“Guava” and “Arte de Oaxaca” scams hit Cook County court

Guava v. Skyler Case

As I blogged two posts below, I was on vacation in a place where forests smell like ripe guava. I am not making it up and have plenty of pictures of the trees covered with yellow and red fruit. It is a smell of a paradise. However, the Guava that is getting rotten in the Cook County court (Illinois) stinks badly. I am talking about the most fraudulent case in Prenda’s history, Guava v. Skyler Case, which was ill-conceived on 6/29/2012.

The page dedicated to the Guava case is the most visited as of lately. You will find a brief description drafted by Raul and links to the relevant documents there. The page traffic and the number of comments back Raul’s guess that the number of “co-conspirators” is staggering. I encourage you to read the comments to understand the unprecedented extent of Prenda’s arrogance and bad faith.

It is widely suspected that Guava is no one else than Lighspeed Media Corporation, a company of a disgraced pornographer Steve Jones, whose market niche is underage-looking girls. He drew our attention this year after conspiring with John Steele to run a giant scam in the corrupt St. Clair county of Illinois with the help from a corrupt judge. We covered this case a lot: here is the page dedicated to it; follow the links to numerous posts from there. Currently this case is removed to the federal court and is about to collapse: crooks had audacity to add AT&T and Comcast as defendants, thus summoning the best lawyers in the industry to represent the defendants with bottomless pockets. Also, one of the best anti-troll lawyers, Booth Sweet, represents the main defendant in this case. Before Steele started chasing trouble by suing big guys, I did not know that he, in addition to his numerous “virtues,” is also a masochist.

Some things have happened on the Guava case since defendant’s attorney Adam Urbanczyk and Paul Duffy signed a brow-rising agreed order to allow subpoenas to be sent to the huge list of ISPs: attorney Erin Russell filed numerous motions to quash, which prompted the spillage of plaintiff counsel’s poisonous saliva. Ad hominem-laden plaintiff’s response is hard to read without the blood boiling sensation, yet it is rather good news: Erin seemingly hit the nerve, and the trolls are visibly angry. Paul Duffy signed this document, but I doubt he wrote it: you can sense the arrogance and insecurity of John Steele between the lines. In addition, you can compare the styles of this response and the complaint: they are obviously written by different people.

It is also necessary to mention that the judge on this case, Sanjay T Tailor, happened to be a technology savvy relatively young man, who took his time to look into this case, and he sensed the fraud: all the doubts about it were dissolved today.

9/25/2012 hearing

Today’s status hearing was very encouraging. Judge Tailor looked angry. Master Troll John Steele flew to Chicago in the midst of his hasty fleeing from Florida to Nevada (leaving formerly loyal but unmovable Mark Lutz behind). This unusual appearance clearly tells us that trolls are panicking, and Steele, who, unlike a bone-in-the-tongue Duffy, is capable of lying to judges in a smooth way, attempted to salvage the situation.

Judge started the status hearing by asking attorneys for plaintiff and defendant: “Are you in bed with each other?” Hope you did not spill your beverages. Everyone was shocked, and it all went downhill (for trolls) from there. Steele tried to preach some usual bullshit, but the judge was not amused. Judge Tailor was not convinced by the twisted logic that the so-called co-conspirators do not have standing despite the fact that they are accused of the same “crime” as the mysterious defendant, and are contacted with monetary demands. The hearing on motions (mostly Erin Russell’s clients) is set to the end of November, and undoubtedly the subpoenas will be quashed at least for those who reside outside of Illinois. I hope that the judge will not stop at that and will kill the case — banning crooks from utilizing the personal information of “co-conspirators” they already obtained from the ISPs. Moreover, I hope that Attorney General and/or federal investigators will pick up the baton from the judge.

Erin Russell was also at that hearing, and if I missed anything important, I hope she will comment below.

A carbon copy case: Arte de Oaxaca v. Mullen

A couple of days ago another frivolous case, Arte de Oaxaca v. Mullen, No. 12-L-9036, which is a carbon copy of the Guava case, was discovered in the Cook County docket. This case also has a single defendant (Stacey Mullen — is she a real person?) and an unknown number of co-conspirators (which is undoubtedly huge). The defendant is represented by Adam Urbanczyk (surprise!), and… there is another agreed order to allow discovery, signed by both Duffy and Urbaczyk, which is filed two business days (8/14/2012) after the complaint (8/10/2012), and prior to a formal defendant’s answer to allegations, which is still not filed. I am not even discussing the obvious: that this case does not belong to the county level and should have been immediately removed to the federal court.

It is indeed a carbon copy: sloppy Steele & Duffy did not even proofread their pleadings, leaving “Skyler Case” in the “Prayer of Relief” section, which technically makes the entire complaint invalid.

Note that the judge on this case introduced some safeguards, which is encouraging:

We gave a lot of benefit of doubt to EFF-listed Adam Urbanczyk, but our patience is running thin, and if even the judge suspects collusion and does not hesitate to openly talk about it, we cannot pretend anymore that Adam plays a fair game and his actions can be somehow excused. He is welcome to comment here, and if he can answer our questions and explain his actions in a way that proves his good faith, I see no problem in apologizing, but I doubt such a miracle will happen. All this is really sad: Adam is very young and this ordeal won’t reflect positively on his future career, especially if this scam is investigated by the authorities.


Since I used words farce, fraud, frivolous describing much less brazen abuses of the court system by copyright trolls, I ran out of epithets. I cannot find proper words that describe this garbage. And it will get even worse: we will for sure witness more fraud if Prenda criminals are not deterred ASAP. What can you do? First and foremost, do not settle. It is unnecessary and only fuels the extortion machine. There are few situations when one simply cannot afford that his or her name is dragged through dirt, but most people pay out of irrational fear and the lack of research. If you have money to spend, better spend it on a trusted attorney. And, of course, complain, complain, complain: to the media, FBI, Attorneys General, Bar associations. One voice can be ignored, ten voices can be ignored, but hundreds and thousands? I do not think so.

Update: 10/04/2012 hearing

All subpoenas are stayed.

Today’s hearing brought no surprises: judge Tailor was still not convinced that the case is adversarial in nature and refused to buy any conspiracy claims. John Steele was sweating and throwing tantrums in the courtroom, which he continued doing on Twitter (check his childish vindictive rants today): Illinois Bar Association apparently still thinks that Steele’s behavior is a model of professional conduct for others to follow. #facepalm

But I digress. The hearing has resulted in the following sua sponte (!) order (I decrypted clerk’s handwriting below):

This matter coming before this court on non-party’s emergency TRO, and the parties agreeing to the non-parties requests to inform non parties ISP to withhold the information, the Court orders, in addition, the following:

  1. Outstanding subpoenas not yet complied with by Internet Service Providers are stayed with further order of this Court.
  2. The plaintiff shall not issue any further subpoenas until further order of this Court.
  3. Plaintiff has until Oct 12 to file its answer to the various matters filed by attorney Russell. Attorney Russell shall file and reply by Oct 19.
  4. The hearing regarding all matters pending before the court, including petitioners as yet filed motion to review subpoena compliance by third party ISPs. Oct 26, 2012 at 10:30 am
  5. Nov 27, 2012 date is stricken.
  6. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to notify all subpoenaed Internet Service Providers immediately of the entry of this order immediately by email, send a hard copy by regular mail and attempt to contact by said ISPs by telephone.

Any doubts that this turd of a case is essentially killed? Once again, it was a sua sponte order: judge Tailor didn’t issue the order because anybody asked him to do it, it was totally his idea. He said that he has started getting letters addressed to him in chambers from John Does and felt he needed to put a stop to that.



Relevant pages

  • All the documents from the state “hacking,” allegedly collusive cases are located on this page. A discussion is going on there as well.
wordpress counter


283 responses to ‘“Guava” and “Arte de Oaxaca” scams hit Cook County court

  1. fun random fact – that is a type of guava called Cattley Guava (commonly called Lemon or Strawberry guava, depending on yellow or red fleshed fruits) that can become invasive in fully tropical environments like Hawaii. They are also common targets of the fruit fly and can be (and typically are) infested with maggots!

    Interesting parallel into this case, perhaps.

  2. Shit I knew Steele was in court today but seeing Tailor ask Steele and Urbanczyk if they’re in bed together? That’s a priceless moment. I’m surprised Steele didn’t go into a full-out insecurity-fueled rage. He’s been called a liar and even then, Shadur didn’t actually use that word, but never been blatantly asked in open court if he’s colluding with defense counsel.

  3. Does Steele ever actually buy property in these states he moves to or does he just live out of a hotel? It’s gotta be a huge PITA for Mrs. Steele, moving so often and all. It’s also funny how he apparently (at least as far as I know) never even attempted to get his law license in Florida and will probably do the same in Nevada.

  4. So how exactly did Steele and Urbanczyk answer? Did they deny it? If it turns out they are in bed together, is that perjury? If the judge is already that suspicious it’ll be interesting to see if he orders them to disclose any documents that might unravel the scam. Steele’s reputation precedes him; pretty funny that he thought showing up personally was anything but a terrible idea. What an idiot.

    • Of course there’d be perjury if collusion is found to have occurred but if they’re prosecuted, perjury charges will be the very least of their concerns. We’re talking about rigging a lawsuit that’s over 10,000 people, probably almost double that now with the Oaxaca case. It doesn’t even matter if they’re guilty or innocent. We’re talking potential time in federal prison, however I’d much rather have them in a state-run facility 🙂 Then there’s civil liability that would most certainly bankrupt them. At the ABSOLUTE bare minimum we’re talking lifetime disbarment. Attorney collusion is very very serious and it’s even more serious when you consider the gravity of this case.

      • These guys file fraudulent documents all the time and there are no consequences, and sorry but severing Does after they have contact info and granting the odd MTQ do not qualify as “consequences.” I don’t believe any degree of attorney misconduct is taken all that seriously by the courts or state Bars.

