LW Systems v. Hubbard: from Adam Urbanczyk’s signed agreed order to the new breed of demand letters
Adam Urbanczyk and his involvement in a “Titanic of shakedown cases”
As one defense attorney nicely put it, while we have been covering copyright trolling cases involving a couple of dozens John Does, those cases are like canoes compared to a huge vessel, which is LW Systems LLC v. Christopher Hubbard (St Clair County, IL: 13-L-15) — a Titanic that have been covered by mist since January, and was not really noticed by the public. Indeed, the “agreed order” (embedded below) allows subpoenaing virtually any ISP for any IP address. This type of a carte blanche discovery would be most definitely not allowed in a federal court — one of the reasons why Prenda goes to great lengths to keep its farcical lawsuits in county courts, in particular, in cronyism-plagued St. Clair county court.
Attorney Morgan Pietz has blogged about this lawsuit, DieTrollDie has blogged about it, I featured it in my “double-barrel” post (1, 2), yet the abuse of the legal system is so grave here that we must continue shedding light and attracting public attention.
Formally, the plaintiff is “LW Holdings,” a UPS-mailbox-based multi-national conglomerate, but due to recent happenings in Judge Wright’s courtroom and other revelations, everyone refers to Duffy, Steele, Hansmeier, Lutz, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, Guava, LW Systems/Holdings collectively as “Prenda,” and so will I.
This case is strongly suspected to be a collusive one, i.e. a mockery of justice where plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys are not adversaries: they simply play their parts in accordance with the scenario that was predetermined from the very beginning. Match fixing in organized sports is a good analogy. The actual goal of such lawsuit has nothing to do with delivering justice: this process is only a background for the procurement of a discovery order, which allows subpoenaing ISPs for subscriber information, and subsequently sending nasty letters (like the one embedded below), as well as making harassing calls to wrestle purported “infringers” and “hackers” into paying a couple of grands to make this nuisance (which for some people is more — a nightmare) go away.
This lawsuit is strikingly similar to a bunch of other Prenda’s cases that are suspected of fixing. All of them have a single mysterious defendant and include an “agreed order” allowing unmasking hundreds and thousands of ISP subscribers — in the very beginning of the process:
- Guava LLC v. Skylar Case: the first one of this type. Cook County court, Illinois. Paul Duffy and Adam Urbanczyk signed the agreed order on 7/30/2012. Later there was a discovery theater in front of the judge who suspected the foul play. This performance was ended in a predictable way — with voluntarily dismissing the case in early March 2013 and hoping that time will cover the apparently unethical (and maybe illegal) shakedown campaign. I wrote a post about this case while it was alive.
- Arte de Oaxaca v. Stacey Mullen: very similar to the previous one, also Cook County court, the agreed order was signed on 8/14/2012 — two business days after the complaint was filed. Defense attorney appearance was not even filed then, and the Answer to he complaint was filed only in 3 months! This case was also voluntarily dismissed on 3/13/2013.
- Guava LLC v. Spenser Merkel: a case in Hennepin County court, Minnesota, but boringly similar to the first two. Since Adam Urbanczyk is not licensed in Minnesota, another defense attorney was involved. This is the only case where collusion was proven. The defendant came forward and filed a damning affidavit, confirming what everyone knew but couldn’t prove. The defense attorney involved in this case, Trina Morrison, is not really culpable, as she learned about the collusion only after she started representing Merkel. Working pro bono, the young attorney thought it would be a nice court experience, but she got much more than she bargained for. While I respect her right to forget this ordeal, I hope she will tell her story herself one day. This case was dismissed, obviously, after the revelations. The transcript of the hearing in front of Judge Tanya Bransford is worth reading: Prenda lawyers’ douchebaggery have been blossomed at full throttle during that hearing.
