Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice

Attorney Samuel Perkins is understandably angry. In his motion to dismiss Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29 (MAD 12-cv-10805) on behalf of one of the Does, he explains why. This time I don’t want to summarize the motion for an unusual reason: I think of the summary as a spoiler — and I want everyone to read this document from the first to the last paragraph. Most of court filings are logical yet boring. Sometimes we see anger that hopelessly buries arguments: such motions are usually easily rebutted and not taken seriously by judges. It’s a fine art to balance on the edge between anger and clarity of a logical mind.

I hope that this motion will result in equally harsh, truthful and precise order by the judge who is already unhappy with Marvin Cable (to put it mildly), and Massachusetts will join the list of states that recovered from the judicial plague of copyright extortion.

Exhibits (Marvin Cable’s extortion letters) 1, 2, 3.



On 8/27/2012 Samuel Perkins filed another, even harsher, motion to dismiss in the Celestial v. Does 1-28 (MAD 12-cv-10948) case. Enjoy:

wordpress counter


36 responses to ‘Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice

  1. i just finished reading 1984 by orwell. i must say this screams doublethink. to truely believe 2 opposing things are true at the same time. that is what this chucklehead cable is all about i hope he goes down in the flames of the fire that he has steadily been stoking for the past few months.

  2. I usually support the plaintiffs in these cases. But in this case, counsel for plaintiffs’ has engaged in outrageous misconduct. The Court’s suggestion that he conduct discovery to identify the actual infringers is entirely reasonable—in fact I think it is a very fair requirement. The plaintiff should be required to identify through discovery the actual infringer before issuing demand letters. This avoids the problem of taking advantage of innocent infringers. The cost of the discovery is minimal–counsel can serve written interrogatories requiring the subscriber to admit or deny under oath that he conducted the download and identify who else had access. Plaintiff’s counsel also could take an actual deposition if he is worried that the subscriber will file false interrogatory responses. This is entirely fair to plaintiffs. Further, when plaintiff finds the real infringers among the subscribers, plaintiff’s counsel can demand that they pay the costs of the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel can still make plenty of money by going after only the illegal infringers. This is a fair solution appropriately balancing the interests of al concerned. It is outrageous that plaintiffs’ counsel in this case failed to follow the Court’s directive. The law firms who bring these cases should be required to litigate to earn their money—not just send out demand letters before identifying the actual infringer. The extra step before the demand letter—a deposition to ascertain the identity of the true bad guy–doesn’t even cost much money—-and if plaintiffs’ counsel follow this procedure than it moots most of the arguments made by the “anti-troll”. This Court gave a gift to plaintiffs’ counsel by allowing the discovery but plaintiffs’ counsel elected to engage in bad faith misconduct—even though the cases would have been even more lucrative for plaintiffs’ counsel if they played fair.

    • How can you find this Cable’s actions egregious but side with the plaintiffs in other cases? Plaintiffs across the board are operating by the same MO. They ALL want to sue the subscriber, guilty or not, none of them want to litigate and move to a proper discovery phase, and all of them represent that the subscriber is the actual infringer.

      Fiore, Randazza, Kotzker, Lipscomb, Steele… they’re all doing the SAME thing as Cable. The only difference is Cable is being backed into a corner and cannot reconcile his profitable troll tactics with unprofitable lawful behavior that would find the real infringers. Back any of these other trolls into the same corner, and they’ll have the same story to tell as Cable that you find so reprehensible.

      Maybe it’s time you rethink why you support these other plaintiffs and reconcile your own cognitive dissonance.

    • Finally crawled out of your rock have you, Sorry Morry? You’ve just made one thing very clear – the lawyers aren’t in it to uphold some sacred justice or semantics bull. They’re in it for the money, and any amount of sympathy you try to elicit for your minority music label is useless. Through your support of these plaintiffs you’ve squandered whatever concern people might have had for you. You’re not concerned about artists making money – you’re concerned about lawyers making money, and if they get caught doing it by any means necessary.

  3. Isn’t it great when judges show enough interest in their orders that they actually ask some questions to trolls? Kinda makes things easier to prove that they’re evil piece of shit….

  4. Really Morry (i like that name). You honestly think that if someone received a questionnaire or written interrogatories in the mail, that they actually admit to downloading a movie?

    “Plaintiff’s counsel also could take an actual deposition if he is worried that the subscriber will file false interrogatory responses”

    What do you mean worried? They all think the subscriber did it, guilty or not. If someone hacked the subscriber’s wifi (password protected or not), how would the subscriber know who it was? Do you not understand anything?

    You are so ignorant and blinded by money, that you don’t see what is in front of you. You only side with the trolls because you believe they can get you more money than what you are bringing in and that they are doing the right thing. Yet, you fail to understand that whatever the trolls get in settlement(s), you get very little of it and they pocket the rest. Is that good business?

    How about keeping your comments and support to yourself instead of continually sticking your foot in your mouth.

    On another note…… Kick some ass Perkins!!!

    Down with all Trolls

      • Yep…he’s a youngin barely two years out of law school, and a “relatively” crappy one at that. I’m sure it’s an alright institution in general, but I say “relatively” when compared to the law school competition that’s available in New England and nearby in New York. In other words, It ain’t no Yale, Harvard, BU, BC, NYU, Columbia or even Sufflok or Quinnipiac for that matter. Essentially, that’s what he’s competing against. And then there’s the experience (or lack thereof) thing.



