CEG-TEK

As expected, Ira Siegel’s monstrous cases are dead

Today magistrate judge Maria-Elena James has put (hopefully) the last nail in the coffin of monstrous p2p infringement lawsuits. She dismissed both of Ira Siegel’s cases in her docket, 13:11-cv-02766 Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590 and 3:11-cv-02770 New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1474.

It all started on December 1st, when Judge James ordered Ira Siegel to answer some uncomfortable questions about the case status, because he did not name a single defendant in violation of the 120-day rule. Almost immediately after that she issued another order, this time questioning the Court’s jurisdiction over the majority of putative defendants. Remembering how Ira Siegel disregarded judge Zimmerman’s order to disclose how much money he extorted from Does, I did not have any illusion that Mr. Siegel would comply this time, so it was no surprise when instead of

  • Conducting a search to obtain geographic information about the IP Addresses listed in its Complaint and thereafter provide the Court with the location for each IP Address¹;
  • Voluntarily dismiss without prejudice out-of-jurisdiction defendants (or to show good cause as to why it has a good faith belief that jurisdiction exists and venue is proper as to each individual Doe Defendant).

Ira Siegel had audacity to ask the Court

  • To allow the ISPs to comply with the subpoenas;
  • To allow Plaintiff and those potential Doe defendants who desire to settle their claims to reach settlements;
  • To postpone any requirements that Plaintiff name and/or dismiss any potential Doe defendants until February 20, 2012.

Judge James was rightfully angry. She did not swallow Ira’s insult to her intelligence and dismissed both cases outright:

After this order, as well as other judge’s ones, it is not conceivable that any troll would attempt to lump together IP addresses from all over the USA, at least in the Northern District of California.

What next?

Rob Cashman expects Ira Siegel to follow John Steele’s path and file smaller cases in other states using proxy law firms. I second this prediction.

Lumping together thousands of Does, many of whom are innocent, will flourish in Florida state courts until the “pure bill of discovery” loophole is patched, the era of monstrous cross-jurisdiction shake-down lawsuits in federal courts is likely over.

Our fight is far from being over. Trolls adapt by filing smaller cases in proper jurisdictions, we should adapt too. Although those smaller cases enable trolls to avoid jurisdiction and (to some extent) joinder issues, the basic ethical flaw has not changed: even cases against carefully picked single defendants are still nothing more than extortion.


¹ Update: Actually Ira Siegel has provided this information.

wordpress counter

Discussion

75 responses to ‘As expected, Ira Siegel’s monstrous cases are dead

  1. 1-1,474 was also dismissed per a similar order today. Great to hear but still not the death knell for trolls. My concern now though is that these cases will get smaller and thus lose the coverage and support that the mass cases received, effectively seeing the trolls try to skip by under the radar. For those of us that were under this or similar cases, we had improper joinder and jurisdiction as a defense. The smaller cases leave me wondering though what option doe’s will have to be rid of these trolls, especially if they start going after individuals on a regular basis. Being one of the many allows you to fight as a group with numbers. Being one of twenty, or even worse being one of one, will give the troll more leverage and will only cause them to up the settlements demands even further.

    This is one victory to win this battle but many more victories are needed to win the war.

    • Yes, thanks, I already corrected the text. I totally agree that Does in bigger cases are in somewhat better situation because of all the attention. Historically EFF was also involved only in big cases.

      Yet, that’s why we are here – to stick together and discuss out problems and solutions regardless of the case size. Trolls hate this: their “business model” in part relies on ignorance. Publicity is very powerful tool.

      On a different note, I also tipped Ernesto – a TorrentFreak article is possible.

      • On the list of doe’s geo. location from Ira, my Doe number and IP address was a N/A for all info. But my time was up a long time ago with my ISP, they should have already turned over my info to him a long time ago. So my question is did he lie or did my ISP not turn it over for some reason? Maybe I’ll call them and ask if they turned it over yet and tell them not to if they haven’t.

        • Same situation with me. The ISP gave me until the beginning of November to reply to the subpoena and if I read the paperwork correctly they had until the end of November to hand the info over. Here we are a few weeks later and according to his reply my info was released. I did file a motion but it was denied so either the legal department of my ISP didn’t get around to it, was waiting on a ruling, or they actually stuck up for me.

          I noticed though that a number of other people were receiving their subpoena notices almost a month after mine. Shouldn’t they all have gone out at the same time? Or was the troll deliberately spacing out the subpoena requests so that he could focus on small groups at a time and ask for an extension in the future when he could claim that not all the ISP’s had gotten back to him?

          If my information wasn’t released already then I’ll just wait and see if he tries to get at it again in another case. If it has been released then I’ll have to consider my next options in the event he does try to use it.

      • Sent copies to DC Court Judges, to the clerks to be more specific. There are numerous cases that have not had any recent activity, this might help get the ball rolling.

        Wondering where big mouth Johnny boy is?

        And to the other Does, you are not alone, heck I’m not even a Doe, at least not any more and will keep the battle.

        • Im with you on that. Im not threw with my headache yet, but I promise I’ll never let these SCUM BAG LOW LIFE PIECES OF SHIT get away with it easily! The way they try to extort the helpless, poor, rich, young, old, innocent or guilty. It should be done according to the law, not by sneaking around lady justice because your lazy, and dont want to work HONESTLY for your money.
          Thats ok, you know you can feel the noose, slowly tighting around your Honey Pot, and you struggle to breath for another way to rob people…
          But theres always a site like Fightcopyrighttrolls and DieTrollDie to lend a hand to the ones seeking it, to help fight the way a court process should be done! ( Innocent or Guilty ).