        • The problem is that 99.9% of the time, there’s no real evidence. Settlement letters carefully worded, calls carefully worded, everything carefully worded so “settlement negotiations” is not considered “attempted interstate wire fraud” by the FBI. That and the IARDC is a joke and the Illinois AG is too busy either running for reelection or filing idiotic lawsuits that really don’t matter (like suing S&P for subprime MBS ratings…really, now?). That being said, just because the evidence of misconduct isn’t being discussed here doesn’t mean that there’s no evidence at all.

          You don’t believe attorney misconduct is taken seriously? Talk to Joe Perea about that one. He’s facing multiple Florida Bar complaints and sanctions. Steele got away with it for so long because people just didn’t file complaints. More judges are gonna be sending these scumbags to the respective state bar associations since I believe Tailor is just getting warmed up and I have no doubt that Paul Duffy and Prenda Law are huge blips on the Chicago FBI Field Office’s radar right now.

    • Say what you will about the Illinois AG going after S&P for jimmying the mortgage backed securities market, but do not FOR ONE SECOND believe that “doesn’t matter.”

      Those guys f**ked the entire economy.

      • i would argue it was the people who took out all the loans that they couldn’t afford on over inflated property values that are to blame for our current ecconomic downturn. their inability to read the terms of their loans and their willful blindness to the false inflation of their properties’ values coupled with their willingness to “just walk away” from upsidedown mortgages is why the mortgage backed securities market fell……….i’m just sayin….

        also down with the trolls!!!

        • I disagree. I don’t know why anyone would take out a loan they couldn’t afford. It does not make any sense. Also who’s fault is it to hand out a loan to somebody who couldn’t afford it? Nobody wants to walk away from their home. I would blame greed on the economic downturn.

        • You should have the common sense to know that if you make $30k/year you cannot afford a $300,000 house. To blame one entity or group for all of this is myopic. It was a “perfect storm.” The government should not have been buying those shit loans in the first place. All the ratings agencies did was rate the damn securities using shitty valuation models that basically rubber stamped all of the MBSs as investment grade. They didn’t underwrite the loans nor did they borrow any money. Disagree with me, I don’t care, I’m just basing my statements on the fact that one of my two bachelor’s degrees is in finance with an emphasis on financial institutions and real estate finance, I actually understand how these derivatives work, I wrote two papers on the subject as part of my MBA program, and 80% of my work is with financial institutions.

          Oh, and the exact same thing will happen with SLABs if something isn’t done (and nothing will be done about it). Mark my words. We have $1T+ in student loan debt being collateralized and sold to investors, shitty job market, kids taking out massive amounts of student loans to pay for degrees in underwater basket weaving (aka a worthless degree) and those same students can’t pay off the principal on their loans much less a single penny of interest. Gee, what could go wrong there?

      • Ugh the last thing I feel like doing is debating the cause of the collapse of the subprime market. It is not just the rating agencies’ fault…gross oversimplification. Valuation models based on historical data. Refusal to reign in FNMA and FHLMC by Congress. Allowing banks to sell the shit in the first place. Homeowners using HELOCs as ATMs. The fact that Americans, in general at least, have no problem assuming ridiculous amounts of debt with credit cards, mortgages, lines of credit, student loans, yada yada. I can keep going here.

    • Yes, his actual words. Maybe slightly different, like “Are you in bed together?” or “Are you gentlemen together in bed?” etc. But “in bed” was pronounced for sure.

      • i would have loved for the judge to have followed up on the collusion question with something like “if all these people are anonymous to you how did you get skylar case’s info in the first place?”

  5. the way i read the timeline for the arte de oaxa (i don’t care enough to spell it properly) is that the main defendant was ‘more than likely’ a doe from a previous case (probably a LSM one) that said something dumb then retained urbansky. in the settlement negotiations that urbanski is so prominently known for, the plaintiff’s lawyer (duffy or steele) said that if she would admit to the conspiracy and allow for them to have an agreed order then they would not go after her further. thus this case erupted and the timetable for the agreement was so short. not collusion persay because it was part of the settlement agreement. i do not see how this could have happened so fast without that being the case. i have no idea if this is true or if it is legal, but atleast this theory makes some sort of logical sense in amongst the lunacy that are these cases.

      • i am no so cynical as to think good ole urbanski is THAT destitute. he is probably using randazza’s twisted logic and saying he is just doing what is best for HIS client.

        • I originally thought that as well with respect to AU but with the almost carbon copy behavior occurring again it seems collusive, not coincidental. That being said, after a year of studying this trolling phenomenon, my gut reaction is oftentimes cynical if not outright paranoid but trolls do confirm my worst suspicions the majority of the time.

        • Still, he is listed on the subpoena DEFENSE page of EFF. Which means that he is supposed to DEFEND personal information from being subpoenaed, no ACTIVELY AGREE with troll. Maybe I don’t understand English, but he does not belong to that page.

        • I read the E-mail sent to a IP attorney from whichever troll, and the news that there were others getting similar E-mails( I think it was a Cashman blog). I have to think that Adam whatshisname got one. Perhaps he has gone to the Dark Side, in a sort of wolf in dogs clothing sort of way. I know it is supposed to be sheep’s clothing but I couldn’t give him that much credit, he is doing a poor job of looking innocent.

  6. one other question is the ownership issue. lets say LSM is one of the websites represented by one of these shadow organizations with no web presence ( is probably not a website that has hackers breaking in to view their southwestern art.) then there will have to be some form of proof of ownership. ( honestly i would LOVE to see this gallerie website throw in an amecus brief saying this was not them and suing for some sort of trademark infringement such as destroying the reputation of their brand.) without the proper paperwork showing that the shadow company owns the “hacked” websites there is no standing for guava or this arte de oaxa to sue for people hacking into stuff that is not their property. i know it will probably never get to discovery to show that the shadow corps have no standing, but i would love to see this come out. these cases are not about actually sueing anyone but they are EVEN MORE about getting people’s info and hassling them then the bittorrent cases are. i am less worried about my life being ruing because of these legal debacles then i ever would be about a bittorrent case. there really is no good reason to settle as a doe in these fake company suits.

  7. I am currious, did it take a while after the first letters were sent out in their other cases before the large scale harassment started? I got a letter probably 6-7 weeks ago and have not gotten anything from them since. Although they might have my home phone number which doesn’t even have a phone hooked up. I know that my ISP has my cell # too but they might not have given that out.

  8. The real question here shouldn’t be whether Prenda and Urbanczyk are in bed together, that’s obvious. The more burning question is who’s is the top? John Steele has always struck me as the dominant, forceful lover – but recent events may just prove that intuition wrong.
    The man will take a licking and keep coming back. How many cases have been smacked down in how many courts now? I can’t keep track, but the Man of Steele must get some kind of pleasure out of it. Dramatically coming out of retirement and swooping in for another tongue-lashing by yet another angry judge? The article above even made mention of his more masochistic side. It’s a pretty common phenomenon, like where you see these big blue chip corporate CEO’s who pay the big bucks to get whipped and humiliated by women in leather and heels.

    Call me crazy, but I think John Steele likes a little bit of pain in his pudding. In the light of day, Johnny Boy may be the driving force, but behind closed doors I’d be willing to bet it’s Adam that leading the interrogations of ‘whos yo daddy’.

  9. Petition for TRO filed on behalf of a movant in Minnesota, exposing more Duffy douchebaggery. Issuing a subpoena from Minnesota state court, which Duffy cannot do since he’s not licensed in Minnesota so scumbag Dugas signed off on the subpoena. Same bullshit as issuing subpoenas from other federal jurisdictions so the “target” has no standing to contest the subpoena in an Illinois court. What a fucking load of crap. Well, if this isn’t evidence that venue is improper, I don’t know what is.

    Click to access Petition%20for%20TRO%20%282012-09-27%29%20Guava,%20LLC%20v.%20Case.pdf

  10. I’ll take my medicine when things don’t go my way. I give credit to Erin Russell, although she was as surprised as I was the judge stayed the discovery. Don’t worry, all the info was already back except for one ISP. Oh, BTW, you pirates will note there is a new pleading in the Guava case withdrawing the IP’s of all of Erin’s clients from discovery. I wonder why? ? ? Hmmmm. Its a puzzle. Here is a clue. Check tomorrow at 5pm.

    Again, congratulations Erin, I’m sure the rest of your clients will be as happy as Mitch Goldstein is in a couple of days.

    • john, were you never hugged as a child? Is that what’s going on there lil guy? Do you just want someone to stroke your hair and tell you that you matter? You are a vindictive lil twerp who will someday get their cummupins. Who knows maybe the judge will take away all your “hard earned” discover and then your single doe cases will evaporate as fruit of the poisonous tree. I cannot believe you still think these cases are winnable. Talk big all you want but at least Erin can call herself a human being.

    • I’m afraid I am unfamiliar with Chicago, is the NDIL sited on the old grounds of old Union Stock Yard? You know the place where bulls used to go to get slaughtered.

      • Ironically, it’s down the road from the Chicago River but not very close to the old Union Stock Yards. There’s a section of the River where the animal waste from the stock yards is still decomposing because, well, I can’t even imagine how many animals were slaughtered there and they dumped all of the waste into the river. Just come into Chicago on I-55E (Stevenson Expressway) and you’ll smell it. In general, the Chicago River smells like shit if you’re close to it and it’s pretty a pretty awful smell because they dump treated sewage into the river.

        Ha, one of my favorite concert venues is on a street that intersects with N. Clark.

    • Wow– this guy never ceases to amaze me. Does he want to lose his law license? He is threatening Erin Russell both here and on Twitter. Just because he is a coward who posts anonymously doesn’t mean he can’t be found out. IP addresses work both ways.

      • He appears to be in the process of completely losing it. This is going to be awesome, if it’s really Steele. I have my doubts though, as big as Steele’s ego is, whoever it is tweeting and trolling is making all these claims Prenda never follows through with. Surely even Steele would realize how foolish it looks, I think it’s a Doe or random Internet troll having some fun.

        Hey SJD, in the unlikely event Buffy follows through with the threats vis-a-vis Erin’s clients, you should start a defense fund.

        • You won’t need a defense fund 🙂 Just a judge with a pair of reading glasses. What slays me is that he somehow still has his IL law license.

