate slayer? Why don’t you just go by Buffy like your clients call you?

    • In my unprofessional opinion these solo Doe cases are probably ones where the Does either incriminated themselves in the course of communication with the trolls or the trolls are confident they’ll end up with a default judgement that they’ll be able to flaunt around when they cats more extortion nets. I highly doubt they want to name anyone and go to court when there’s any kind of a decent chance that their “flawless” invesitgative methods will have to be revealed and everything comes down tumbling like a house of cards.

  16. Mr. Meier filed at least half a dozen troll lawsuits in the Southern District of New York just before the New Year. He is representing Next Phase Distribution, Patrick Collins d/b/a Elegant Angel Productions, Exquisite Multimedia, Combat Zone, Zero Tolerance Entertainment and Third Degree Films. I wish him a stereotypical New York City Greeting by the esteemed judiciary: “Who the fuck are you, asshole?”

  17. I’m (was)one of the does in new york. Just received my settlement letter from Mike Meier. Still debating what to do. I know he’s filed a multiple suits, just saw that the one in maryland 8:12-cv-00023-RWT with demand for jury trial. Anyone’s thoughts on all his suits actually going to trial?

  18. I got a notice from my ISP for a New York Southern district subpoena on behalf of Exquisite Media and I did a little research on the IP in question. The IP that got assigned to me is a CPE IP with a MAC address different than the MAC address on my cable modem. I dug deeper a little and found that my cable modem’s IP of the time in question is completely different, it is a private IP that starts at 10.33.*. Picture a CPE device similar to a hub or bridge where multiple devices connect to but the world only sees that IP, similar to work LAN where you have one external facing IP that internal PCs connect to with their own IP, a technique known as IP NAT’ing.

    I can see the validity on the IP if you’re the static owner of the IP, but most residential broadband users either get assigned an IP during connect time or connect through a CPE device. That begs the question, how does the cable company or broadband provider link a CPE IP to a user IP? There can be many users connecting to a single CPE IP because static IPs are reserved for commercial use or are expensive due to the finite limit.

    Does anyone have any thoughts on that in defense against these trolls?

  19. I received a subpoena in the mail about a week or two ago involving the same situation with Third Degree Films and this guy Mike Meier. I was really upset over the situation because I know that I never did anything of the sorts. I even went as far as to accuse my little brother and checked his computer only to end up apologizing in the end. I’ve talked to a few friends and family members and some have suggested I contact Comcast and proclaim my innocence while others have told me to contact this Mike Meier guy. I’m at a stand point and have been doing as much research as possible to find out what I can do and who to contact. I can’t really afford a lawyer but refuse to sit here and be accused of something I never did let alone ever heard of. Is there anything that I can do? Who should I contact?

    • OK. If you read the paperwork COCAST sent you, I’m sure you are going to find a section stating it is not thier issue and they can’t help you. They are just going through the motions to cover their @#!. Don’t bother contacting Meier, he really doesn’t care if you did it or not. He only cares that the Does pay him settlement fees he can split with the copyright content owner. If an innocent person wants to pay him to make the threat go away, he doesn’t care. His view (and many Federal Judges as well) is if you didn’t do it, then don’t pay. If it comes to an actual trial, the truth will come out. The Trolls know this and that is why they don’t take anyone to actual trial on such weak evidence (your public IP address). Here is my Newbie page http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/ File a motion to quash if you can. If not, just wait for the Troll to call and give him the Richard Pryor Response.

      DTD 🙂

    • This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

      I agree with DTD that it is better to avoid contacting Mike Meier, the copyright troll lawyer. There is a danger that the troll representative would look for words to use against you and others.


      If you file a motion, make sure to let the ISP know so they can put things on hold. Innocence does not matter to the trolls in this scam. There are many people in a similar situation. Read the FAQ’s here and at the DTD link.