    • At least 200 if the info he released was true. He may have only had time to contact 200 so far and thus thats the only reason he listed them. He may have even more info. I wonder what he would do next if he still intends to pursue the additional people.

  2. *cheer*
    Not only dismissing the case, but also stopping the settlement machine in its tracks. “if Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after December 7,Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds.”
    It’s a shame for the does that caved & paid prior to 12/7/11, but I believe that falls under the category of “A fool and his money”.
    The most important part however, is that various judges are waking out of their stupors and recognizing that these cases well and truly are settlement extortion schemes (pronounced scams). “At the same time, the Court became aware of an outbreak of similar litigation in this District and around the country, and the concerns raised by some of the judges presiding over these cases.”

  3. Sucks that it was dismissed w/o predjudice but at least it will require ira to spend more time and money chasing ghosts. Plus this is all on the record to show what a sleeze ball this guy really is. Honestly if they wanted to actually stop pirating of files they would go after the original downloader/sites streaming content etc., however they know there is no money in that. Shutting down the file sharing sites or even moderately slowing it would completely ruin buisness for these crooks.

  4. While I know what happens in the future is anyone’s guess, but does anyone know if to date, Ira has refiled against people out of state who have previously been dismissed without prejudice in cases such as these?

    • Good thinking. I know that there was another recent case from Ira “On the Cheap 1-5,011” that was thrown out back in September. I wonder what he did there and if he followed up in other states after the fact. The situations where the case was dismissed is slightly different so that may or may not change what he does here next.

      Is there somewhere we could see if smaller cases were ever raised?

    • Fair question. I’d think of it this way. The original California trolls aren’t going to want to spend time locating 49 different law firms to enlist as partners. They’ll probably focus on a few particular states where partnering firms are readily available, where precedents are favorable to these cases and/or where there are lots of Doe defendants (populous states, you would think). So most likely any individual cases would be clustered in a few key states.

      That said, it’s not clear whether individual cases would re-target Does who were previously joined in a dismissed mass case like this one, or whether they would just focus on fresh meat (I’m sure there’s a steady supply of new IP addresses from Torrent swarms). If they target the same Does, they might think the chances of settlement are higher because now they “mean business”. But on the flip side, many existing Does also have ammo from the research they’ve done and the outcome of the original case that will make them less vulnerable defendants. Plus the 3-year statute of limitations is ticking away. In some cases, it’s already been well over 1 year since the original alleged infringement date by the time a mass case is dismissed.

      • Yeah, I would expect them to mostly move on to new Does instead of re-filing against the Does from the dismissed mass suits. That said, however, some Does’ IP addresses show up more than once in different suits, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the trolls opt to include such Does when they file smaller cases.

  5. agreed- the ammunition now that the old does now have is massive- it makes more sense to bring in fresh IPs to shock and awe them for the easy money- us leftovers are too hardened to this BS now…

    • Good point. In the end, everything is a business decision for these trolls. How much sense does it make to continue to threaten people that didn’t bend over the first time? Rapists go for the easy marks.
      “I didn’t settle when you threatened to sue me in California, I’m still not going to settle if you threaten to sue me in my own state.”

      • Totally agree: good point. I had somewhat similar thought some time ago:

        In theory Sperlein can file other lawsuits naming some of us, but I doubt it. Remember: his real goal is to extort settlements from those who can be easily scared. Note that he has already collected about $90K from this case only. It is unlikely that those who decided not to pay will change their minds later, so expected settlement rate would be very low, and hence does not justify an investment. You can brew strong coffee from the same beans only once.

  6. I woke up today feeling very relaxed that this case was finally dismissed but I won’t let it set in for too long. Now the waiting game starts to see if he pursues this further. If he does I have enough information now to deal with him properly and I feel secure in the fact that I can defend myself well enough that nothing will come of it.

    I need to thank everyone here for all of the help and support. I’m now a member of this community and I will do what I can to help prevent this happening to others in the future. Its a shame that he has been able to extort the money he has but for all the people that didn’t settle he has converted them into an army of people that will be against him and will do what they can to spread the word to stop him from doing it again.

  7. Just sent a fax to my ISP’s legal department with the order and a request to inform me if they had released my information before 12/14/2011 despite Ira claiming that they didn’t. If they did and within a good enough amount of time I will be contacting the judge to inform her that he lied in an official court document. I would suggest others do so too if there information was listed as not received and they are contacted by the troll.

    I’m not sure of the legal requirements or ramifications but I’m sure if there is a record then of Ira not complying with a courts order and falsifying reports then he will be in hot water in the future.

      • Very true.

        For me, I was involved in the 1-1,474 case. As per the report submitted to the court by Ira on 12/14/2011

        http://ia600605.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.241553/gov.uscourts.cand.241553.99.0.pdf,

        I found that my information was listed as not being received along with all the others from my ISP service. If that is the case then good for me, but if it isn’t and he lied to the court about that then I’m sure the judge would want to be informed of that fact. Asking for an extension when you already had the information or withholding information that would be relevant to her request and potential rulings doesn’t sound like something he would want to be caught doing.