      • Specifically targeting her too. Not any other lawyer. Not the one who got Tailor to grant a TRO. Not the lawyer who filed the motion that exposed the Minnesota subpoenas being served on out of state parties. She hasn’t embarrassed him at all, just pled the facts. If he does file against her clients in ILND, it’d be a colossally stupid move as every judge in the district oughtta know his endgame by now. The reason why he (and the rest of the Prenda “gang”) have their law licenses is because the IARDC works at an INCREDIBLY SLOW pace (see examples below).

        “Bar authorities in Illinois are seeking the disbarment of a lawyer convicted of smuggling Cuban cigars into the country back in the 1990s.

        In pressing for disbarment, the IARDC asserts in its filing that there’s no doubt Connors’ crimes ‘involved moral turpitude and reflected adversely on his honesty, truthfulness, and fitness as an attorney.'” hah, well…yeah. Convicted about 20 years ago, now getting around to disbarment.

        Back in June the ARDC finally got around to recommending disbarment for a Madison County (see: Judicial Hellholes) lawyer sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for multiple counts of bankruptcy fraud and kiddie porn…he was convicted in 2007. 5 years post-conviction, seriously?

        Another attorney, this one in Quincy, was temporarily disbarred for “misappropriating client funds” (theft) beginning in 2009 and he’s facing felony charges.

    • Hey, how are those cases for a major adult content producer coming? You told us to keep an eye out on Monday. I know it can take a few days for documents to work their way into PACER, but since it’s Thursday and nothing has showed up yet I’m starting to think your full of it.

    • Blah blah blah. You’re ignoring the real question at issue here: Are you pitching or catching, John? You’re so friendly with Ubanczyk on these things, I’m hoping for the surprise twist at the end.

    • What respectable attorney actually goes on an internet forum and twitter to throw insults and pick school yard fights against opposing counsel and the defendants? I mean, seriously? Why are you even on here? Russel is keeping non-party defendants informed. Others have been subpoeaned and are seeking legal advice / thinking out loud. But you — what’s your reason for posting on here?

      If your client has a case and you believe you can prove his injury, then argue your case in court. And if you can’t……

      • You should see him on Twitter…well, @ThePirateSlayer. Referring to Does as “calves” and himself as “The Bull” (usually in the third person). He’s just over the top. Not 100% sure it’s Mr. You Know Who but he’s since removed anything associating him with Prenda from his profile. Every time he says he’s filing a suit, one pops up, so one would surmise that he’s someone closely associated with Prenda.

  11. I have a theory that Steele has something on Urbanczyk and blackmails him. For example, Adam was stupid to do something illegal — like violating client-attorney privilege for a quick cash, something he thought would never surface, and Steele now milks Adam, pushing him further downhill. A strong character would stop, admit wrongdoing, take appropriate punishment stoically and work hard to improve his image. I regard people who has balls to do that as heroes and willing to forgive a lot, yet we don’t witness this type of behavior often: most often we observe continuing self-destruction.

    This is merely a speculation though: no facts, pure intuition.

    • I thought a saw a filing in the last couple days where a Doe’s lawyer claimed that the Doe had consulted Adam, and without the Doe’s permission Adam contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and attempted to negotiate a settlement.

      I don’t think you need to speculate, this guy is a colluder, although it may not be blackmail just greed.

    • There is a recent filing where a Doe’s lawyer stated that the Doe had consulted Adam, and without the Doe’s permission Adam contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and attempted to negotiate a settlement on the Doe’s behalf.

      I don’t think you need to speculate, this guy is a colluder, although it may not be blackmail just greed.

      • it is possible that urbanski had a flat rate agreement with the “plaintiff” so that all of his negotiations would be for 2k. so he just “claimed” he negotiated it when it was a group rate style agreement for urbanski settlements. still shady, just trying to see the non horrible side of the coin.

    • Steele is trying to make it look like filing against Erin’s clients in federal court is a “revenge” tactic directed at them, to make things tougher on them, but it is really pragmatic and a sign of desperation.

      If all of Erin’s clients are dismissed from the state case and put in a federal case instead, that means she isn’t there to monkey with his state case anymore, and he can show up with Adam and they can collude unopposed (although it may be a bit too late for that as this judge seems to know what’s up). THAT is the real game here, to be able to show up in court with his buddy and be the only two who get to have a say in how the case plays out.

      The fact that this is a 5-Doe case and not 5 named cases is a giveaway, he’s trying to reduce the risk and cost associated with this move. Naming the Does raises the stakes and filing 5 suits costs 5 times as much. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t even bother to follow up on the 5-Doe case, lets it go 120 without service and it gets dismissed or he dismisses it. As long as their lawyer stays out of the courtroom in the Guava state case he doesn’t care.

      So, in the end we see that John is just being a pussy as usual and can’t deal with a case when there is opposing counsel, especially if he’s getting his ass beat by a girl.

      Erin should go thermonuclear on this bullshit. I would further suggest that this is getting way beyond sanctionable conduct.

    • I think I see what’s going on here.

      Steele is trying to make it look like filing against Erin’s clients in federal court is a “revenge” tactic directed at them, to make things tougher on them, but it is really pragmatic and a sign of desperation.

      If all of Erin’s clients are dismissed from the state case and put in a federal case instead, that means she isn’t there to monkey with his state case anymore, and he can show up with Adam and they can collude unopposed (although it may be a bit too late for that as this judge seems to know what’s up). THAT is the real game here, to be able to show up in court with his buddy and be the only two who get to have a say in how the case plays out.

      The fact that this is a 5-Doe case and not 5 named cases is a giveaway, he’s trying to reduce the risk and cost associated with this move. Naming the Does raises the stakes and filing 5 suits costs 5 times as much. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t even bother to follow up on the 5-Doe case, lets it go 120 without service and it gets dismissed or he dismisses it. As long as their lawyer stays out of the courtroom in the Guava state case he doesn’t care.

      So, in the end we see that John is just being a pussy as usual and can’t deal with a case when there is opposing counsel, especially if he’s getting his ass beat by a girl.

      Erin should go thermonuclear on this bullshit. I would further suggest that this is getting way beyond sanctionable conduct.

      • Prenda’s narcissistic anger blinded them to the realities at play here. Prenda files these crap cases in state courts for several reasons, one of these reasons is that federal courts operate on strict timetables, state courts usually do not. Another reason is it is sometimes the case that state judges look after their own and want to see the lawyers get paid, federal judges simply do not give a shit. Accordingly this crap case is much more susceptible to dismissal and the awarding of sanctions/attorneys fees in federal court than in state court. I do not presume to speak for Erin but most civil defense attorneys would prefer to have these crap claims heard by a federal judge as opposed to a state judge, all things else being equal.

        • That sounds like a good reason for any Doe involved in the state case to retain Erin and guarantee a fast-track to federal court and an easier dismissal, plus possible award of fees and sanctions.

          If there are several batches of these it’s going to look worse and worse to the federal judges as well.

    • so you know how they are saying that this is not copyright infringement related and so there is no preemption by the copyright act(at least that’s what they are saying in the LSM cases)? yea if you read the complaint there is this little gem “5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because, upon information and belief, they either reside in or committed copyright infringement within the State of Illinois” dude SERIOUSLY needs to proofread his shit.

      • No there’s a reason (assuming this is calculating). If they cite the state’s long-arm statute, they can pull more of this shit in federal court. Co-conspirators, unknown defendants who reside outside the jurisdiction of the court, blah blah. Or it could be a fuck up. Given the rest of the complaint, I’d be a little bit more inclined to believe it’s a fuck up than deliberate but I wouldn’t put money on it.

  12. i do not know why they would do this. if they are infact erin’s clients she will file motion’s to dismiss, and these horribly vague claims will be tossed and create a federal precedent. seriously talk about shooting one’s self in the foot.

    • This does not appear to be retroactive. I have to agree, to a point, with the troll. This really is too little too late. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step. Hopefully this leads to them being forced to destroy all info garnered in both cases, and repay any and all money extorted, if that is even possible. Otherwise this does almost nothing in reality. It might help anyone with the means to fight, but for many of us there is no meat here. With any luck this is just a first step, and the Trolls are going down hard, but that remains to be seen.

  13. I can’t help but be positive these cases are for all intents and purposes, nothing more than LightSpeed media. They saw the LSM case going to hell thanks to the ISPs, so they took the information they’d gotten, called up a buddy, passed the phoney Skylar person in. And used it for a basis to get the ‘information’ they already had with just a few IPs still to be discovered. Nail their asses to the wall. Abuse of this sort makes the validity of Copyright law, tarnished as it is, worthless.

  14. I read this as stating that they had to notify all ISP’s of the order, not just ones with outstanding info, is that correct? I assume that the trolls will read it as just the few that have outstanding subpoena’s, and not actually notify all of the ISP’s…

  15. So let’s say my ISP’s deadline to let them know I filed was October 1st and I opted for “wait-and-see”, but then 3 days later the subpoenas were stalled. Should I expect harassment letters and whatnot now or is it pretty likely my ISP rolled over right away?

    • If it is not clear already, you can directly contact the legal department of your ISP to determine whether or not your contact information was released.

  16. Guava and Lightspeed are the same scam. Skyler is some made-up person or a plant. This entire thing is Lightspeed. this clown is a crook, plain and simple. He keeps worming the system and he found some corrupt judges in Illinois. They are obviously on the take. But the feds are too damn corrupt themselves to investigate or too damn lazy, or give too few shits about American citizens that they will not investigate. My personal opinion is they don’t give a shit. The feds are too busy buying up tens of millions of rounds of ammo for the gestapo (Homeland Security) in anticipation of civil unrest. Financiers are dumping their investments and flocking to gold and silver, and we are here worrying about fuckface (Lightspeed) and his BS. Forget about that dipshit and start worrying about the bigger picture. A federal judge put the breaks on the NDAA and the Obama administration very quickly got three federal judges on an appeals court to overturn the breaks on the NDAA. In other words, Obama is hell bent on keeping aspects of the NDAA alive that allow for the feds to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial or charges. We are worrying about some 2-bit prick while our country just became a regime. And by the way, what is going on with the NDAA is quite literally the biggest thing to happen to this country since the Civil War, yet you hear nothing about it in mainstream news (wonder why).