        My point? He’s young, inexperienced, and obviously desperate and thus incapable of finding better opportunities with a legit firm in this day and age. By the way, there is a high concentration of legit firms within the relatively small geographic boundaries that encompass the first and second circuit courts of the US (ie New York and New England) yet he trolls for porn copyrights. Those other, more legit opportunities (which do exist, even in this economy) are for the other young and better educated JD’s who choose to stay in the region.

        • His law school is ABA accredited but as far as I’m concerned, it’s a damn degree mill. 153 is the median LSAT score…that’s just above the 55th percentile, top schools want low 170s which is the 97th percentile and above.

          Cable went into private practice almost immediately after gaining admission to the MA Bar…sounds like he couldn’t find a job so he decided to “make” his own. He’s 29 years old, barely into adulthood. I don’t subscribe to the idea that 18 year-olds are adults because an overwhelming majority of them piss me off with their immature crap. His opposing counsel in this case is an EXTREMELY seasoned attorney with 34 more years’ experience, education notwithstanding. Any newly-minted JD, even one outta Harvard would get destroyed by a guy like Perkins.

        • Check this out…


          Only 1/3 of recent students passed the MA bar and only a little over 1/4 from the class of 2011 are employed in “full-time long term” positions.

          Some of that has to do with the economy, but what kind of fuck nut chooses to spend $200+ K on a JD from a law school which affords such shitty opportunity for its students, especially from 2006 onward? Based on the bar stats, many of those students obviously come out ill-equipped to practice and compete.

          By contrast, look at the bar pass rate for BU (see righthand stats pane on the wiki) -> 95+%

        • For all I know, they could be halfway decently educated and intelligent, just a bunch of lazy jerkoffs. I had a ton of low performers in my classes who were just lazy as hell and it takes a lot of work to study for an exam like that. The CPA exam (all 4 parts) are a fucking nightmare, 150 hours of studying PER exam, and if you don’t have the self-discipline to study, you don’t pass. Then again, the median LSAT score is 152…which is extremely low so they aren’t exactly the choosiest law school.

          This was between 2003-2006. Lowest GPA admitted, 2.7 but what gets me was the highest GPA, 3.32 and highest LSAT, 156. Admission rate of ~40%.

          I’m surprised 25% of 2011 grads are employed in full-time jobs that require a license. I would figure around 7-10% with the big hitter schools being so damn close by but that doesn’t say what they’re doing (i.e. Cable opens his own practice, then starts fucking with people). Even kids graduating cum laude (they curve that based on who is summa cum laude…more BS) from Harvard are having major problems finding jobs and the schools are having problems finding students so they’re actually haggling over scholarships to get kids to come without having to lower tuition in order to “maintain prestige.”

          There are a ton of lawsuits filed based on misleading stats because these law schools would say “98% of our graduates have full-time jobs within X months after graduation.” Yeah, full-time jobs…what percentage of those jobs require a license to practice law though. There’s no growth and law schools are still pumping out JDs, and more law schools are popping up on top of that. Law of supply and demand.

    • Two random observations. First, Cable looks like a stereotypical frat boy and/or a Jersey Shore cast member in this picture: http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/marvin-cable-1490489
      Another random observation, education.

      Marvin Cable:
      B.A., Wittenburg University
      Some Study Abroad Thing, Université Paris X Nanterre
      J.D., Western New England University

      Samuel Perkins:
      A.B. (B.A.), Harvard University (cum laude)
      J.D. – Boston University

        • He’s a spoiled little shit from Easton, Connecticut who either couldn’t hack it at a “real” school or he decided to go all hippie and go to some liberal arts school in the Midwest.

  5. So entertaining to see them shoot themselves in the foot over and over…
    Maybe more Judges will become suspect of the tactics and lies being used in these cases.

  6. I just took a second look at Samuel Perkins’ motion. This is nothing short of simply BRILLIANT. This guy is now my hero. …now the question becomes, “how do we publicize this?” I would like to see copies of the motion faxed to EVERY federal judge’s chambers across the country with a cover letter that says, “URGENT. PLEASE READ.”

  7. Weee! And this is the ROI for a $200,000 law degree from a Tier Shit school…a BU educated lawyer with 35 years of experience systematically destroying multiple complaints. Methinks that Cable will find himself begging the MA Bar to let him keep his license before all is said and done.

  8. MARVIN CABLE DISMISSED DOE 22 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, he recently did so claiming no bad faith yet he acts in a manner that renders the motion moot, coincidence?

      • Have not seen a reply from Perkins yet. I am assuming not, based on the content of the dismissal (very very very nasty towards Perkins – see the Massachusetts thread. He calls him a mountebank! Says he’s playing the hero and acting in bad faith the whole time)

        Was wondering this on the MA thread, if the counterclaims keep Doe 22 in the suit or not. Guess I have my answer now, they will unless he agrees to it. Cable claims he will be filing individual suit against Doe 22, but I really do not understand the logic in him deciding to go mano e mano with Perkins. not one 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 )

Connecting to %s