        As of right now I don’t know if that is the case but I just want to cover my bases in the event that it is. I don’t trust him and I won’t be taking anything for granted.

  8. I arrived home today to find a settlement letter (1-2590) that says,

    “December 12, 2011

    Re: Civil Action No. XX-XX-XXXX XXX

    Dear Doe,

    If you have already referred this matter to your own lawyer, please forward this letter to your lawyer.

    A letter offering you an opportunity to settle your alleged liability in connection with the above-identified case was previously sent to you. Since then, the Court in this cas has issued an Order regarding its concern regarding jurisdiction and venue issues. A copy of that Order is included with this letter.

    Pending resolution of the jurisdiction and venue issues by the Court, you are not required to comply with or otherwise respond to our previous letter.

    For anyone who had not taken advantage of the opportunity to reach a settlement prior to December 7, 2011, an opportunity to settle may be made available after the Court resolves the jurisdiction and venue issues.

    Very truly yours,

    Ira M. Siegel”

    More veiled threats. How unexpected.

    • You gotta love the charity of him offering you an “opportunity” to settle.

      IE: “GUYS! I’m trying to do you a favor! If you had just given me 3500.00 before December 7th you wouldn’t be in this mess! I’m trying so hard to be a nice guy!”

      Anyone who paid him before the 7th sadly ended up paying an idiot tax.

      Anon: I’d advise you to save that letter, but especially any future letters that he’ll most likely send you before jurisdiction is even provided to show the judge in your district that he continued to send you settlement letters that said they weren’t settlement letters because they were informing you of future “opportunities” to settle for something which there’s no actual proof of you doing.

      SophisticatedJane: You should be commended for getting the word out. I commend you and I’m sure that this community that posts here appreciates you greatly.

      DieTrollDie: I love your commentary and I’m thankful that you are yet another voice that speaks out against the trolls.

      To everyone else. We need to stay vigilant. Don’t talk to trolls on the phone (they are recording every word, and you most likely are not) or worry about their letters. If you get a summons from a real court then you can worry.

      • Thanks! Getting the word out is easier now than back in summer: before I had to process lots of cases in order to find significant events. Now when anything newsworthy happens, it is complemented by a buzz in comments and emails. Community it is. And I would say, great community: no flames, no trolls, just mutual respect and desire to help and share important information. Too much for a bunch of “pirates”, Steele?

      • If you think that would help anyone. Do you think that this letter definitely defies the judge’s order? I do. But since he throws that word “opportunity” around as DOA mentioned it’ll be kind of hard to say he directly defied the order. However just like everything else Ira has done in Judge James’ court… it is kind of insulting her intelligence. Has anyone else received one of these letters? I don’t have a fax machine.

        I wonder what the judge would say if Ira sent the court one version of the letter that just cooperates with the order and then the “you should have settled” version I got.

        I noticed that the letter actually does say “Dear Doe,” instead of using my name. I wonder why he used the term “doe” in this case.

        Anyway. I could invest in an affordable scanner if it helps the cause at all.

  9. BTW, is there a way to trace the originator of the honey pots used in these scams? I won’t mention the board where I read this (because I don’t want the trolls to track down the people trying to sabotage them) but a website called “pornorip.net” seems to be the origin of a lot of these lawsuits. And looking at this particular website you find that a lot of the “films” in question are all on the “top torrents” page. Weird huh?

    There were hopes that they’d be as sloppy as they are in filing lawsuits and whoever was seeding these files could be traced thus proving a honey pot. But that particular website and others are russian, czech, iraq, yemen, etc owned. Thereby placing them out of the reach of US courts.

    How convenient for the people who uploaded these files to these sites in the first place. No personal responsibility for providing the file. Just sweet sweet blackmail for whoever happens to come across it.

  10. It is absolutely amazing to me that all of you would be discussing the cases, and virtually nothing about Ira. Has anyone bothered to check to see what his “status” is as a DEBTOR? The jerk is in Chapter 13 and has been since 2010. He has been pleading poverty to the court, and at the same time is raping the general public with his settlement letters. His XIII docs claim he makes only $8,000 a month (duh! yeah,right!) and he’s months behind on his mortgage on Gregory Way in Los Angeles. He’s wiping out a staggering amount of debt in the bankruptcy case, including (drum roll please…) a personal hard-cash money loan from a senior citizen! Ira isn’t your typical pond scum, he’s the green fecal matter that accumulates UNDER the pond scum. The XIII is on PACER, Case Number 10-44358. The bankruptcy trustee is Kathy A. Dockery. Their phones are (V) 213-996-4400, and (F) 213-996-4426.

    People everywhere (every Doe in the nation) should flood their fax machine with copies of everything, and then call and ask the trustee how in the world can he claim poverty to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court with so many lawsuits pending?

    There you go, Ira. This one’s for you. Enjoy the heat, because your problems are just beginning. I never stole from you or your client, Ira. No one in my house could have stolen from you or your client, Ira. You are targeting an 88 year old woman and as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, I can personally guarantee that your law license will be toast by the time I am done with you.

    • Good point!

      You can also contact the IRS and notify, if you suspect any tax fraud. The more the IRS hears about this, the faster they will engage in his finances.

      And the killer is, that it can be totally anonymous! There is even reward money!