- AF Holdings v. Matthew Ciccone: this is the only federal case (MIED 12-cv-14442), and as such, it attracted much more attention than its state court cousins. A number of bright attorneys verbosely explained to the judge the “merits” of this case. Read the filings of John Hermann, Eric Grimm and others. AF Holdings was represented by Prenda’s local Jonathan Tappan, although I don’t believe he wrote a single pleading; according to the metadata, a freelance legal writer Nadia Wood, who have been shadow writing for Prenda for a while, authored the complaint. The “defendant” was represented by an attorney Bernard Fuhs from a big law firm Butzel Long. I don’t know much about him, but I think it would be a good idea to send a mass email linking to this post to his numerous colleagues: maybe some internal investigation will be conducted. This case was dismissed on 3/25/2013
- And, finally, LW Systems LLC v. Christopher Hubbard: a “Titanic of shakedown cases” I started this post with. It’s time to look at the agreed order, which is so shameful/shameless that Adam Urbanczyk was shy to list it on his site. This is quite a statement: Adam is a super-accurate guy. All the other filings from this case are listed and linked. In my opinion, if any member of the Board of Bar Overseers reads this document, he/she should immediately start an investigation.
While Prenda is dead, it is still running around as a headless chicken
After Prenda pled the Fifth in front of Judge Wright, it has committed a corporate suicide, according to Ken White:
Prenda Law may still be standing. But it’s dead.
Yet, I’m afraid that the power of greed is widely underestimated. Harassing calls have been placed by Mark Lutz throughout April, and yesterday people started receiving a new batch of threatening letters, this time on the “Paul Duffy law Group” letterhead.
Same old bullshit that is not worth debunking, but there is a couple of points I want to make.
It is funny that they added the following line:
Your friends, family members and blog sites are not reliable sources of legal advice.
Blog sites? Which blog sites? Maybe it makes sense to google for some answers? Laughable. Imagine an attorney for a deceased Nigerian prince, who, after bringing you the jolly news about millions that the prince left to you in his will, kindly warns you not to search the web for “Nigerian scam.”
This one is, frankly, nauseous. Remember that we are dealing with hardcore pornography here (emphasis is mine):
What if I do fight your client?
Certainly, you are entitled to hire an attorney and fight the case all the way through trial. Our firm is famous for pursuing these cases and this matter will be followed closely in the national media. Your name will be forever associated with the outcome of the matter, particularly if you prevail.
The letter is dated 4/18/2013, while as of 4/12/2013 Duffy Law Group was involuntarily dissolved:
There are rumors that a lien was put on the firm due to Duffy’s large debts. It is not a secret that Paul is/was a defendant in many lawsuits (examples here, here and here) filed by his creditors. If he is not a patsy, but really a head of the “leading law firm,” which extracted settlements from tens of thousands and made millions, how is it possible at all? But it is a topic for another investigation…
In any case, claiming to represent a law firm that was dissolved involuntarily, should (and will) draw attention of disciplinary bodies.
Here’s how a business attorney describes the consequences of conducting business under the name of a dissolved LLC:
As a general principle, if the secretary of state, state attorney general proceeded, or judicial action resulted in an involuntary dissolution this has the same legal effect as a voluntary dissolution. That means that this entity cannot do business under that entity. If it does so, the members may be liable for administrative actions by the state and for possible civil claims for fraud, among others.
Adam Urbanczyk is not listed on the EFF Subpoena Defense Resources page anymore
Adam Urbanczyk was previously listed on the EFF Subpoena Defense Resources page, and that fact made my blood boil every time I browsed that page. The page is one of the first resources troll victims find after starting their online research. And many called Adam only to be pressured to settle. Multiply the insistence that “Steele will get you earlier or later” by the alleged collusion, and you will understand why I’m so glad that Urbanczyk’s name is not on that page anymore.