  20. As Somebody mentioned under the ‘Prenda Law makes classified’ post comment,
    a Doe and lawyers fight back in a Meier case. They contest the dismissal!! They ask for discovery to expose the scheme. Some good points:

    “… the Motion to Dismiss is premature – and should be deferred until the appropriate stage of the litigation is reached and Defendant _ _ has a fair opportunity for discovery. Discovery depositions are needed to establish evidence of conversations and decisions by Plaintiff and its agents to initiate this litigation solely as a vehicle for pressuring innocent people to pay hush money – shake down – extortion. If Defendant _ _ proves such conversations or decisions or uncovers other evidence to support her position, the case of abuse of legal process will be proved.
    Mike Meier, who served both as Plaintiff’s counsel and as verifying witness under penalty of perjury, verified that the allegations in the Complaint were true. Defendant _ _needs discovery to determine whether there is any basis for his verification, as that verification is under consideration by the Court in viewing the Answer and Counterclaim of _ _ and the Motion to Dismiss of Plaintiff. One of the principal reasons for Defendant _ _’s need for discovery is to investigate the fact that Mile Meier verified the allegations of the Declaration yet was quoted within the past year as having said publicly that this type of suit was impossible to prove.”

    “Defendant _ _has alleged that two different parts of the legal process have been perverted for an improper and abusive purpose outside the judicial process not contemplated in the regular prosecution of a copyright claim – namely, perpetrating extortion and blackmail on innocent citizens with no basis in fact or law for doing so through (1) filing a complaint with no factual support against _ _and no good faith basis for alleging that _ _ willfully and intentionally downloaded, copied, and distributed Plaintiff’s hard core film and (2) gratuitously submitting defamatory allegations that _ _ downloaded hard core pornography in the subpoena it served on [ISP]. Either of these properly pleaded claims of abuse of the legal process provides a proper basis for a finding by a jury of abuse of the legal process. Discovery should be permitted before the Court reaches a decision.”

    • Thanks! Yes, I know about this case, defendant’s angry motion (24) and Meier’s weak response (27). And about “weak” – it’s not my wishful thinking, it’s a real attorney’s opinion (discussed it privately). Eager to see how things go from here…

      • The Colorado troll Krotzker appeaers to be making lots of loot off of the terrorized Does in CO and is now expanding into the EDNY just as Meier is trying to do in the SDNY. Are these guys like mobsters whereby they divide territories? Same clients but different attorneys and two District Courts that are within a 1/2 hour drive from each other?

        • Some different things in the mix here. There are different layers to hide who’s running the show. Behind the curtain are (sometimes out of state) lawyers of the Siegal, Steele, or Lipscomb kind, who get local attorneys to file the papers.

          In more obvious cases, the local attorney has no copyright background. Behind the troll lawyer pyramid are the porn/studio “producers” and the Guardaley/Schulenberg and Schenk type honeypot computer groups.

          At the top of the pyramid, they’d like to hide identity and the number of actions. More local attorneys means more camouflage. Any one lawyer’s reputation may be lowered by bad lawyering or the holes in cases.

          The troll extortion cases are taking huge amounts of court time, even without going to trial. It will have to stop soon, or the courts won’t have time to work with the real cases about real problems. When all courts know that only a few greedy bad people are behind hundreds of cases, they will stop them.

      • Mike Meier is the face of a larger operation. Since summer 2011, he has filed at least 31 troll cases among the Maryland, DC, and NY Southern courts, including at least 3765 Does total.

        According to his website when he was a pretend Doe defense lawyer, he was “of counsel” (not a Partner) in a firm with only two other lawyers.


        Going from being an employee to tracking 31 or more cases in several states is much more than a one man operation.

        He’s not the only front man.

        Ignatius A. Grande of (at the time) Di Santo LLP filed at least 11 troll cases (146 Does) in New York. Di Santo LLP also has offices in Miami-probably not a coincidence.

        Jon Alexander Hoppe of Maddox, Hoppe, Hoofnagle & Hafey, LLC filed at least 27 cases with at least 477 Does total. His partner, Charles Maddox, filed 3 more cases in Virginia (91 Does total).