    • Looks like he doesn’t like filing tax returns as it is. According to the documents in his bankruptcy case he didn’t file state income for 2006-2009 or federal for 2006-2007. I’ll bet the IRS would love to find out how much he’s really making. Being in the news extorting people dozens at a time for $2K or more each might motivate them to ask questions.

      • The IRS works at the speed of smell, but once they get their claws into him he won’t escape. I would venture to say that there’s some sort of tax evasion (versus avoidance…which is legal) going on with several trolls. Large sums of money of mostly cash coming in is a recipe for tax issues. The IRS is keeping their eyes on the big name trolls and I’d love to see their K-1s and 1040s for this year since the IRS sees these guys as a goldmine for tax revenue.

  11. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s not enough just to play defensive. People need to also start getting on the offensive with these trolls. Note how some of them are filing amicus briefs for other trolls–take a page from their tactics.

    If anyone sees a troll doing something in a case that’s illegal or unethical by court rules, someone should file a motion to get them sanctioned even if it’s not your case. The guy at https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/ has the right idea where he’s filing affadavits for other cases showing flaws in troll arguments.

    For this Siegel guy, this appears to be at least the second case where he has blatantly ignored the court’s order and he seems to be doing so to get the court to dismiss without prejudice. This seems like a tactic to avoid not only having to go to trial, but to avoid dismissing himself so that the court won’t call him on not wanting to go to trial.

    Didn’t some guy in Virginia named O’Bryan get threatened with sanctions by the court for tactics the court thought showed he had no legitimate interest in going to trial and was just using the court as an extortion mechanism?

  12. He will have his hands full with other matters, bankruptcy court, IRS (yes, the big bad wolf), and so on…

    All involved parties have been notified of the settlement schemes.

    Just follow the money trail, basic audit procedure and you will find the pot!

    “Bua ha ha” “Bua ha ha”

    And lets make sure Judge Maria Elena is aware that he is currently under Chapter XIII and he needs to notify the bankruptcy court of his current settlements. Lets put the final nails on this coffin!

    • I’ve heard a few people bring up the IRS now and reporting Ira but has anyone actually done it? I’d step up but I barely was able to grasp all the requirements for filing motions so reporting someone to the IRS isn’t exactly in my wheel house.

    • As an auditor, I’d kill for the chance to get to audit one of these trolls. Hell, I may even quit my job just to go work for the IRS so I can have the chance to audit one of these trolls when they slip up and don’t pay their taxes, don’t properly file, or pull some tax shelter crap. Finally that fraud examination class I took in college would pay off 🙂

  13. Looks like Ira siegel is up to something again he must have a person or two in his sights but the date that the Judge mention is messing him up, but I don’t understand the extra paragraph that he wants the judge to add the the dismissal.
    Doc 104 Ex Parte Application
    new sensations Inc. Vs does 1 -1474
    https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?342354141406448-L_240_0-1

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    Northern District of California
    San Francisco Division
    NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DOES 1-1,474,
    Defendants.
    No. C 11-2770 MEJ
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
    AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING
    CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    JUDGE: Maria-Elena James
    Chief Magistrate Judge
    On December 15, 2011, the Court issued its Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice
    (Dkt. No. 102.)
    Plaintiff has returned all settlements received after December 7, 2011 and has served the
    Order on all previously-subpoenaed ISPs pursuant to that Order.
    However, when discussing NEW settlements with counsel for Doe defendants, a question
    has arisen about whether or not Plaintiff may seek any further settlements in connection with the
    infringements alleged in the Complaint in view of what some say is an open-ended order in lines
    19-20 of the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order, namely,
    “[I]f Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after
    December 7, Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds.”
    In an email received just yesterday (Dec. 21), counsel queried, “was the judge’s order (no
    settlements past 12/7) binding even after the dismissal?”
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document104 Filed12/22/11 Page1 of 3

    Ex Parte Application for Amended Order 2
    Dismissing Case Without Prejudice-Case No. CV 11-2770 MEJ
    Obviously, counsel for Doe defendants may believe it is their duty to assert such an
    interpretation of this Court’s Order in order to attempt to preclude any enforcement against their
    clients. This, of course, will lead to the litigation of an additional issue. Plaintiff believes that
    this issue can be avoided, with Doe defendants’ counsel’s being relieved of any obligation to
    assert what Plaintiff believes is an incorrect interpretation, with a clarification along the lines of a
    provision in the Court’s order in OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, Case No. No. C 11-
    3311 MEJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116552, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011), a case
    that the Court cited in its December 15, 2011 Order in the instant case. 1
    In this regard, Plaintiff believes the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order does not foreclose
    Plaintiff’s seeking redress against any Doe defendant provided the Doe defendant is expressly
    informed that this case has been dismissed without prejudice and that no assertion is made that
    such Doe is being or will be sued in San Francisco unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a
    resident of this District or has a good faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    11(b), that it can otherwise establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this District.
    As the Court expressly ordered, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this District
    with respect to any Doe defendant that Plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing is subject to
    the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
    Plaintiff believes that implicit in the Court’s Order is Plaintiff’s right to bring a law suit
    against any Doe defendant, either fictitiously-named or by the Doe defendant’s actual name
    learned by Plaintiff in the course of prosecuting this action, in any other district in which
    Plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing that the court therein has personal jurisdiction over
    such Doe defendant, and further, that Plaintiff may, as in any other case, seek settlement either
    before or after initiating such a lawsuit. But, as indicated above, counsel have questioned this
    interpretation.
    1 In OpenMinded this Court ordered,
    “8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff engage in settlement
    negotiations with any Doe Defendant, it shall not assert that that Doe is being sued in San
    Francisco, unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a resident of this District or has a good
    faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), that it can otherwise
    establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this District.”
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document104 Filed12/22/11 Page2 of 3