Note that many statements in this post are my opinion only: I don’t have a ”beyond the reasonable doubt” proof that Adam Urbanczyk is “in bed with Prenda” (in Judge Tailor’s words): I gave a lot of pointers, yet do your own research, analyze the facts, and make your own conclusions. In the meantime, given that nothing bad had happened to Spenser Merkel since he found the courage to come forward, I want to conclude this post with a plea:
Skylar Case, Stacey Mullen, Matthew Ciccone, Christopher Hubbard:
Do the right thing, come forward and tell your true stories. Yes, it is true that you were instrumental in sufferings of your fellow citizens, but people tend to forgive, especially in the present situation, when your testimony will inevitably help to bring the real villains to justice. Moreover, if investigators learn the facts without your cooperation, things may turn sour for you. Think about it.
- ArsTechnica: Prenda’s last stand: threats sprawl from a Minnesota hacking lawsuit by Joe Mullin.
- TechDirt: Thought Prenda Was Dead? No, It’s Up To Its Old Tricks… And More by Mike Masnick.
101 responses to ‘LW Systems v. Hubbard: from Adam Urbanczyk’s signed agreed order to the new breed of demand letters’
Bravo once again. You hit a lot of notes but all ring true. Great multi- faceted post.
Well reported. I’ve always been “hands off” with the Illinois state-based cases so even with my reporting on the Ciccone case (https://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/anti-piracy-law-group-hidden-suit/) I never saw the pattern. The fact that there is always a defense attorney agreeing to discovery of other potential defendants smells like it should be a bar complain citing collusion between the plaintiff attorneys and the defense attorneys. More on collusion: http://bit.ly/YN86cz
Well done! I’d like to add to your plea: lawyers (specifically those previously employed by Steele) come forward and tell what you know to the proper authorities. You were in the office, it’s going to be hard to say you didn’t have a clue what was cooking.
In general, if you were victimized by any of these “lawyers” – in anyway. Be courageous and share that information. There is strength in numbers and your voice can help countless other beings.
Exposure makes it much harder to get away with misdeeds. Make some noise!
Anyone thinking that they are using the now dissolved “Duffy Law Group” name because if one googles Prenda… Well… Lol
I love how these new letters don’t even state what “important copyrighted porn movie” was pirated. They just say “You stole…something! Now pay up!”
And nice of them to add, “but please call us with all your personal information and we’ll give you more details about what you stole from us.”
This whole sham isn’t even on the same level as the Nigerian e-mail scam – it’s actually LESS believable. I’d send a gold bar straight to Nigeria before I sent one damn penny to Duffy.
What about the Guava LLC v. Comcast subpoena St. Clair County, IL case? Is this related to any of these cases? It’s my understanding that this case has been dormant since around March 25 when it looks like Lutz stopped calling people?
It’s definitely related as it has the same “Plaintiff” and the same douchebaggery behind it. Yet, I narrowed my post only to those cases where a plaintiff-defendant collusion is suspected. In Guava v. Comcast Prenda explored another loophole. Currently I don’t have any news regarding this case.
I did a court records search on this case and see dozens of MTQs. The motion hearing is at the end of June. I thought that a MTQ sent to an ISP and filed in court held all discovery for that ISP until the Motion hearing completes and allows it. If that’s the case, does the Duffy Group Letter mean that nobody using Charter filed a MTQ? Or does it only hold Discovery for whoever filed the MTQ? If that’s the case, the Discovery date is passed, and based on the number of ISP’s listed, these guys must be sitting on ten’s of thousands of pieces of discovered personal data.
That seems somewhat EPIC. It doesn’t seem like Prenda is walking dead, it seems like they’re in business as usual mode. The people that don’t read this blog will settle, and the people who do read this blog will ignore, but not challenge, and probably eventually fall off the radar. The courts in Southern Illinois don’t seem primed to challenge either, which leaves a likely significant number of people writing checks, and Prenda making money. Presumably a ton based on the Discovery windfall.