  17. Don’t forget, “The Bull” has claimed that there are 27 more Does in other federal jurisdictions. I only found the 5 in ILND and 4 individuals, 9 so far and none of them named. Prenda is arguing conspiracy so, if they have their way, each of the 4 will (and the other 5 in ILND) will turn into MANY more (see below). Far from Steele, err, “The Bull’s” claim of 32.

    3:12-cv-01435 in CTD (Ruggiero)
    2:12-at-01337 in CAED (Gibbs, “at” denotes shell case, will be re-numbered)
    2:12-cv-14441-GCS-MJH in MIED (Tappan)
    1:12-cv-01661 in DCD (Duffy)

    Different causes of action for each complaint. It’s apparent that no one knows what the cause of action should be seeing as we have this clusterfuck…
    Duffy (Does 1-5) ILND – “28:1331 Federal Question” (28 USC § 1331 is CORRECT DING DING)
    Duffy (John Doe) DCD – “28:1331 Fed. Question” (hey at least he’s consistent)
    Tappan’s (Doe) MIED – “17:101 Copyright Infringement” (17 USC § 101, Copyright Act not argued)
    Ruggiero’s (Doe) CTD – “No cause code entered” (I don’t even know….)
    Gibbs’ CAED – “31:3731 Fraud” (31 USC § 3731, “Fraud,” is not argued)

    These complaints are all carbon copies. Reading over the complaint filed by Tappan. Cause of action, “17:101 Copyright Infringement” or 17 USC § 101 aka the Copyright Act…huh? None of the complaints argue copyright infringement as defined under the Act, yet in the “Prayer for Relief” section it (and the complaints filed in DCD, ILND, and CTD) specifically asks for remedy, impoundment of plaintiff’s A/V etc works under 17 USC §§ 503 and 509(a) or in layman’s terms, the Copyright Act…what, seriously? “We’re not arguing copyright infringement occurred but we’d like all infringed audiovisual (porn) works to be impounded under The Copyright Act.” Then the cause of action in the complaint Gibbs filed is fraud…are you shitting me? No comment needed there. The CFAA claim is even worse than the initial one filed in Cook County. It doesn’t even cite the subsection applicable (protected computer under 18 USC § 1030(?)). Remedies under 18 § 1030(g), but there are so many exceptions to (g)…damages are not stated, just “in excess $5,000.” Negligence…gah, really? Failed three times already, let’s go for 5 more. What was Einstein’s definition of insanity? Oh, yes…doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Well…no comment.

    Someone tell me that no federal judge will notice any of that dumb ass shit, PLEASE. Judge Darrah in ILND, Judge (who knows) in CTD, Judge (who knows but who cares, they know Prenda and Gibbs) in CAED, and Judge Steeh in MIED, and finally in DCD, Judge (who knows) let’s hope it gets assigned to Wilkins but the complaint is so defective that Howell should even smash it based on “the letter of the law.” They cannot possibly stand in front of a federal judge and say (with a straight face) “We aren’t arguing a violation of the Copyright Act” when they’re specifically asking for remedy under the Act, not to mention in Tappan’s cause of action, (violation of) the Copyright Act is the cause of action…Jesus. Damages under the CFAA? What kind of damages? Fraud? I thought this was a CFAA case. No cause of action? Well as far as I know, no cause = frivolous lawsuit. De-fec-tive.

    Oh, and the citation of state law in the complaints is universal across all complaints (different states, different state long-arm statutes). Such as this in case Gibbs filed…
    “This Court has personal jurisdiction over non-resident Defendants, if any, under the California long-arm statute, CA CIV PRO § 410.10….”
    The ONLY reason to cite the state long-arm statute for arguing personal jurisdiction is for the civil conspiracy claim…they’re gonna try to pull this unnammed co-conspirator, no standing to challenge anything bullshit with each of the above the same way they did it in Cook.

    • you for got to point out in the very beginning of the ILND case the complaint has this lil gem

      “5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because, upon information and belief, they either reside in or committed copyright infringement within the State of Illinois”

      they are arguing jurisdiction based on copyright infringement at the very start of the complaint.

      • Actually I did, at the bottom, I just pulled it off Gibbs’ complaint instead of Duffy’s (they’re all the same damn thing with a few details changed like the long-arm statute, etc).

        The state long-arm statute (for whatever state the district has jurisdiction or partial jurisdiction over) is followed by that federal district court when determining jurisdictional issues with regard to those who do not reside within the jurisdiction. Now, I could sit here and sum up how that argument is bullshit, but I don’t feel like it. My point is that they’re gonna pull more of this unnamed, non-party, co-conspirator defendant bullshit.

        Problem is, that “conspiracy” shit didn’t fly with Holderman in ILND when it came to P2P. They’re gonna try it again, but they won’t say HOW these user/pass combos were communicated, WHAT was taken (other than copyrighted material, which is moot since Copyright Act is not argued), WHEN this initially occurred, WHY was this person allowed (I stress that, allowed) to keep accessing plaintiff’s “content” (the issue of gaining access is moot since they argue that it continues to this day), etc etc. Like I said, please argue this in federal court. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

      • They argue for jurisdiction based on the CFAA claim being a federal claim and 28 USC § 1331 permits for all federal issues to be heard in federal court and argues all subsequent claims are supplemental to the CFAA claim. In other words, crush the CFAA claim, which would not be that difficult seeing as how , and the house of cards collapses. Complaint does not state which of the seven qualifying violations occurred under 18 USC § 1030(a) subpars 1-7. Is it 1030(a)(1)? Maybe. 1030(a)(2)? Could be. Who knows? No one!

        • i figured it out. guava is a secret government organization designed to infultrate and manipulate through subliminal images imbedded in porn. the “valuable content” that was taken was not, according to them, copyrighted porn but were government rescources because of the secret messages they were designed to deliver. maybe it is not about subliminal mind control but rather that the cia uses this “valuable content” to comunicate with their forign operatives by imbedding comunica’s into the various works (i saw this type of thing on NCIS so it has to be true). thus they are really stolen top secret documents that if decoded could bring the federal government crashing down around us. yea that’s why the cfaa claim is correctly applied here, and that’s why they have no real web precense. it all makes sense now. the black helicopters are coming for us all and we as sheep don’t even know it yet.

          i am onto you john you cia sonofabitch.

 npr broke this news and it was the germans who started this, just like it was the germans who started the ip harvesting firms. it is a secret spy operation!!!!!OMG!!!!111one

  18. Hrm…this is funny. I pulled this from A U’s site. Probably just a fuck up but who knows.

    “Axel Braun Productions Case Library
    Arte-de-Oaxaca-v-Mullen-No-12-L-9036 (Cook-County-IL)”

    It should be known that the judge ordered Mullen to file an answer to the complaint by November 1st. So, complaint filed on August 10, no answer filed, defendant given until November 1st to file answer. That’s 72 days to answer…my math is a little fuzzy but I believe that the defendant has been given an extra 51 days to answer the complaint. What…the…fuck? I can’t read the clerk’s writing on the order on the second page, only the order on the first page.

    Click to access Orders%20%282012-10-04%29%20Arte%20de%20Oaxaca%20v.%20Mullen.pdf

    • Thanks for the new Prenda troll alert!!
      Guava, LLC v. John Doe in OHND (1:12-cv-02512)
      Counsel for this case is Rod R. Mastandrea, his email is (what reputable attorney uses a gmail address?). He’s only been licensed for 3 years, got his JD from Cleveland State University, BA in poli sci from “The” Ohio State University. Apparently specializes in criminal defense. Well…wonder what his motivation is for taking one of these cases?
      I have an opinion about the picture in the previous link, what does everyone else think? Starts with a “d,” ends with “ouche.”

      Recapped the docket, complaint, and IP list. Docket is here…

      Click to access gov.uscourts.ohnd.195041.1.0.pdf

      IP list should be up soon

      • again

        “5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because, upon information and belief, they either reside in or committed copyright infringement within the State of Ohio.”

        if there were any questions that they didn’t have one central complaint that was copy and pasted for all of their “minion attorneys” this should clearly remove all doubt.

        i would think that the main doe can just forgo service necessities and file an answer and then a motion to dismiss. that would probably be more successful then any motion to quash. do you have to wait for the isp to give up your info and then get served b4 you can file an answer and start filing motions?

        • That would be ideal, if possible, to file an answer and/or motion (anonymously if possible) if you’re actually given notice by your ISP of the subpoena for one of these. They didn’t even include the date/time stamp for the IP address in the Exhibit A to the complaint that is meant to identify John Doe via the ISP. Similar “oversight” regarding the date/time in the exhibit A’s in other identical cases in other jurisdictions also exist. The IP address in the subpoena without a date and time is no good to get the info from the ISP. Why would they exclude this? Either dumb oversight (possible) OR it’s more sinister in that they don’t really need it. Read on.

          The cynic in me thinks some of these Does may be “plants” and their names will eventually show up for the sole purpose of denying everything in the complaint, but admitting knowledge to a conspiracy so as to justify the dragging in of “co-conspirators” in an amended complaint. Think Skyler Case. Only $350 to file and it looks like a single Doe case on the surface. Then they’ll add Doe “conspirators” whose IPs locate to the jurisdiction where the case was filed, hoping to remove arguments based on personal/subject matter jurisdiction and joinder (Doe admitted the conspiracy). Since it’s CFAA, the subject matter jurisdiction is also considered proper in fed court so it would be harder to quash subpoenas based on the above. At the end of the day, this is all about getting the names of as many individuals as possible to pressure into settling for quick and easy $$$$, and it seems as though they’re trying to adapt from their mistakes in Illinois state and county courts.

          What got Erin Russell in the door to essentially kill/stay Guava in Cook County were her motions for alleged Doe conspirators who were from other jurisdictions outside of Cook County, which gave her the floor to get the judge’s ear about the BS of a conspiracy to begin with. I think this is some of what they’re trying to avoid by going federal.