    Ex Parte Application for Amended Order 3
    Dismissing Case Without Prejudice-Case No. CV 11-2770 MEJ
    As noted above, a clarification of the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order will avoid
    litigation of its meaning. Plaintiff requests that the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of
    that Order be replaced with,
    “However, if Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after
    December 7, Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds, unless such
    funds have been received in conformance with the following paragraph,”
    and that the following new paragraph be added immediately following that new sentence,
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, if Plaintiff engages in
    settlement negotiations with any person or other entity that was a Doe defendant
    in this case in connection with the infringements alleged in the Complaint,
    Plaintiff shall (i) inform that Doe defendant that the above-titled case has been
    dismissed without prejudice, and (ii) not assert that that Doe is being or will be
    sued in San Francisco unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a resident of this
    District or has a good faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    11(b), that it can otherwise establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this
    District. Further in this regard, nothing in this Order shall be deemed to preclude
    Plaintiff from suing, consistent with the Court’s ruling above regarding personal
    jurisdiction, any Doe defendant, either fictitiously-named or by the Doe
    defendant’s actual name learned by Plaintiff in the course of prosecuting this
    action, in any district.
    A Proposed Amended Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice is submitted herewith.
    Except as noted above, it is identical the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order.
    In view of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this Ex Parte Application
    and issue the Amended Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice as submitted herewith.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Dated: December 22, 2011
    Ira M. Siegel, Cal. State Bar No. 78142
    email address: irasiegel@earthlink.net
    LAW OFFICES OF IRA M. SIEGEL
    433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 970
    Beverly Hills, California 90210-4426
    Tel: 310-435-7656
    Fax: 310-657-2187
    Attorney for Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc.

    • I just read through the ex parte and he submitted a rewritten order with a space for the Judge to sign and date at the bottom. With the updated paragraph that leaves the loop hole open for him to still solicit settlements, it once again shows that the bottom line here is and will always ever be settlements. It’s not justice, it’s not stopping pirating, it’s just forcing a settlement of a few thousand dollars.

      As far as I can understand it doesn’t open up the chance for ISP’s to release info if they haven’t already but gives him the leverage to pressure does who info he already cheated out of the court. Hopeful that the judge has a nice holiday weekend with the family and comes back to give the does another present by denying Ira’s request.

  14. This sums up what he wants to do …

    “Plaintiff from suing, consistent with the Court’s ruling above regarding personal
    jurisdiction, any Doe defendant, either fictitiously-named or by the Doe
    defendant’s actual name learned by Plaintiff in the course of prosecuting this
    action, in any district.”

    In other words, he can use the collected data as he sees fit attempting to seek “settlement” even if no case is active. This is quite a new approach. They are now try to go about the angle of using the court case to collect the information, and regardless of its dismissal, attempt to reach “settlement”. This would be legalized racketeering.

  15. So far the Judge MEJ has been responding to Ira responses with quick slaps but this time it’s been 9 days or so. I wonder want shes thinking of or how shes going to respond.

  16. NEVER MIND SHE HAS………DENIED!
    Does this means that after Dec. 7 if he didn’t already get your info. he can’t sue anyone anywhere, period!
    In the new sensations vs doe’s 1- 1474 case
    https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?889312526201576-L_1_0-1

    Ex Parte Application for Amended Order 1
    Dismissing Case Without Prejudice-Case No. CV 11-2766 MEJ
    Ira M. Siegel, Cal. State Bar No. 78142
    email address: irasiegel@earthlink.net
    LAW OFFICES OF IRA M. SIEGEL
    433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 970
    Beverly Hills, California 90210-4426
    Tel: 310-435-7656
    Fax: 310-657-2187
    Attorney for Patrick Collins, Inc.
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    Northern District of California
    San Francisco Division
    PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DOES 1-474,
    Defendants.
    No. C 11-2770 MEJ
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
    AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING
    CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    JUDGE: Maria-Elena James
    Chief Magistrate Judge

    On December 15, 2011, the Court issued its Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice
    (Dkt. No. 95.)
    Plaintiff has returned all settlements received after December 7, 2011 and has served the
    Order on all previously-subpoenaed ISPs pursuant to that Order.
    However, when discussing NEW settlements with counsel for Doe defendants, a question
    has arisen about whether or not Plaintiff may seek any further settlements in connection with the
    infringements alleged in the Complaint in view of what some say is an open-ended order in lines
    19-20 of the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order, namely,
    “[I]f Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after
    December 7, Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds.”
    In an email received just yesterday (Dec. 21), counsel queried, “was the judge’s order (no
    settlements past 12/7) binding even after the dismissal?”