In fact, didn’t Duffy just get in trouble in Southern Illinois for blowing off a mandatory appearance in another case? One would think that info of that behavior would bleed into the Hubbard case. Of all I read about all the trouble they’re in, they don’t really seem that scared. They seem content to trade on the general apathy of most courts. Take a minor beating here or there, and play on where they’re allowed.
It might be helpful for someone to post their vision of the endgame, because, while it’s certainly fun to watch, it doesn’t really look like it’s going to stop anytime soon.
I like how the letter mentions the RIAA and MPAA – while both organisations have been eerily (but perhaps not surprisingly) quiet on this matter, you’d have to be a fool to not notice the similarities between their methodologies. Whether they like it or not people are going to be mentioning Prenda and the RIAA international clones in the same context.
“As a general principle, if the secretary of state, state attorney general proceeded, or judicial action resulted in an involuntary dissolution this has the same legal effect as a voluntary dissolution. That means that this entity cannot do business under that entity. If it does so, the members may be liable for administrative actions by the state and for possible civil claims for fraud, among others.”
“Also, if the LLC (or the individual company owner – i.e., the member) continues to use the dissolved LLC to promote or conduct new business or promote the member’s interests, the individual may loose the limited liability/corporate shield of the LLC. So, the member could be personally liable for the debts and liabilities incurred since the LLC was involuntarily dissolved.”
Thought this was an interesting read …
I love reading these scare letters now that I’m immune to their tactics. This letter from Duffy is one of the more disgusting that I’ve seen, namely that it has an entire section devoted to publicly shaming the defendant: “What If I do fight your client?”. Of course, every word of it is a lie, but makes it no less hilarious in the terror it’s designed to instill.
We’re famous for pursuing these cases to the end … will be followed closely in the national media … your name will forever be associated with this matter … but we have a “desire to avoid unnecessary embarrassment”, if only you pay us $2400 immediately.
I wonder if a clever lawyer could somehow argue that porn-shaming in the name of quiet settlement collection is an “obstruction of justice”. If so, that would negate the lame FRE 408 disclaimer that these trollawyer cockpumps are so eager to put at the bottom of each settlement letter, and allow these damn things to be admitted as evidence.
But then again that would involve getting a case to trial and actually presenting an argument to a jury, which these lawyers, who are so “famous for pursuing these cases to the end”, have never actually accomplished.
What struck me was “Our firm is famous for pursuing these cases and this matter will be followed closely in the national media”
I am pretty optimistic that these guys days of reckoning are fast approaching. The only reason we haven’t heard from The Honorable Judge Wright is because he keeps running out of printer ink issuing all of his orders and reference letters to the appropriate government agencies. Judge Chen also just showed his understanding by asking to see the actual signature of Salt Marsh.
Prenda still sending threat letters?
Great scene from a great movie.
Nice read. Tools gonna tool.
wonder how hapless Duffy is.
Imagine this scenario: he is like one of the ambulance chasing lawyer in a John Grisham novel, high hopes but never getting a break. One day a fast talking pair of your lawyers offer him a deal of a lifetime. He can buy their new scheme which is just starting to be wildly profitable. It will only cost him some money up front, and most of the revenue for the first two years. After that, the money pouring in from the nationwide network of “franchise” local lawyers will let him retire.
Except that after borrowing everything he could to buy in, and working for mostly free, it’s now collapsing around him. He’s broke, can’t pay off his loans, and costly adverse judgements are looming.
If he could act rationally, he would have backed off months ago and waited for the storm to pass. But he has bills due, and it looks as if he will lose everything. He needs the money now. So he is forced to send out more rounds of settlement letters, in hopes of getting enough quick cash to see another day. Even if that means sending out letters in the name of his now-defunct LLC.
You could almost feel sorry for the guy, if he weren’t a major part of the fraud. He had to know going into this how ethically challenged it was.
Sadly, I suspect that it was no worse than the petty abuse of the legal system he was doing before. The only difference was that this time the scale was big enough that he was stopped.