        It’s a long list.

        • Very nice info Indeed! Thanks because the machinations of these guys oftentimes staggers the imagination but does lead to many other avenues for exploration.

        • I have a question regarding a default judgement. When a trolls file a complaint against you, if you do not respond through the court process, won’t you get a default judgement by the judge before the summon? Iam confused.

  21. I believe it works like this: The troll has to name you in the complaint by amending it to drop John Doe and add, for example Jimmy Carter. Then he has to get you served with a summons and file the certificate of service with the court Then if you fail to answer within 21 days after being served then the troll can file a motion for a default judgment. See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_55

    The forgoing does not constitute legal advice and is for discussion purposes only

  22. For 8:12-cv-00023 (the case with Third Degree Films, Mike Meier, Does 1-85), I filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash, and Meier filed a “Response in Opposition to Motion.” I have a copule questions:

    1) As far as I can tell from downloading all the court docs from PACER, the court has not responded yet to any of the motions to quash from any Does. How can I tell when the court has ruled on my motion, will they upload a doc or will something indicate in PACER that they have made a ruling?

    2) I think I have until March 26th to respond to Meier’s “Response in Opposition to Motion.” Should I respond to his response, or just wait to see how the court rules on my original motion?

    Thanks for any guidance you can provide! I have been reading a lot online but haven’t found anything specifically about how to handle it beyond this point.

  23. Am I counting correctly there are something 14 motions to dismiss/sever or for a protective order in your case?! That’s a lot from 85 Does.To try to answer your questions:

    1. The court will post its ruling on PACER. When it will do that is anyone’s guess.

    2. File a reply if you need to add something new to your original arguments (like a recent favorable ruling for example) or to refute (if refutable) anything in the opposition papers.

    Good luck and let us know how it turns out. You can also post info about your case in Discussions>Discussions by State>Maryland.

    The above does not constitute legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

  24. Thanks for the quick reply Raul. Yes, your count of 14 sounds about right. About 6 or 7 of the Does filed motions with the same defense attorney. I’m not sure how that came to be, if there is a group of people that went to him together (which seems unlikely given the situation), or if there was one person that was accused numerous times in the case.

    Do you recommend any particular resources for refuting specific case citations in a troll’s submission to a court? In this case, specifically, for me to refute the points cited in the troll’s “Response in opposition to motion?”

  25. Suddenly, a wild chess game appears!


    Your move!

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 )

Connecting to %s

Pingbacks & Trackbacks

  1. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | TorrentFreak
  2. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Torrent Scene
  3. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | We R Pirates
  4. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Torrents & File Sharing News
  5. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | CheckSwag
  6. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Top News Story
  7. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Buy Premium Account
  8. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | TorrentForce Blog
  9. ebanka , e banka, e bankalar, e-bankalar ,e-bankacılık » BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls
  10. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Links Daily
  11. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | DailyBinaryNews.com
  12. BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | UploadVideos.Org
  13. Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archiv » BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls
  14. Attorney Joseph C. Peiffer and teen anal sluts « Fight Copyright Trolls
  15. Copyright Enforcement Group distances itself from Terik Hashmi « Fight Copyright Trolls
  16. Doe Makes Counterclaim Against Third Degree Films, Inc. (Troll Mike Meier) and Seeks 20 Million Dollars in Damages | DieTrollDie
  17. The Domino Effect: Trolls are not welcome in the Southern District of New York anymore « Fight Copyright Trolls
  18. CEG Monetization – Church of the Bootyism 2 | DieTrollDie
  19. In a well prepared and mighty counter-attack, “Malibu Media v. Fantalis” case turns into “Fantalis v. Malibu Media” « Fight Copyright Trolls
  20. The Fifth Column: Marc Randazza attempts to sabotage defense against copyright trolls « Fight Copyright Trolls