          I think That Anonymous Dude thinks similarly. Hopefully I’m/we’re wrong, but time will tell.

        • Well if someone were to receive one of these and they are informed (not likely, unfortunately) then they should immediately file an MTQ, pointing out the numerous mistakes. I really don’t see how a federal judge would let one of these complaints get to the discovery stage. No timestamps, asking for remedies under the Copyright Act but not alleging a violation of the Act, failure to state a legitimate claim under the CFAA (listing a bunch of crap and then saying “The above are all violations of the CFAA” isn’t good enough). Since the rest of the claims are supplemental to the CFAA claim, crush the CFAA claim and everything else goes bye. The request for relief under 1030(g) is a farce too. You can’t ask for compensatory damages for “other costs” or “forensic investigators” and those costs cannot be included in the $5k calculation. ONLY for costs related to securing the computer system. That’s it.

          Hell, in the CTD complaint that Ruggiero filed, his exhibit included 3 IPs, two Cablevision and one Charter. The Charter IP locates to a different part of the state. Now how in the hell would a person have two ISPs, three static IPs, and be in three places at once? Well, simple answer…it’s not possible.

          These complaints were drafted in a damn hurry. I lost track of the number of mistakes that I noticed, and I’m not even a lawyer. If they’re trying to adapt, they’re failing. The complaint filed in Cook County was more clear than these complaints. I’m not even considering the fact that the (federal) complaint is so incredibly vague. It doesn’t state what happened, when it happened, blah blah. Essentially they’re all BS and the judge should just kick the case to get it off the docket.

    • What was a win???? Did I miss something? I know about the default but I would not call that a win…. as the defendant did not even put up a fight as so far the trolls have not had to prove their case.

    • Win? It’s a default judgment and from what I can tell, it’s possible that it might be overturned seeing as how the summons was served on someone other than the defendant. He’s not even listed as the owner of the house. For all we know, he didn’t even know he was being sued. Lots of discrepancies. It’s not like they’re verifying identities like they do in movies or TV shows. Drop it off on the front door, ring the doorbell, run like hell, and see who picks it up, then write that down and put it in the proof of service. What would most people do if they got a summons but have no clue who the hell the person is listed on it? Toss it probably. Besides, one of Prenda’s two (now three) default judgments has been reversed because of defective service.

      • I think maybe they meant the “win” was referring to the staying of whatever subpoenas were left over in the case and what it meant for those that already had their information turned over kind of thing. I could be wrong.

  19. so i was looking at alot of of the guava claims throughout the country and all of them seem to have some form of the statement that jurisdiction is warranted under the state’s long arm statute because the defendants committed COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT in their jurisdiction.

    so i went back to the response from prenda in regards to the motions by at&t and comcast and particularly what they said about the preemption of the copyright act. this is what they had to say

    “AT&T argues that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted because they relate to the theft of files subject potentially subject to Federal copyright protection. (ECF No. 27 at 18-19.) That argument is incorrect on two levels. First, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants stole, or conspired to steal, private computer files, not specifically files generally available to the general public upon the payment of a fee……
    None alleges the existence of copyrightable information, and each is distinct from a copyright infringement claim. Plaintiff does not assert that AT&T infringed on its copyright. To the contrary, Plaintiff claims that AT&T is liable for the damage he caused by virtue of its acts and omissions. The harm caused by AT&T’s acts and omissions are sui generis harms distinct from infringement

    In this action, there is no allegation of copyright infringement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted to hack into its websites, and steal private information it. There is no allegation that the information included publicly-available information subject to the Copyright Act.

    they cannot use that excuse in their guava claims because the claims contain the statement that jurisdiction is proper due specifically to copyright infringement. i would love to see how they try to squirm their way out of this “typo” that they copy and pasted in every one of their complaints.

    this lil fact actually takes away even more of the fear from their vague and horribly inadequate claims than theyhad in the first place. in their complaint they essentially preempt themselves. just one more reason why NO ONE should settle one of these cases. they cannot legally hold up against a motion to dismiss.

    —i am not a lawyer and this is for discussion purposes only—

    • Marble, I want to thank both you and TAD for your thoughtful analyses of the wording and patterns within these most recent federal Guava complaints. The trolls are now certainly making it easier for a defense attorney to argue for dismissal based in part on copyright preemption.

      In the Lightspeed vs Smith case, they at least allege an IP address WITH date/time stamp, websites accessed, some of the files that were allegedly downloaded, and the name of the “security firm” (cough) that did the monitoring (for Smith in particular, who used to be “John doe”). Even with those things stated I have little doubt that Lightspeed will eventually be dismissed thanks to the likes of Huffman, Siever and Booth/Sweet.

      So I agree, I don’t see how these Guava cases can survive a motion to dismiss, because as weak as it was, Lightspeed filed a stronger complaint which is all likely to vanish.

      If anyone gets pinged with a summons as an individual for one of these things by one of Prenda;s new trolls, and if you have the resources, do what Anthony Smith did and try to get Booth/Sweet (pro hac vice outside of MA if necessary) to fight this for you. Once there is precedence for dismissal in your jurisdiction, it will make it nearly impossible for them to scare anyone with a similar case in your home jurisdiction again.

      • Oh have you seen the IP exhibits for these individual Guava cases? Minus the one filed by Duffy in ILND, they have no timestamps (Duffy didn’t even file an exhibit with his complaint in DCD). Oh and I just found that Duffy drew Judge Beryl Howell, who’s a fuckin hardass when it comes to rules and fuck-ups.

        Ruggiero even pulled a page out of “Quantum Mechanics for Lawyers” and alleges that the same defendant used three different IPs from two different ISPs in three different cities to do whatever is being alleged. Electrons as well as all other subatomic particles may be able to exist simultaneously in two locations but we’re dealing with people, not subatomic particles.

  20. I see that Guava has filed suit against a John Doe in Massachusetts District Court. See:

    Only Duffy is not the Plaintiff’s attorney this time around — instead, it’s: Daniel G. Ruggiero. Anyone know anything about this guy? Interesting because, despite what Duffy claims on the Prenda website and on the demand letters he has been sending out, he is NOT actively licensed in the state of Massachusetts (thus perhaps why he isn’t representing Guava in that jurisdiction). This has been mentioned before, but the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) prohibits someone who is not licensed in the state from holding themselves out as if they are. Rule 5.5 of the MRPC is somewhat ambiguous as to whether having an inactive license would qualify as a violation, but nonetheless, it seems to me that he is not permitted to explicitly state that he can practice in MA when in fact he cannot.

    I tried to send a letter to the MA state bar ethics board, but they only accept anonymous complaints, and thus nothing can be sent via e-mail. When I get around to it, I’ll compile all of the unethical and shady tactics employed by Duffy into a letter, and send it to all four state bar ethics commitees and cc: the judges handling this case in IL and MA, as well as the proper DOJ division that handles this sort of fraud. My hands are pretty full presently, and even as a non-party ‘conspirator,’ this just isn’t that urgent, but once my letter is eventually written and mailed, I’ll scan a copy, post it on Scribd, and provide a link on this forum, as I did with the demand letter that Prenda sent me.

    • Ruggiero is a hack who has been filing dozens of Prenda cases in 5 to 7 states over the past month. He went to a crappy law school, has no IP experience, and all his pleadings are copy-and-paste jobs. There was more discussion of him in the Steele/Prenda pages on this site.

    • Yeah well, tack on the exhibits with no timestamps, that contain multiple IPs but for a suit against one person. Multiple IPs that are located in three different cities and assigned by two different ISPs. He’s done this in the MAD case and in the CTD case as well. In the Connecticut case, one of the IPs is on the other side of the state from the other two IPs. Oh, and Google Ruggiero’s name with “New Hampshire” and you’ll find something interesting…may not be him but it sure appears to be him.

    • It’s the other way around, the Copyright Act preempts all state and federal causes of action which touch upon “useful works” (more or less). Some might argue that obscenity is not a “useful work”.

      • it is hard to say that copyright preempts the cfaa. a federal statute generally cannot preempt another federal statute as far as i know. and in some ways the cfaa does apply to these claims, however all of the state claims are preempted by the copyright act. as such they can be dismissed and pointless. because the plaintiff chose not to file properly they give up their right to the claims and would have to refile under a new case under copyright infringement.(atleast that’s how i interpret preemption issues). the cfaa is it’s own issue and cause of action, and it hard as hell to validly prove a loss or damage over the $5k threashold for someone who merely used a password they got from a forum or google. if they had proof that you were the one who actually broke into their system to obtain the passwords initially and/or caused the damage to their systems then they would have a viable claim, but without a conspiracy charge to bond the individual to the crimes of the “group” they just don’t have enough proof to get anyone singularly. all they can PROVE is that your ip accessed their site without causing damage and dl’ed some content. simply using someone elses password cannot cause damage to a system because logging in is what that system is specifically designed to do. as far as loss they can claim the hourly rate they pay to their admin to turn off that login/pass, and to generate the automatic email sent to the “real” user explaining that their pw has been shut off and they need to log in and change it (1 hour of work topps), and the lost cost of a subscription. possibly bandwidth costs as well. alls told unless they pay their admin over $10m/year then his time cannot be worth over $5k/hour their bandwith cannot cost more than $1/gig (probably closer to $1/TB) the discovery of the over use of the login should have been automatically detected by some script so there is no cost to discover the breach.

        overall they need discovery to see if you ever uploaded their content or distributed the pw/content, and i doubt any judge would allow it to go that far. and if they cannot find that extra proof then their whole claim is moot as to any specific individual.

        • Not to mention that the term “loss” is clearly defined in 1030 and does not include pretty much all costs that plaintiff claims to have incurred as a “result” of whatever happened. As per 1030(e)(11)…
          “(11) the term “loss” means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service…”

          “Other costs,” nope. “Fees paid to its computer forensics agents,” doubtful since the “agents” seem to be employed by plaintiff in the first place so plaintiff would be paying them anyway. “Fees paid to investigators and bandwidth fees,” probably not. “Fees paid to legal counsel,” nope. “Fees paid to secure its systems,” normally yes but not too sure if that’d qualify when the system is still not secure as Duffy CLEARLY states in the complaint. So, essentially, assuming that none of the above apply, it’s impossible for any loss to have occurred.