Noticed that Duffy’s FAQ’s stated that several “defense” sites list “every pleading” WHAT site does this? Torrent litigation. Adam Urbanczyk’s site. A cynic would say this is a subtle way of directing victims to Urbanczyk for fleecing.
Since Duffy is named as the head of Prenda and a number of cases are filed with names like Duffy Law Group and Paul A Duffy and The Law Office of Paul A Duffy – what happens if everything goes to pot and then Duffy files bankruptcy? Would it be possible that the “trust money” would be long gone – far away out of reach of creditors, but he’d be able to discharge any judgements against Prenda etc? If that’s an option, then it might make more sense as to why he’s allegedly not paying creditors. Live off of credit cards and loans, stockpile all money in a trust till the end, hide it, file BK when the poop hits the fan / judgements come, discharge all debt, and then wait for the dust to settle and start over. Is it possible? Interesting that the guy at Steele Law Firm appears to be having the same issues as Duffy. He’s another one using LLC long after it was dissolved. I just don’t get what’s going on. Is it possible that despite the 15 mil –everyone is broke but Steele? Doesn’t jive.
Duffy’s demand letters’ referance to the plural “default judgements agains individuals in excess of $150,000” is highly misleading as that lightening bolt only hit once in Florida.
ROFL I cannot believe I’ve never seen an image of Paul Duffy until today.
That is one fugly son of a bitch lmfao! It’s like he took a steamroller to the face I mean goddamn!
If I’ve learned anything Duffy it would be never AND I MEAN NEVER piss off Mike Tyson in person.
By the way, doesn’t a claim of being”famous” undermine the claim that they are not public figures in their defamation lawsuit?
I don’t know if it means anything or not, but it seems that AU’s site has the same-ish type template that LW Holdings has.
Look at my last 5 tweets:
You don’t know how excited I was to have the infamous Mark Lutz on my voicemail (St. Clair Co. Case). Any suggestions on how to proceed?
if it is not a big hassle, send the recording to me. Extra evidence won’t hurt 🙂
I actually have two recordings of Lutz (one where he says his name, the other one he doesn’t say his name but says he’s from LW Systems), I’d more than happy to share them. They are saved in my voicemail box.
Is there a certain way you want me to get them to you?
Just send to firstname.lastname@example.org — Redact your name, or let me do it. Thank you. Are they recent calls?
Both are from April.
Do you think that they’re recording the calls they make to us?
We have also had a report from someone stating they were contacted by LW Systems recently who actually refused to give their name.
While this might be overlooked as a calling center security issue (viewed in the best light), this person was told when asked what exactly he is accused of doing, “you know what you did.”
If this is true as reported to us, it is concerning.
The latest Lutz’s calls are made from the Southern IL area code.
618-216-5550 Wood River, ILL
Yes … Same number … Now labeled “Troll Lutz”. SJD, going to figure out how to get the Lutz recording off my phone and too you!
That number called me yesterday. Wasn’t Lutz.
Ohh… was it Allen Moooney?
What should we do, Charter released my info and now I have received a letter to settle for the 2400.00 or wait and see if they add you to the suit, my attorney had issues that even settling might leave you open to more suits.
Who is your attorney? One thing is to outline all the possible outcomes, another is to honestly assess the probabilities of the said outcomes. Or, he is not really aware of what’s going on with Prenda. Dude, these guys pleaded the Fifth, their days are numbered. The most likely outcome is that they will be referred to AG for a criminal investigation (which is probably already going on full speed). IRS is after them, etc. etc. What “more suits” are we talking about?
It’s like watching a SWAT storming a dealer’s house on TV and asking a question: “I owe $20 to this guy, should I pay it?”
I tested this number. A lady answered: “LW Holdings … do you want to talk to anyone in particular?” I said “if Matk Lutz is not in jail yet, I want to talk to him.” She couldn’t suppress a giggle and transferred me to Lutz, who picked up.
so I could start random calling ppl and tell them “Prince Naseem of Nigeria wants his money” ?