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    DENIED
    Judge Maria-Elena James
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document105 Filed12/30/11 Page1 of 3

    Ex Parte Application for Amended Order 2
    Dismissing Case Without Prejudice-Case No. CV 11-2766 MEJ
    Obviously, counsel for Doe defendants may believe it is their duty to assert such an
    interpretation of this Court’s Order in order to attempt to preclude any enforcement against their
    clients. This, of course, will lead to the litigation of an additional issue. Plaintiff believes that
    this issue can be avoided, with Doe defendants’ counsel’s being relieved of any obligation to
    assert what Plaintiff believes is an incorrect interpretation, with a clarification along the lines of a
    provision in the Court’s order in OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, Case No. No. C 11-
    3311 MEJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116552, 2011 WL 4715200 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011), a case
    that the Court cited in its December 15, 2011 Order in the instant case. 1
    In this regard, Plaintiff believes the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order does not foreclose
    Plaintiff’s seeking redress against any Doe defendant provided the Doe defendant is expressly
    informed that this case has been dismissed without prejudice and that no assertion is made that
    such Doe is being or will be sued in San Francisco unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a
    resident of this District or has a good faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    11(b), that it can otherwise establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this District.
    As the Court expressly ordered, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this District
    with respect to any Doe defendant that Plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing is subject to
    the personal jurisdiction of this Court.

    Plaintiff believes that implicit in the Court’s Order is Plaintiff’s right to bring a law suit
    against any Doe defendant, either fictitiously-named or by the Doe defendant’s actual name
    learned by Plaintiff in the course of prosecuting this action, in any other district in which
    Plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing that the court therein has personal jurisdiction over
    such Doe defendant, and further, that Plaintiff may, as in any other case, seek settlement either
    before or after initiating such a lawsuit. But, as indicated above, counsel have questioned this
    interpretation.

    In OpenMinded this Court ordered,
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff engage in settlement
    negotiations with any Doe Defendant, it shall not assert that that Doe is being sued in San
    Francisco, unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a resident of this District or has a good
    faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), that it can otherwise
    establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this District.”
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document105 Filed12/30/11 Page2 of 3

    Ex Parte Application for Amended Order 3
    Dismissing Case Without Prejudice-Case No. CV 11-2766 MEJ
    As noted above, a clarification of the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order will avoid
    litigation of its meaning. Plaintiff requests that the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of
    that Order be replaced with,
    “However, if Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after
    December 7, Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds, unless such
    funds have been received in conformance with the following paragraph,”
    and that the following new paragraph be added immediately following that new sentence,

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, going forward, if Plaintiff engages in
    settlement negotiations with any person or other entity that was a Doe defendant
    in this case in connection with the infringements alleged in the Complaint,
    Plaintiff shall (i) inform that Doe defendant that the above-titled case has been
    dismissed without prejudice, and (ii) not assert that that Doe is being or will be
    sued in San Francisco unless Plaintiff believes that Doe to be a resident of this
    District or has a good faith belief, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    11(b), that it can otherwise establish personal jurisdiction over that Doe in this
    District. Further in this regard, nothing in this Order shall be deemed to preclude
    Plaintiff from suing, consistent with the Court’s ruling above regarding personal
    jurisdiction, any Doe defendant, either fictitiously-named or by the Doe
    defendant’s actual name learned by Plaintiff in the course of prosecuting this
    action, in any district.

    A Proposed Amended Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice is submitted herewith.
    Except as noted above, it is identical the Court’s December 15, 2011 Order.
    In view of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this Ex Parte Application
    and issue the Amended Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice as submitted herewith.
    Respectfully submitted,

    Dated: December 22, 2011
    Ira M. Siegel, Cal. State Bar No. 78142
    email address: irasiegel@earthlink.net
    LAW OFFICES OF IRA M. SIEGEL
    433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 970
    Beverly Hills, California 90210-4426
    Tel: 310-435-7656
    Fax: 310-657-2187
    Attorney for Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc.
    Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is hereby advised that it may not negotiate any
    settlements based upon information it received as a result of a subpoena issued in this lawsuit
    prior to December 7, 2011.
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document105 Filed12/30/11 Page3 of 3

    • Judge James denied his request on 12/30.

      Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is hereby advised that it may not negotiate any
      settlements based upon information it received as a result of a subpoena issued in this
      lawsuit prior to December 7, 2011.

      • But it sounds like some lawyers for defense, is saying the judges wording says you cant sue them period, after Dec, 7
        That’s why he wants the judge to say clearly that he can go after the doe’s if done PROPERLY and in the right distract in the new order, but she said DENIED..
        Of course my comprehension of this kinda stuff is usually wrong. LOL

        • Interesting to see what this means now. I assume that the judge is trying to force the troll to either bring up individual cases or cases in the proper jurisdiction and not leave a loophole open for him to try to still push does for settlements. Essentially it’s either “put up or shut up”

  17. I’m not sure if it was misfiled, as it is says Patrick Collins Inc vs Does 1 – 474, but this is the docket for New Sensations Vs Does 1 – 1474. Look at Document 105 on http://ia600605.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.241553/gov.uscourts.cand.241553.docket.html

    It says Ira’s latest try to clarify and continue getting settlements was denied, and, most importantly, look at the last lines….

    “The Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is hereby advised that it may not negotiate any
    settlements based upon information it received as a result of a subpoena issued in this lawsuit
    prior to December 7, 2011.”

    In my interpretation, that sounds like anyone in this case is free and clear. Anyone see it differently?

  18. My attorney says he could make a strong argument that we are free and clear as a result of the judge’s ruling (see above). If he files another case, and we all know he will, then we could point to the ruling in this case and ask for relief.