          The newer complaints have “other costs,” that is just so incredibly vague it cannot be included in the calculation of loss. The rest of the itemized costs, only fees paid to secure blah blah would apply…and the same argument that they never secured their computers if this is still occurring so they either got shafted (not the defendant’s problem) or the statement is outright perjury.

          Here’s another arrogant motion filed by Duffy back on the 4th. He’s insulting opposing counsel by name in this one, then calls her unprofessional, among other things. Duffy calling another attorney unprofessional is…just fucking stupid.

          Click to access Motion%20to%20Strike%20%282012-10-03%29%20Guava,%20LLC%20v.%20Case.pdf

        • Definitely. Obviously not a very well thought out motion. Someone’s letting their anger seep into their legal filings…bad bad bad thing. I’ve never seen any Prenda attorney attack opposing counsel by name in any motion filed…until now.

        • Steele believes that Erin botched his con. All his attempts to brag that he already has info are bogus. In that case he would laugh, not spill saliva. I’m not even sure it was Erin who thwarted the crime in progress: do those morons really think that they would keep it hidden? By attacking Erin in front of the judge, Steele insulted judges’ intelligence.

          The very tone of this motion is a music to my ears. I’m sure Erin’s feelings are not hurt: those roaches are not capable of provoking inherently human feelings. It is just fucking great: 2 shots in one: indication that their criminal business is seriously hurt and the inevitability of this anger’s backfire: Tailor will be seriously pissed, I know.

        • @SJD I thought I read at some point either on this thread or the actual guava thread that people have already gotten letters and that he had their info

          • Yes, he does have thousands of names already. Yet he hoped for much more – a Perpetuum Sumen: an infinite udder to milk. The agreed order, resulted from suspected collusion between Steele and Urbanczyk, was a carte blanche, authorizing subpoenas to ISPs not listed there. I have no doubt that the crooks would argue that it also meant the ability to subpoena the same ISPs more than once.

            And they lost that golden udder. Hence hysterics.

        • they have gotten alot of doe info returned b4 the subpoena’s were stayed. this does not mean they have the gaul or resources to sue every person, and the judge can still order all of the info they did got destroyed. if this happens then alot of their local cases could possibly die if they have named anyone. that’s one of the reason’s that they have filled all the “local” guava cases against a john doe. the other reason the local cases are john does is that they are focusing on the people who filled motions to object to the subpoena’s. when you file you prevent the isp from releasing your info until said motions are resolved.

          i must say being invoked in one of these cases has taught me more about how the legal system works than i ever thought i wanted to know. it is a giant cluster and i pitty my friend who just entered lawschool as she is diving head first into the quagmire that is the us tort system. (she knows what she is getting into at least as she was a court clerk for several years)

          i was an anonymous commenter for several months b4 i gathered enough courage to post under a consistent name. these asshats still worry me that i may get named someday. i am not scared it will ruin my life anymore, just don’t want to have to deal with it, though i would turn into a fantalis, just not as eloquent.

        • Agreed SJD, the unprofessionalism in these filings is fantastic. Prenda’s clowns are incompetent enough when calm and sober; getting Steele worked up just means more and stupider mistakes, which could turn out to be quite entertaining given his history. And while he has been given a very long leash thus far there must be a limit on how unfiltered he can go before the Court.

          I suspect this whole individual and named filing spree is a rage/frustration/ego/desperation thing rather than a sensible plan that makes financial sense. Steele was likely counting on these CFAA cases to get his mass-defendant strategy back on track now that mass-BitTorrent cases aren’t working so well, with the individual and named suits as PR tool to get the hordes of nameless defendants scared into settling. If he overextends financially on the named suits while planning to make it back on mass-CFAA cases, and then those CFAA cases don’t work…

          Even if he has contact info for a portion of the defendants, this roadblock with Erin is the first sign that the mass-CFAA cases are doomed and won’t have the legs the BitTorrent cases had. This isn’t even a case where the ISPs are inserting themselves, so who knows what his expectations were or what he has promised clients, getting his subpoenas dropkicked into the garbage had to hurt, and is a sign the same thing will happen to future cases.

        • You are correct. Steele did this out of anger, hardly a calculated decision. It’s actually a very bad decision to take one of these bullshit cases to federal court. Judges don’t have time for bullshit cases like these, and the fact that the complaints are even worse than the original one filed in Cook makes it that much more likely that a federal judge is gonna wanna know what the hell they’re trying to pull. If Judge Howell in DCD sticks to her guns (and I bet she will even if it’s to look unbiased), she’s gonna rip Duffy a new one.

          Another not so well thought out lawsuit, the suit in ILSD against AT&T and Comcast. That’s not calculated or even remotely well thought out. It was more of a “fuck you assholes, you didn’t give us what we wanted, now we’re gonna sue you.” Same shit going on here. Tailor chucks the subpoenas, Steele flips shit…on top of him already being pissed as hell over the MTQs and TROs filed, showing that he’s issuing subpoenas out of Minnesota.

  21. sorry if im slow but im new to reading up on this. i just assumed somehow this related to using torrents or something. so this is all just like about “hacking” some website by using a illegal key or something?

    • correct, these claims (guava, arte de xoaca, and lightspeed media) are NOT about bittorrent. they are a claim that someone used a password to the site(s) that they did not own. ie they googled “” and used that pass or went to password sharing forums and used those. or any number of ways to find these passes. they go on further to alledge that everyone who used the (undisclosed number of different) passes (over an undisclosed but probably very large timeframe) were part of a mass conspiracy to steal their “private content” all these thousands of people alledgedly banded together and agreed that they needed to breach the security of these (unnamed and misterious) sites and view their “private content.” it is all very convoluted and very much retarded.

      • Really? I did the stupid thing by calling them out of fear and duffy answered after claiming that it was a mistake, I asked him how someone could have done it and he replied that it was usually through a torrenting program. Likr bittorrent etc. Not once did he mention hacking or passwords. He just said that someone was using my IP address to download a porno. Then he said he had things to do and hung up.

  22. they are claiming hacking, then distributing (has to be via torrent) and are trying to say that everyone involved in the distributing(most likely torrent) is also responcible for the hacking by association.

    • But they do not argue any infringement whatsoever so it is a moot point even if people infringed. Nor do they even invoke the CFAA in the CFAA claim other than the defendant violated the entire damn law so give us money.

      • also they have zero proof of the distribution side. seriously NONE. zip, zero, nada. these vague ass arguments are not going to fly in federal court, as one lawyer in a lightspeed case said in a motion

        “how can the defendant know what it is that he supposedly reproduced and distributed without authorization absent without a descriptionh beyond “content?” Was it computer code, customer lists…Coke’s secret formula?”

        these are pure scare tactic cases. they have no evidence of anything actionable so the make vague inferences and hope the court takes them on their word. and in some cases this works because the courts are designed to believe whatever they are told, not to think critically about how stupid something is….so if you are a doe in one of these the best thing you can do is file a motion to give the court a second side to look at, because lord knows some judges won’t see the pool of stupid unless it is pointed out to them.

        • @marble, Damn right. They have nothing. IP addresses with no timestamps. Ruggiero has 3 IPs in 3 different cities, assigned by two ISPs, but one defendant. Federal udges want these shitty cases off their docket but they do not read them. The only way to get a judge to read the complaint is to file a motion or declaration (I’d love for a DTD torpedo in one of these cases :P) pointing out the fact that these complaints are total bullshit. If I were a Doe, I’d file for Rule 11 sanctions as well since these complaints are so incredibly frivolous.

          All a defendant would need to do is file a MTD for failure to state a claim and point out all of the inconsistencies in the complaint. Alleges infringement, doesn’t argue infringement, asks for remedies under Copyright Act. Alleges CFAA violations but does not aggregate damages, does not state a claim under CFAA, even if plaintiff did state a claim under CFAA the items included in the alleged loss do not apply under 1030(g). Since it is plainly stated that all subsequent claims are supplemental to the CFAA claim, failure to state a claim under Claim I is enough for complete dismissal. Then file for Rule 11 sanctions and a counter-claim for abuse of process, invasion of privacy (First Amendment violation), defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and declaratory judgment. There’s a defendant out in California that’s not fucking around and is taking it to Malibu Media (CASD – 3:12-cv-00369) and her attorneys are using Fantalis’ argument in the counter-claim.

  23. Got some dumb questions here. Was wondering if someone more informed could tell me if I’m right about this. This is what I think I have gleaned so far:

    1. So with Lightspeed, Guava and now Oaxaca, it seems that they issue these mass subpoenas under a CFAA claim to get a lot of peoples PII.

    2. Then if you don’t settle, they usually will dismiss you without prejudice or something to be able to name you either buy yourself or with a smaller group. That would be 1 strike.

    3. So then you have to deal with being in a second lawsuit. Let’s just say that given that these CFAA lawsuits seem flimsier than the bittorrent ones for one of the several reasons I’ve seen this far you get dismissed without prejudice. That would be a second strike.

    And then you’d be safe which is what’s going on in the Seth Abraham case? Even though both cases were dismissed without prejudice?

    And then has anyone figured out what files or sites or films or whatever it was that those are accused of allegedly hacking or whatever the claim says in Guava and/or Oaxaca?

    • “And then has anyone figured out what files or sites or films or whatever it was that those are accused of allegedly hacking or whatever the claim says in Guava and/or Oaxaca?”


      i personally am guessing guava is and arte de oaxaca is

      these make the most sense as the value of kids cloths is HUGE over $10 billion according to stealing their trade secrets would effectively allow someone to get their own piece of that market, at even .1% you are still talking millions, that is why there was such a large group conspiracy to get into their sites and steal their “content”

      the arete de oaxaca gallery is secretly hiding art that has the hidden maps to the secret lost city of gold and they are the keepers of these ancient texts. they exist to keep the “infidels” from gaining these maps to use for their own evil purposes, that is why there was such a large conspiracy to break into their site and steal these sacred and priceless images.

      these make the most sense from why i have been able to gather in my spare time. i think i am onto something, either that or it is my secret cia conspiracy theory i posted earlier. they both make more sense than the complaint does and thus they must be close, if not dead on accurate.