“Welcome to the big leagues”
they are rotten crooks like me. Well Ok maybe not…. Least I knew what it was time to fold.
but how come its taking so long to build a case here Gov? Still sleeping at the controls I see.
That’s why I got away with it so long. Governmental Sleepers
I am sure i’ll see you all here in Butner someday then you can us all about the “big leagues”
I’m amazed that whoever is running AF Holdings authorized a delay in the response as per document filed by counsel (Paul Duffy):
Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.254869.77.0.pdf
How does this serve the client?? I really can’t wait for another post on this, though I imagine we have to wait until Judge Chen responds to Duffy’s filing(s)… I’ll be patient…
I got the call from Mark yesterday. He asked for me by name and when Mark Lutz id’d himself my phone mysteriously disconnected. He instantly called back and left a message to return his call. I would have but my fingers are tired.
Had a follow up call from Lutz stating my time to settle was running out . ……….oh well !!!
Me too! 🙂
More accurately – it’s his time that’s running out…
“But hurting ourselves to inflict pain on others is just another cry to be loved.” ― Mitch Albom, (The Time Keeper)
Does anyone have a screenshot of Mark Lutz’s LinkedIn page where he lists Prenda as his employer?
Mark called me again today to inform since I had not paid the money that they were going to tell their lawyers to add my name to this case. Should I be worried about this or just wait and see?
Same here … my guess is a quick threat to try and get some fast cash … they now have their own lawyers to pay!
I’m not sure how they can open litigation against anyone at this point. The Judge Wright case is now a template on how to handle these guys. Your lawyer will ask them for specific info that they don’t want to, or can’t divulge because they already took the fifth on it and know it will only hurt their appeals, and their case will stall. They would be crippled in court trying to prove they’re right without being able to say how or why. I think that these calls are just threats to scare up the last willing stragglers before the other door slams shut. In fact, if you ever wanted to get mouthy with Lutz and tell him exactly what you think, now is probably a good time to do so with little threat of consequence. (that last part is bad advice that you probably should not take)
I see on the Hubbard case that KEVIN HOERNER posted a response on May 8th, presumably before Judge Wright dropped the hammer. Can someone download and post it. I’d be curious what it says.
I’m curious about a couple things. Prenda will appeal. They said this. What exactly can they appeal? The ruling for the $80,000 attorney fees I can see, but again, Judge Wright set that number based on the cost of an appeal. I love that guy. Everything else is out of their control. An appeal won’t stop the IRS, or Federal Investigators, or the Attorney General, or a Bar review. That stuff is going to happen regardless of their appeal. So when the Prenda rocks start turning over… they’re F’d.
In short, I’m not a lawyer, but I would say, if you’ve held strong for this long, hold out a little longer and you’ll likely get to watch from shore as the Prenda ship cracks in half and sink to the bottom.
Just my opinion.
I am also interested in Hoerner’s response … Anyone know how to get it … I have a Pacer account?
There was a motion hearing in the Hubbard case for the motions filed by the ISPs. Does anyone know the outcome of that hearing?
I only have one question, if someone got one of these new letters decided they were going to fight, and the evidence came from this Carte Blance request for ISP data, wouldn’t there be an issue with the way the evidence came to be? Essentially if these are “Hacking & Copyright” claims, but used specifically for Copyright, wouldn’t anyone ask how they got the name for the IP?
I got a letter regarding the Oaxaca case. I didn’t do anything. I am open if someone wants to check my computers. What should I do?
Got a new one recently? Wow…those cases were dismissed at least a month or so ago.
So if I got this letter from the Oaxaca case just 2 days ago dated on April 18th I don’t have to do anything else since this case was dismissed ?
Yes, with Prenda not doing anything is the best course of action currently: these guys are trying to get the last possible shekels before going down in flames.