    By the way, so that everyone here is aware, he lied in his pleadings – which of course all of us expected. He has NOT notified all parties who received his piece of crap letter that the case has been dismissed, as he was directed to do. As indicated before, he is the scum beneath the pond scum that accumulates as a result of mold.

    Siegel is an amazing little crackpot. He files pleadings and cites caselaw that does not come near being on point, perhaps expecting federal judges to say, “Oh, okay, he must know what he’s talking about.” But federal judges DON’T take anyone’s word for the truth … they check it out themselves, or they have law clerks who do it for them. For him to think he can pull the wool over the eyes of a federal judge is astounding. It’s narcissism as it’s very best. It’s all about Ira.

    I just wish I could call him what I really think of him, for going after a female senior citizen who couldn’t possibly have done what he claims she did. When she saw your piece of crap letter, she started complaining of chest pains. She’s 88 years old, for crying out loud.

    It bears repeating here, I wouldn’t be as venomous in my posts about this crooked poor excuse for a lawyer if it were not for the fact that he did nothing to verify anything about the “alleged thieves” before he filed, and then decided to play it by the numbers to see how many people he could shake down. Thank goodness the judge saw through it.

    Gosh, I hope all of this didn’t screw up his plans to be out of a Chapter XIII early. I hope we haven’t interfered with his ability to pay his mortgage. [See My Previous Post Dated December 16th] Be patient, Ira, we’re watching every move you make and every breath you take. I won’t be happy until you lose your bar license, are unable to practice law, and you are homeless.

    88 Year Old Defender

  19. Finally! Someone has stood up to these trolls and sued them. Filed on 01/31/2012, Case No. 12-00469. Case Title is Wong -vs- Hard Drive Productions. The pleadings say it all. Wong has decided to turn the tables on the trolls. All four corners of the First Amended Complaint are excellent. Suddenly, it’s the troll’s turn to DEFEND what they do. I see nothing but good coming from this suit.

    There isn’t any answer filed as of yet, but I’m fairly sure there’ll be a lot of whining and pleading for justice from the defense. I love it. THEY are now the DEFENDANTS! Too bad someone can’t take on our friend Ira and Patrick Collins.

  20. To: Pissed Off

    You say you wonder what Ira’s been up to. He is regrouping, reassessing, realigning and temporarily retreating. Ira needs cash flow badly. As I have previously posted here and elsewhere, he is in a Chapter XIII with a court approved payment plan. The bankruptcy court now has control over his personal income and expenses. In short, he must keep his payments current in his own personal Chapter XIII, or he will lose the game. Thus, with his most recent setbacks in Federal Court for his shakedown cases, things aren’t going all that well for the slob.

    Here’s another tidbit: He declared thousands of dollars in unpaid office rent in his XIII. He hasn’t even been able to pay the rent for the very same office space which is where the shakedown letters claim to be coming from. This piece of molded vermin isn’t just desperate, he’s downright insane.

    When an economy takes a dump, desperate men do desperate things to create cashflow. They get creative and innovative, devising ways to support themselves by stealing from others. Here, you have a bum who happens to have a Bar Card, but wouldn’t know how to try a case or take it to term. His shakedown cases prove that he knows how to file a case, but he doesn’t know how to try a case. Just to bring it into perspective, I know how to file a case AND try a case, yet I’ve never been to law school. The number of civil cases I’ve been involved with: approximately 1500. Number of losses, Zero. The number of people who have sued me or my companies. Three. Number of Wins: Zero. Ira Siegel has no idea who he is dealing with, which is why I am seriously hoping he reads this post.

    Ira, pay attention. The people you think are your closest friends have been feeding me information about you for a very long time. The ones you have lunch with and the ones you call your neighbors have all been selling you out. You are such a naive jerk, you think you have a circle of confidence among your peers. These are the same people who listen to you whine about how downloading is stealing, and then you go right out and steal from innocent people. You believe that two wrongs do indeed make a right, as long as the ends are justified by the means. Go to hell, and take your bar card with you.

    The disdain and contempt you have created for yourself is immeasurable. In one of your Doe Cases, you actually sued a highly respected colleague of yours. You also sent him one of your shakedown letters. Since then, the floodgates opened and nothing you have said to anyone has remained a secret. Your life has become an open book on the internet and the people you call friends are now all waiting for the day when you find yourself to be both unemployed and unemployable.

    You claim in your Doe Cases that people have conspired to steal copyrighted materials. Little have you known that the conspiracy to destroy your career exists within your very own peer groups. And, there are many more people out there, in very high places, who are also patiently watching you slowly whither up and go totally broke. Did you really think your adverse rulings in these latest shakedown cases happened by accident or coincidence, Ira? You silly little man.

    You have pissed off a massive number of people; some would say enough to populate a small nation. These are the same people you routinely paint with a broad brush, calling all of them organized thieves. You are the thief, Ira. The only difference between you and a common criminal is that you get away with theft by using and abusing the judicial system, all the while claiming to be the man on the White Horse. But the day will come when you won’t have the money to even feed the horse, because there’s a mass of power out there that is strong enough and is committed to take both the horse and the barn away from you completely. Ah yes, I am envisioning Ira at 6th & Main begging for spare change. I am dreaming of the day when your condo goes to auction. And in a fit of fantasy I even can hear you asking yourself how things could have gone so terribly wrong. Believe it, Ira, destitution is right around the corner.

