Guardaley | X-Art

Two simple questions for troll M. Keith Lipscomb

Copyright trolls are liars. This is common knowledge. Mississippi flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Horses eat oats and hay. Trolls lie while looking straight into the judge’s eyes.

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)

  1. “Plaintiff’s goal was for the case to be manageable for the parties and the Court.”
  2. “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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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.

wordpress counter


32 responses to ‘Two simple questions for troll M. Keith Lipscomb

  1. Im curious about from what monkey’s butt they pulled the expectation of litigating against 2 to 6 defendants. That’s a pretty high percentage (11% to 33%) compared to their history of litigating against approximately 0.001% in the past.

  2. Another good one.
    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.

    • “Plaintiff limited the number of defendants in the case to facilitate litigation”?!@#$

      As recently as 7/6/12, he filed a case in Miami-Dade county court with 279 defendants [Patrick Collins, Inc, v. John Does 1-279  (Local #: 2012-26292-CA-01, State#: 13-2012-CA-026292-0000-01)].

      Maybe Mr. Lipscomb, as an advocate for judicial efficiency, will simply dismiss that case. This would be funny if the troll cases weren’t dreadful and damaging.

  3. Ok, first off there appears to be an error in Section II. (page 2) – “Therefore, of the nineteen Doe Defendants, Plaintiff expects to receive approximately 15 names. (Note: this case is for Does 1-18, not 19)

    The only reason Lipscomb split the case was to make it along the lines of the ISP of the subscribers. I took a look at the complaint and found something interesting. Out of the 18 Does, 11 are Comcast and 7 are Verizon. But Mr. Lipscomp said he split the cases in two based on the Doe ISPs involved.

    He told the court the following.

    “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. Limiting the amount of ISPs in a case results in the dissemination of identifying information of each Doe Defendant in roughly the same time frame, and allows the Defendants to try their case in a timely manner. Plaintiff hopes by splitting the ISPs in the case, the Defendants are more likely to be on the same schedule, and Plaintiff will not be responding to one Doe Defendant’s Motion to Quash, while proceeding to discovery against another Doe Defendant.”

    So does Comcast and Verizon give the same response time to subpoenas? I doubt it. Each company is distinct and does not coordinate its actions with another ISP. If his answer was true, he would have split the cases among single ISPs.

    SJD is correct – this is an “insurance” ploy for him. Split the Does into separate cases so if one judge dismisses all but Doe #1, then the other case may make it through unchallenged by the court. Split the cases into two and it only cost him $350.00 more. Not a bad price for insurance is it?

    OK, even if you buy the BS response and give him the benefit of the doubt, it still raises the question of fairness to all the defendants. If these two cases are for the same ‘site-rip’ of X-art movies for the same swarm, then they are all related. Lipscomp stated they split them up by ISPs, not between which Does interacted with each other. This means that there could be Does (public IP addresses) in both cases that allegedly shared.

    According to section 12, of the complaint (Joinder), each Doe took part in a series of transactions, involving the exact same torrent file; each doe is jointly and severally liable; & there are common questions of law and fact.

    If both complaints state this in the section 12 (joinder) and the torrent file is the same, there is no reason to split them up based on ISPs.

    It is actually preferable to split up the cases into single defendants for fairness, but one issue at a time. 😉

    Wow, what a load of crap. I hope the judge reading this response scratches his head and states WTF. This response looks like something you throw together to look stupid, but still avoid sanctions from being imposed. Father of Lies is a good nick-name for this bozo. Better yet, how about “Little Nicky.”

    DTD 🙂

  4. Surprise, surprise – this is the sort of amoral scum that Sorry Morry is defending, whose arguments don’t even pass the laugh test. Hey, Morry! You still reading these posts, aren’t ya? Care to dispense some of your sage personal experience on why this is all A-OK?

  5. Glancing over his attorney profile and not terribly surprised to learn that he also specializes in legal malpractice. Even his fellow attorneys secretly loathe this bottom feeder who preys on his own.

    • Why under “Representative Matters:” doesn’t he list:

      “Represented dozens of pornography companies…”


      “Assisted in the legal extortion of potentially innocent anonymous people on behalf of dozens of pornographers…”

      I am going to start taking donations to pay for a billboard in Miami that states in big letters, “M. Keith Lipscomb represents pornographers. Do you want him representing you?”

      Or maybe just a letter threatening that I’m going to do that will suffice….

  6. Wow, go on a diet dude! I guess he doesn’t worry about his food bills when he’s taking money from others to pay them, looks like he’s keeping a stash in his cheeks in that photo!

    How about Butterball, after the chubby Cenobite from the Hellraiser series. Chubby and straight out of Hell!

    That or The Chipmunk!

  7. Nice Job, everyone,

    SJD, you might want to tag him also for Patrick Collins, since he uses the Dade, Miami bill of discovery to extort thousands of people.

    Don’t feed the Trolls!!!!

    • Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, Raw Films are all sham companies owned by owner Brigham Field, who is immensely hurt by piracy and is having hard time, forced to buy regular brake disks for his Ferrari, not ceramic ones.

  8. Lawyers and copyright seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly.

    In fact, Michael Carrier interviewed a bunch of music label execs in his paper entitled “Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story” and a few noted a distinct pattern of how lawyers really had a part in the music industry looking for short term cash instead of long term success.

  9. LipSCUM files a motion for extension of time and also this notice of dismissal without serving a single defendant.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.29.0.pdf

    I think the Judge smells the BS finally and ordered a hearing on the motion for extension of time and make LipSCUM explain himself…

    Click to access gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.31.0.pdf

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion for Extension of
    Time Within Which It Has to Effectuate Service on Doe Defendant (Doc. 30). Upon
    review of the docket, the Court finds that a hearing will assist the Court in resolving
    the Motion. Plaintiff should also be prepared to discuss the reason(s) for its Notice
    of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of John Does 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13,
    14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 (“Notice”) (Doc. 29).

    • I smell Sorry Morry in the vicinity, waiting to pounce when SJD makes further reports about this, valiantly standing against the tide of innocent victims to proclaim how the judge is wrong and 90% of us are all guilty, guilty, guilty…

  10. I would LOVE for somebody somewhere to put down a chinese fingertrap for one of these damn fool copyright trolls. Pick a case and just fuckin DO IT, already! Let’s get ONE jury decision on ANY book out there.
    It’s really a shame that our legal system favors the plaintiff so heavily. If a defendant could just say “ok, bring it” and KEEP the plaintiff in court until the matter is resolved, there would be a lot of REALLY STUPID lawyers suddenly filing for welfare.

  11. I just became aware of all this today as I was contacted via phone by someone referencing one of Lipscoms case numbers. I didn’t receive the letter stating the ISP was being asked to release my info, and was googling all this because I thought it was a scam. I guess — in a way — it is.

    Obviously the ISP has released my info — because that’s how “random lady A” called me. I just wanted to say a quick thanks for posting all of the info here and at dietrolldie 🙂 I’m not freaking out quite as badly — but still sick to my stomach.

    Still not sure exactly what steps in what order I will take, other than hire an attorney if they summon me to court 🙂

  12. RE: #2 “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” In several cases filed in May (but subscriber info was just this month been made to be released) there were up to 6 different ISP’s…

  13. Does anyone have a list of troll attorneys in other states that are associated with Mr troll M. Keith Lipscomb?, and why are the Florida “Bill of Discovery” case allowed to stay open indefinitely?

    “Don’t Feed the Trolls”

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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