If you scan and send the letter, I would appreciate: will make a noise. Anything helping to accelerate their downfall… Redact your name and ref # (I’ll double-check), but leave the date.
I am very interested to see if this is from the dismissed Cook County case, or some other lawsuit filed by Arte de Oaxaca. Was a court case number mentioned in the letter?
What number is everyone getting calls from? I have gotten several calls from numbers I do not know or numbers that are “UNKNOWN” in my caller id. I have not answered any of them. 1. Because I do not answer numbers I do not know. 2. Everytime they have called I was either at work and couldn’t talk or didn’t get the call right away.
The Hubbard case was supposed to have a Motion Hearing with the ISP’s this morning. Does anyone know how it went? Looking at the case, I see a new Motion Hearing set for June 6 (in addition to the 6/27 hearing for the Doe MTQ)). I wonder if there was a postponement this morning.
I would like to know too.
As would I. I just got a call from Mark Lutz of Livewire (LW Systems LLC) telling me that my time for a settlement had run out and they were filing aginst me. I actually talked with him, and asked him what exactly they were accusing me of doing. He said somebody from my IP address had hacked their system and stolen passwords. Clearly I didn’t do this. Never even heard of their company until I started getting letters. And if I would have hacked their system (I WOULD NOT) I would have gone through a few proxy servers, never used my actual IP address.
When I told him I thought this was nothing but a “shake down” he got mad and hung up on me (I was much more polite then I should have been BTW).
I am not rich, but I do have some finanical means and I plan to fight these “pricks” 24/7. I don’t care that it will cost a lot more than they asked for in their letters, $2,400, it is the darn princpial of the thing. I didn’t do what they said I did!
I am not rich, but I do have some finanical means and I plan to fight these “pricks” 24/7. I don’t care that it will cost a lot more than they asked for in their letters, $2,400, it is the darn princpial of the thing. I didn’t do what they said I did!
Music to my ears.
If any of these Prenda clowns give me a call, I would continue the Star Trek motif with this quote:
“You are in a position to demand *nothing*. I, on the other hand, am in a position to *grant* nothing.”
You’re not necessarilly out attorneys’ fees just so you know…If they sue you for copyright infringement, at any rate, there’s a provision in the Copyright Act that allows you to recover attorneys’ fees under certain circumstances. If they’re suing your for some kind of computer hacking that’s a different story. Sometimes they basically dress up a copyright infringement lawsuit as a compute hacking one, sometimes it’s actually a computer hacking case, and other times they do outlandish stuff like claim a “conspiracy.” An attorney in your jurisdiction should be able to advise you on the case…
I got a Mass Subpoena from my internet provider, and it said if I don’t file a motion they will give my Info to Paul A Duffy. The Subpoena was from the Circuit Court of Cook County case # 13-L-15,
LW Systems LLC VS Christopher Hubbard. When I called the Clerk at Cook County they said that case # 13-L-15 belonged to a Malpractice Suit. This is amazing that these guys would falsify Court documents in order to extort money from us. I told my Internet Provider not to release my info because the Subpoena was not real.
You will want to double check where the case is. Prenda, Duffy, etc. are notorious for issuing a subpoena from one county for a case in another county. The subpoena they sent my isp was issued from Cook County, notarized from somewhere in Michigan, and the case was docketed and tried in St Claire County. Just be cautious.
… LW Systems LLC VS Christopher Hubbard is in St. Clair county… Not Cook County…
The case isn’t in cook county it is in st. Clair county so the records wouldn’t match up anyway
How can Duffy give you a Subpoena from the wrong county? That just shows you how sloppy these lawyers are. If you hire a lawyer to Terminate the case in a different County, it will go to the wrong Court. These guys are so reckless. I cant wait till the Duffy crew are shut down for good. Why do the State Courts put up with such bad lawyers? I wish my cable provider had the guts to refuse giving them my information, like some of the other cable providers.