    There is much more coming, Ira. Be patient. Your “friends” are supporting you and your colleagues respect you, right? Remember that guy you had lunch with last week? Can’t remember which one? It might be the right time to ask yourself if it was wise to even talk to him. Be careful what you tell people. You’re being watched, Ira. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you.

    88 Year Old Defender

    • Interesting…

      “CEG’s proprietary system gives way to multiple anti-piracy solutions including a fully customizable Monetization service solution that is available at no cost to filmmakers.”

      We already know what “at no cost” really means for Hard Drive Productions 😉

      Anyway it’s a valuable info – trolls always adapt – seems that they try to penetrate non-porno market. Good luck to them. Pornographers have no reputation to lose to begin with. Independent film producers can be destroyed by such a poisonous association: pity that some may fall for wormtongued promises.

  21. Interesting. I was viewing a recent episode of This Week in Law (TWiL), and one of Ira’s partner firms Marvin Cable was a guest. He stated that he was the defense attorney for a few individuals being sued for open wi-fi negligence. Is he listed in the we’re troll category?

    Here is the video podcast

    • This guy is a puzzle. He is not literally a “copyright troll” as he never filed a single mass extortion lawsuit, and he indeed defends Does in some gay porno cases. He is on friendly terms with BoothSweet guys. Hell, he is even on the EFF list! I did not find any info that would incriminate him, he is rather a nice guy… and still he is listed as a partner in one of the worst racket enterprises together with such scumbags as Terik Hashmi, Ira Siegel and Mike Meier – not a good for reputation – a reasonable lawyer would keep himself miles from these con artists. So I don’t know. I tipped EFF and defense lawyers network, they are aware, so we’ll see.

      I have a cognitive dissonance seizure.

  22. This Ira person sent me emails about 11 copyrighted pictures on my website at $500 each which I found already on the internet at tlfan.to website… I removed the content immediately. I have until September 7th to respond. What should I do? Is this person legit and should I be worried? I have no money and its just a fan site :/

    • We need to push Ira’s ugly head back under the bridge: he was silent for half a year after devastating rulings discussed abobve and, according to rumors, lashing from his bankruptcy officer.

      Relax: these guys are toothless. They will scare but don’t have balls to file an actual lawsuit.

      Although CEG (Ira’s company) does pornotrolling, they started extorting people over images recently. This type of cases are covered by extortionletterinfo.com: I suggest telling your story there (they even have “GEG” thread in their forums)

  23. Just got a notice.. Obviously he’s still at it I got a letter from my isp accusing me of downloading from bitorrent. Now saying I have until the 24th to pay $200.00, or the price is gonna raise due to damages, and court costs. The company he claims the copyright belongs to is Dreamgirls Inc? Is the next case going to Dreamgirls Inc vs 2486 doe’s? Should i even worry about this, has this guy actually even won a case in all these mass lawsuits, or he just using all these as scare tactics? So he can extort people into paying into this so everyone settles out of court and he fills his pockets.

  24. I recently got a notice from Ira Siegel. I’ve tried to educate myself on this matter and It appears that even though I have no knowledge of the movie and just a normal person, I’ll have no way of winning this. I lost my career position in 2009 and have never been able to recover yet. I guess I will have to just pay it because I have no funds to fight, and if I get associated with porn it could keep me from ever recovering at all.

    • Talk to a lawyer, to determine exactly where the case is at and what your exposure is. Never underestimate the importance of getting a legal opinion. Don’t talk to anyone else on the phone about your case because any information you give the trolls will be used against you, and even if you don’t give them the answers to their questions, they will say you admitted to all of it. You’ve got to understand you are dealing with extortionists and liars, who think nothing of what is going on in your life and only focus on greed. Greed is good only when you aren’t hurting someone else, and believe me they could care less about you or your problems.

      They are using the courts to extort from tens of thousands of people across the entire United States, and they claim they have proof you did it, when in fact they can never prove you did it.

      Read this blog thoroughly, and from it you will find at least one attorney referral you can call. If that doesn’t work, look online and get involved in your case now, while there is time to do it. There are a lot of hard working people who have put this blog together and I highly recommend you get as much education from it as you can before you make the mistake of picking up the phone when Siegel calls you.

      Siegel is trying to scare you. Don’t take the bait.

  25. I just received, a few hours ago, a notification of copyright infringement for the download of a pornographic movie and ignoring it seems to be the popular opinion; along with hatred for Mike Mieirs, Ira Seigel, Marc Randazza and company. What worries me is, as a Florida resident, is the https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/bhuffman/latest-nationwide-internet-user-identification-part-1-ancient-state-law-pure-bill-disc “Pure Bill of Discovery” law that seems to be the next big loophole for these trolls to utilize. I’ve spent all night going through all the links that this site and others have posted; along with all their supporting documents and I don’t understand exactly how they can utilize this against me. What I understood is that they can take what is (to my understanding) a Federal Court matter and use the State Courts to pursue a lawsuit instead. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me. I love my state but readily admit we have some ridiculous laws. Should I be worried about this going to trail or follow the ever popular ignore. I really, really, really do not want to give in to anti-piracy terrorism.

  26. This Ira guy is still at it in 2016. Just got the same form letter that was ruled part of his extortion scheme and he hasn’t slowed down a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s