Supertrolls are liars too, though they are inventive when finding their way around the truth. They are relatively more brazen too.
M. Keith Lipscomb is one of the few main masterminds of the scheme aimed at extorting money from thousands of Internet users based solely on poorly-substantiated allegations of copyrighted porn sharing.
On June 25 Lipscomb was ordered to explain why instead of one case against 37 John Does he filed two identical cases, one against 19 John Does, the other — 18 (3:12-cv-00335 and 3:12-cv-00336). These cases are indeed identical as the allegedly shared file is the same in both cases, same swarm.
I hope you already know the answer, and it is called forum shopping: cases are assigned to judges randomly and if one case is killed by a judge, the other one can survive if it lands on the docket of a troll-friendly judge. You can imagine what kind of reaction telling this simple truth would provoke in a judge. Therefore Lipscomb, unsurprisingly, replied with 3 pages of bullshit trying to avoid inevitable admonition:
This is not even funny. If I was the judge, I would be insulted: this reply assumes that whoever reads this document has a very low IQ.
Basically, Lipscomb tells that he broke the case in two because (in his own words)
- “Plaintiff’s goal was for the case to be manageable for the parties and the Court.”
- “Plaintiff limits the number of ISPs in a case in order to avoid unnecessarily extending the case should an ISP be unable to return the information.”
To debunk this reasoning, I turned to Pacer. While Lipscomb pulls the strings of many puppet trolls in various states (Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, Wayne O’Bryan, Christopher Fiore etc.), I did not even bother checking those “package boys,” and searched only for complaints signed by Mr. Lipscomb himself. So, I quickly found the Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-45 case (8:12-cv-01421), which was filed on 6/27/2012: 3 months later than those two cases.
Looking at this case, I cannot help asking Mr. Lipscomb two questions — one per each of his bogus explanations:
- Is 45 less than 37? In other words, why does it make sense to split 37 Does into two smaller groups, but to keep 45 Does in a single case?
- How do you explain that the 1-45 case lists 6 ISPs — in light of the memorandum’s section III arguments?
Actually it’s not me who should be asking these questions, but Judge Toomey. Anyone volunteers to deliver them to his chambers? Please handle the question marks with care, bubble-wrap them.
Raul (who, by the way, pointed to this hilariously bulshitty document) comments:
It is also interesting how Lipscomb uses some curious math to justify the split so as to arrive at the figure of 2 To 6 Does, against whom he will litigate his client’s case “based on Plaintiff’s experience”. This is also a lie as Lipscomb, to my knowledge, has never named an individual in a troll lawsuit much less brought one to trial. In fact, there will never be a troll initiated trial on the merits of these lawsuits, Lipscomb knows it and, hopefully, Judge Toomey knows it as well.
There are some developments on the 3:12-cv-00336 case: Lipscomb dismissed 15 does out of 18 and simultaneously moved for the extension of time. Two does, 10 and 11, represented by Daniel Tamaroff, were dismissed with prejudice earlier: apparently they stipulated the dismissal, with settlements or without, we’ll never know. According to Lipscomb, Doe 8 has notified Comcast about the motion to quash he was supposed to file, but either he did not do it or his motion was not filed for some reason.
Now Lipscomb tries to go after that Doe and asks the court for more time. Pretty lame and arrogant reasoning. Judge Toomey was not amused: instead of granting the extension, he set a hearing on 8/20 and dared the troll to explain the mass dismissal. I will keep an eye on this case.