    • Ummm…ok at the risk of sounding (being) a smartass, I’m not even gonna touch the first part of your post. Seth Abrahams? Well, wrong page for starters. Who is Guava/Arte de Oaxaca? Look at the top of this page or in three words, no one knows.

      I’m not trying to be rude here so please don’t take this the wrong way, but rather than asking so many questions about issues that have already been asked and answered somewhere on this or another page, please just use “find” function on your browser, going through the different pages, or just read through the different pages and learn. ALL of your questions have been asked and answered to the best of “our” abilities in previous postings. Another piece of advice, if you’re wrapped up in this shit (or any other case) then you’re in for a long haul so you may as well learn how to do your own research.

  24. Does anybody think that these trolls will get some victims via a “default judgement”? What should be done to avoid this?

    • avoiding default judgements is very simple. you just respond to the complaint within 21 days of being served an actual summons. if you are in one of these cases, watch it closely and if in the docket “proof of service” or something else pops up and you have not been served you need to take some sort of action as well. this is how you avoid a default.

    • marble is correct. Watch the docket. If you see a summons issued, I’d get a lawyer right away. but especially if you see “proof of service” relating to any personally identifiable info (like, oh, your name) and you have no idea what they’re talking about since you didn’t get anything and neither did anyone in your household. It’s known as “sewer service” and Prenda’s been caught doing this at least once. If you do actually get a summons, it needs to be dealt with and the sooner, the better because tick tock, 21 days and your ass is liable for up to $150,000 in damages plus court costs and attorneys’ fees (or whatever the hell they want in this case). Nick Ranallo had a default judgement set aside in CAND for defective service.

  25. write out a scripted reply it a random forign lagnuage. “hello” is pretty universal so just answer “hello” and when they say something reply “i had a bolognia sandwitch once and then got sick, because of this i can no longer tollerate eating most proscessed meats.”

    other random answers are good seing as no one will understand them, and if they do get translated later the translator will assume who ever you spoke to completely missheard you.

    “wow marble that is a great idea there can be no downside to this you are a genious” you say??

    there are rumors that they prefer to target immagrants and those with a limmited grasp of the english language because they see them as easier targets(i personally believe this to be true but allas cannot prove it). so it may put a spotlight on you and get you singled out 😦 i stil say the BEST response is no response just ignore them unless you are actually served papers.

    but start preparing your defense/answer now. a prose answer may be all you need to kill the case. if everyone just filed answers and then waited and then filed discovery papers, by then the troll will be OVERWHELMED and have to drop cases due to neglect, i can say this because i am single and have no assets and a crappy job and co workers that would high five me if i told them i watched porn so i really have little to lose. if you need to protect your life then a lawyer and/or settlement is the best solution for you, and that is what you should do.

  26. That’s what I was planning on doing but now Rushie and some other lawyer on DTD are saying that ignoring them is the worst thing to do now.

  27. One, how did the hearing go today?
    and two, how serious are the default judgements now that is has been stomped on by tailor?

    • Mixed news. Basically a status quo. Good that subpoenas are still staying till the next hearing (date is not known yet). Will elaborate later today.

        • Status quo is bad enough as extortion continues as the judge did not have guts and/or desire to stop the racket. Again, I don’t have all the information at the moment: expect more soon.

          I would say that Steele is a fucking crook is the real bad news, but everyone knows it already.

        • Wait, if Guava and Oaxaca are Lightspeed, and Lightspeed, by Duffy’s own brief is in no way a copyright case but a hacking lawsuit; how come the calls and letters Prenda sends out say that they are contacting us because of a “copyright lawsuit you are involved in?”

          Is there any way to use that against them?

          • Steele explains it to the judge as “Guava owns protected computers, but the files stored in that computers is copyrighted stuff and the copyrights belong to a third company. Guava goes after people because of hacking, but that other client may say: look, this IP address infringed our copyright, so we may decide to go after the same IP for copyright infringement.”

            Field day for Jason and Dan.

      • So steve jones really did retain steve jones to secure steve jones’ websites.

        Man I feel like I’m farving about favre again.

        • Crazy nonsense, did his Honor hurt his head when he fell out of his chair laughing? Also can’t help but think of the troubles Malibu Media is having with this assignment/shell corporation nonsense.

        • Urbanczik’s site has today’s order: I’m too tired to read the Sumerian script: this is fucking 21st century and this judge presides on a computer hacking case. Unbelievable.

          I can’t do it today, but expect a full post sometime this week. And I’ll do my best it will resonate.

          Also, there is a deposition request: it is a joke, although looks legit. 10 items. Compare with Fantalis’s.

  28. so based on what you do know about what happened today, should one be more worried, less worried, or is everything just status quo?

    • Status quo with time decay… Whatever happens in a courtroom the case won’t stop stinking and not winnable of merits.

      By time decay I mean that the time is not on trolls’ side: more time passes — more victims understand the anatomy of the scam. In addition, fear wears off quickly: look at the year-old HDP Facciola’s case: Steele received information on 1400 Does last month, and how many settle? A few.

      An artificial sense of urgency is a hallmark and a red flag of any scam. Any. Time share salesmen, confidence scams, car dealers selling paint protection, copyright trolls, “defenders” such as Urbanczyk: all of them push you to act quickly. Over time I developed a rule: never accept any offer that expires in 1-2 days. Sure I missed some lucrative deals, but I gained a lot more by not falling into traps.

      Getting back to Guava, this case lost its fuel already. Sure some will settle, but not as many as if we shouldn’t shed the light on the filthy dark corners and Erin Russell wouldn’t delay the process: Steele is furious at her for a reason.

  29. So I’m unable to read most of the handwriting, but what I did see was that it seems the motions to quash/dismiss were denied. And it seems like a bunch of people settled and were released.

    Also that Guava is actually going to go through with discovery on 11/28.

    So is this case actually going ahead? I thought it was a giant turd that wouldn’t survive a trial?

    • Correct, except released IPs: they are not settled, they are all Erin Russell’s clients. Steele effectively removed Erin from the case by dismissing her clients only (and filing BS lawsuits all over the country).

      Judge disappointed, I thought he was aware of the megascam, collusion and was going to blast the case. Now he is going to allow crooks to file a motion to lift the stay??? Unbelievable.

      So what can we do? Be vigilant, educate people and patiently explain that settling on this case is plain stupid.

  30. Observers, cautious and mostly otherwise:

    First, you can always just send me an email if you have a question related to Guava, Arte de Oaxaca, or any of these cases, at least as it relates to public and non-privileged information.

    While the invective here is really unnecessary, and worse, very confusing to those individuals who happen upon this website looking for help (we often hear from them after they take various “advice” and wind up freaked out when their $1,200 canned Motion to ___ is denied), I am impressed by the level of interest in these cases and the quasi-legal wrangling.

    There certainly isn’t time to address the hundreds of talking points raised in these threads, but I did take the opportunity to opine about the broader development of this litigation and respond to some of the more egregious assertions coming from the various polygonal emoticons:

    • One point of clarification about yesterday’s hearing. Not all the motions to quash were denied as moot. I can only speculate as to what the judge had on his mind, but he requested I file a brief in reply to plaintiff’s omnibus response filed late Friday afternoon. I am unable to comment on the reasons why but this was subsequently made unnecessary.

      • Also, I repeat over and over again: Duffy is nobody in Prenda, a fictitious president. Beside stating his name, he did not say a single word: Steele did all the talking. So, the move of the date based of Duffy’s illness is bullshit. I’m pretty sure he was not ill, and even if he was, why does it matter if he is a nobody?

    • All your railing against the vitriol and personal attacks happening in torrent/hacking cases, just oozes that yellow puss of passive aggression.

      You deride other people that attempt to help and spread information, in the same way you bash a client for consulting another attorney’s lawyer.

      And most telling, in the same blog post you do the whole “woe is me to defend the best I can and get attacked,” you spread a whole metric ton of information on another attorney coloring it in the worst possible way you can. I believe there is a word for that. Oh, yes, hypocrite.

      Seriously, are we in high school? I’d expect this type of behavior from an ex that found out their ex came to prom with a more attractive date. Not a “prestigious” defense lawyer who was twice asked by a judge if he was in bed with the plaintiff not once, but twice.

      Finally, if you wanted anyone to believe that in fact you weren’t in bed with Duffy/Prenda/Steele, you did a horrible job with your laughable request for discovery. 10 items? On simple questions? It doesn’t exactly scream “aggressive defense.”

      • I don’t think anyone here should acknowledge Urbanczyk’s posts. As has been discussed on this site before, these posts are part of the scam.

      • I would be upset 1.5 years ago, but today I rather chuckle, looking at the fallacious (“appeal to authority“) arguments of a single inexperienced attorney, while 30+ far more seasoned, successful lawyers implicitly endorse our work. Well, it is not endorsement per se, but rather acceptance, acknowledgement of the importance of the niche we occupy, and the will to work together towards the same goal. If a single, green yet ambitious (allegedly) defense attorney decides to go on the confrontational rather than co-operational path, it’s his right (and don’t be deceived, Adam’s unprovoked hostility has started long before the Guava scam took off). As it is his right to ridicule himself, when 30+ simply better attorneys see nothing wrong in exchanging constructive ideas and, yes, criticizing us (yet in a friendly way).

        Only a person suffering from the simple denial still insists that certain blogs did not make a difference for the better, did not bring critical changes and shape today’s copyright trolling. I acknowledge the titanic work of collecting and organizing court documents, but otherwise is not among those certain sites.

        P.S. John Steele is a douchebag.

    • lol–if they’re paying $1200 for a canned motion to anything then they didn’t get that advice from this website.

      Also, your blog reads like Steele is paying you directly. Just my two cents.

      • I also wonder what this $1200 is about. I assume that it was a hint to Erin’s rate, but I don’t know for sure: of course she did not tell me how much does she charge &mdahs; I’m not client. It is no secret that I communicate with her, but much less than some suspect. I looked at her comments on this site: 14, the latest dated 10/05: hardly a voice of this site (though her voice is valued and always welcomed ).

        And BTW, she was not my ears and eyes in the courtroom yesterday, and I have more than two of each 😉

        I suspect that Steele has a paranoia that I == Erin. I have a bad feeling that this paranoia is contentious.

  31. so i just looked through the guava case in Alabama (1:12-cv-00678-N) complaint standard bs no surprises cfaa and such. what is interesting is that the judge issued a show cause order as to why using a fictitious defendant should be allowed and the response makes me go “huh” (here because in their response as to why using john doe is proper

    “Complaint identifies the subscriber by virtue of an IP address that was used to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright at a specific date and time.”

    “Plaintiff brought the instant action after observing “unlawful reproduction and distribution [of Plaintiff’s copyrighted content] occurring over IP address via the BitTorrent file transfer protocol.” (ECF No. 1 ¶4.)”

    but ecf 1:4 does not mention bittorrent at all it only mentions hacking and the cfaa….hrm i wounder if mister Curtis Ray Hussey filed these or just loaned out his ecf login info…..

    is it bad form to contact a judge and point out the two very different and not at all alike complaints in the actual complaint and the response to the show cause order??

    • I have no idea if its bad form or if you’re able to or whatnot, but if someone does it would probably be wise to also attach one of the recent filings by Duffy in the Lightspeed case (I’m blanking on which one specifically) that states unequivocally that its not a bittorrent/copyright case.

      • what’s even more fun is that the “fixed” the glitch they had in the wording of the other guava cases that say “this court has jurisdiction over…….because they committed copyright infringement”, now it says “because they used hacked passwords” so there is no reference to copyright or bittorrent in the complaint at all. and yet the reason they should be allowed to proceed is because of. bittorrent and copyright infringement.

    • I think DTD has actually sent letters and documents to judges in the past. I’m specfically thinking of the torpedo and/or cruise missile I’ve heard about. Maybe he’d have some advice on how to do it.

  32. also, and call me crazy, but the ip list is case # 2:12-cv-02158-SRB (arizona) ( looks an awful lot like the ip list in 2:12-cv-02158-SRB (NDIL)

    i may be drunk and just am seeing double, but wait, nope, i am sober…..

    i did not check all the other cases but yea….this seems kinda shady, i’m just sayin.

    • Ok, I finally found it again:


      Even the most inattentive review of the Complaint clearly demonstrates that this is not a copyright action. Smith chooses to ignore that fact and premises his Motion on arguments that, Case 3:12-cv-00889-GPM-SCW Document 44 Filed 10/22/12 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #2114
      even if they were correct (which they are not), would be properly argued in an action involving claims for copyright infringement. Smith could have avoided needlessly wasting the Court’s time if he had based his arguments on what is actually in the Complaint, rather than what he may have been charged with if he were in a copyright case action.
      Smith needn’t have bothered making the vast majority of the arguments in his motion, because this is not a copyright case. This case is about computer hacking and theft, Plaintiff alleges that Smith is the primary hacker and thief. Smith is alleged to be the “master hacker” who illegally broke into Plaintiff’s websites with hacked passwords, took protected content, and assisted others who participated in the same “hacking community” as he to do the same.

      Click to access gov.uscourts.ilsd.58824.44.0.pdf

      • I too was baffled as to what this was all about since the case isn’t considered a bittorrent case. I found this link.

        In a nutshell, it sounds like the defendant offers the ability to view materials located on another network providing links to the content using hacked passwords.

        If I am a Doe, I don’t see how I am doing anything wrong if I go to a website and click on a link to stream video. I have no idea that the content was coming from a hacked server. Especially if the site is littered with advertising.

        Just saying……

        • i don’t think you understand how this works :-/ the “links” would still pop up a “you are logging into such and such website” alert if you clicked it. also the “hacked” sites could not track you if you just viewed a vid on a tube site, you would have to log in and as such even if you clicked some random link there would be a you are logging in alert. you cannot merely stream a video that is behind a log in wall without passing through that wall by logging in.

        • Not necessarily, a URL can contain an embedded username and password so you can still click on a link and enter a password protected website without having any kind of login window or other popup appear. Additionally, if the full URL of a video is in a known, predictable location you can construct a URL with a full path plus the username/password which will directly stream a video when the link is clicked. It all depends on how the site is built and how good it’s security system is.

    • so wouldn’t the first case that was filled take precedence over the second and cause it to be dismissed because it has the same exact ip list?

  33. and in Case 2:12-cv-02514-MCE-CKD in california ( ) they used the same God damn ip list. these mother @5#$^@s are shooting their ip load at ever different court they can…..seriously need to email every judge and explain that the one in CA denied this EXACT SAME list of IP addresses and that they are shopping like the troll pieces of filth they are.

    • SAAM, I e-mailed DTD about it and indeed, one is able to e-mail or send a letter to a judge if you wanted to make them aware of it. His advice was to keep it professional and respectful and to keep to the point.

      However, if you wanted to actually have it entered into the docket you’d have to send it to the clerk and follow whatever rules that court has regarding sending something.

      I’ve attempted to look up what those might be in some of the cases, but unfortunately I got slammed with stuff I had to do haven’t had a lot of time to look it up. I might go and just try to write a letter to the judge without trying to get it on the docket when my time frees up and I have a chance to drive out of state or far enough away, but I’m not sure when that’ll be.

    • It doesn’t matter because these shitbags got what they wanted out of both Arizona and Georgia!

      See AZD 2:12-cv-02158-SRB Guava LLC v. Unknown Party Susan R Bolton, presiding
      See GAMD 5:12-cv-00398-HL GUAVA LLC v. DOE Hugh Lawson, presiding

      Check out Doc # 7 in the docket in PACER for the AZ case and Doc # 5 in the Georgia case. The judges granted Goodhue and Naziarre expedited discovery of what is essentially the same list of some 30+ IP addresses that we’re being shopped SIMULTANEOUSLY in similar “single Doe” Guava suits in other federal districts. Well that’s the case in AZ at least (Document #5, sub attachment #2). When I went to look at the ex parte IP list in the GA case (Doc #3), Pacer said I couldn’t look at that particular document (no permission…strange) so I can’t say for certain if the GA IP list is the same or has any overlap with the other cases.

      The CA judge and even Howell in DC said FUCK YOU to Prenda when it came to expedited discovery of co-conspirators on these bogus CFAA suits. If you check out the Alabama one, it looks like that judge wasn’t playing ball either. We know what happened with the Ohio one.

      But none of that matters now, because of these rulings in AZ and GA, they’re gonna essentially get the names of the individuals that they were simultaneously seeking in many of the following cases (sorry if I missed some) all courtesy of Judges Bolton (AZ) and Lawson (GA)

      Guava LLC (pla) alsdce 1:2012-cv-00678 890
      ***Guava LLC (pla) azdce 2:2012-cv-02158 890***
      Guava LLC (pla) caedce 2:2012-cv-02514 890
      ***GUAVA LLC (pla) gamdce 5:2012-cv-00398 890***
      Guava LLC (pla) miedce 2:2012-cv-14441 820
      Guava, LLC (pla) ctdce 3:2012-cv-01435 370
      GUAVA, LLC (pla) dcdce 1:2012-cv-01661 890
      Guava, LLC (pla) ilndce 1:2012-cv-08000 999
      Guava, LLC (pla) madce 1:2012-cv-11880 370
      GUAVA LLC (pla) ohndce 1:2012-cv-02512 890

      Is this even legal to seek the same exact discovery in the same/similar cases filed across the country??? To me, that takes double dipping to a whole new level!

      • “The CA judge and even Howell in DC said FUCK YOU to Prenda when it came to expedited discovery of co-conspirators on these bogus CFAA suits. If you check out the Alabama one, it looks like that judge wasn’t playing ball either. We know what happened with the Ohio one. ”

        I haven’t found any information on the Ohio case beyond it being filed.

        • Ohio judge took the liberty himself to geo-locateJohn Doe’s IP address in the complaint. The case was filed in Ohio northern district. The judge geo-located the IP address to the Ohio Southern District and dismissed the case without for improper personal jurisdiction stating that it should have been filed in the southern district.

        • Ohio case is interesting. Judge kicked it out due to wrong venue (he took an effort to check the IP address and found out that it belongs to a different Ohio district).

          Now the troll, Rod R. Mastandrea, moves to teach the judge a lesson! His motion (6) states that judge cannot dismiss cases based on venue sua sponte.

          IMO it won’t end well for the small greedy troll: instead of spending $350 in a proper venue (and avoiding obviously tech savvy, hence dangerous judge), he continues to cut the brunch he is sitting on.

        • Prenda doesn’t really give a shit about Mastandrea in Ohio.He is a pawn of Gibbs, who is a pawn of Duffy’s, who is a pawn of Steele’s. Really, low man in the Ponzi scheme.

          Now that it looks like they’re getting what they want out of AZ and GA, I don’t know why this douche is even bothering in to screw with this judge in Ohio. The Doe’s IP address in the dismissed Ohio complaint is one of the IP addresses (Wide Open West) in the Arizona list (Doc 5 sub attachment #2) that was granted in that judge’s ex parte discovery order. Why fuckin bother? They’ve already been given the green light to get the same exact info from another source. Shows you that these guys are not very well coordinated. But the bottom line is that they won this one because the found a way to get what they want 😦 Is there a way to call them to task for shopping the same discovery IP list in multiple cases simultaneously, or do we just have to sit back and take this one?

    • I am sure their logic is that if someone hacks one site they probably are hacking multiple. Same would go for bittorrent files I would assume. That is why if someone were to decide to settle they would want to be sure to protect themselves and request their IP address is not used in other litigation referencing specific time frames.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s