I faxed the court documents containing Judge Wright’s orders to my ISP saying that I will pursue any means necessary such as contacting the CEO, switching providers, etc to make sure they never release my information so easily again to a group of criminals and extortionists. Also forwarded the documents to St. Clair county’s Judge Gleeson’s clerk.
FYI the ISPs have done the same, requesting the court to take judicial notice of Judge Wright’s order. They will be back in court on June 6th.
I believe they issue the subpoena from a different county on purpose. The court that order the subpoena cannot quash a subpoena from a different county. I remember reading about a case back east where they did this and the Judge had to throw out the subpoena because they had no jurisdiction to grant a quash from a doe.
If the agreed order was dated in January 2013, and the date of the alleged download is March 10 2013, does that make sense that the same agreed order can be applied? How can that be right? Would the courts believe that “Hubbard” decided to continue colluding with the co-conspirators even after agreeing to the order?
I guess it doesn’t matter, because I didn’t submit an MTQ to the ISP, and they’ve obviously sent along the info. Got a phone call from “Mark Lutz of LW Systems” today, but the person he asked for was not home so I took a message. He referenced a letter sent last week, which I haven’t seen.
hello, I am an attorney that frequently works in St. Clair County. I was the first attorney that filed a motion to quash on behalf of a “john doe.” when a similar suit was filed by Prenda last year, I am currently working with John Does who have been targeted. I worked with a few people who commented on this website during that time. Of course, we were successful in getting Prenda to go away then, but like a bad penny, they’ve turned up again. Please contact me if you have any questions Or would like to further discuss this matter. Celestine Dotson, 314-454-6543
Great, I’ll add you to the Illinos (and Missouri?) page.
There is a Motion hearing on the Hubbard case in St Claire tomorrow morning at 9:30. This hearing is to rule on all of the MTQ connected to the case, as well as motions by some of the ISPs to keep from releasing subpoena’d user information.
It seems like this could be tipping point in this case. If the judge denies these motions, there could be rocky roads ahead. On the other hand, this could be Judge Gleeson’s opportunity to go all Otis Wright on the Trolls. It’s St Claire County, so you never know what could happen.
Is there someone local that could attend this (if it’s an open hearing), or at least get the details and disseminate the results quickly?
According to Erin Russell the motions to quash were granted.
says that Judge Gleeson would not look at the Florida declaration that Prenda is seeding the very torrents that they are suing over, or the California Sanctions order.
It also gives Prenda 14 days to amend their complaint. It’s not clear to me what would need to be added or removed from the existing complaint to cause the Judge to allow it. Does anyone know that?
Also, there were 325 ISPs subpoena’d and only a few fought. What does this mean to the other 300 plus ISPs that already handed over their information. Does Prenda still get to use that information for settlements?
ISP and Doe attorneys were hammering LW about them likely being a plaintiff-owned bogus shell, asking questions about where Hubbard actually lives (question of jurisdiction), etc. Judge wants complaint to include more detail and address this kind of thing.
Here is the order.
You guys beat me to it. I was there, and the Madison Record article is accurate.
So what do we think is the likely next move in this case. Prenda has 14 days from the 27th to amend their complaint on discovery of the ISPs that fought back. Are they likely to do that?? What of all of the discovery that they already have. Will they continue to act on it? I saw nothing in the ruling about ceasing settlement offers and harassment.
It feels like a victory, but I can’t tell how big. What happens at the end of 14 days? does the case get dropped if there is no response?
It would be immensly helpful if one of the lawyer types that patrol this board would speculate on how this case plays out.
Judge Gleeson gave LW 14 days to amend their complaint in the 13-L-5 Hubbard case. Today is the 14th day. On the Circuit Court site, I don’t see anything new posted today.I do see a “Report of Proceeding” posted on the 8th, which could make for a good read if someone would care to post it here.
If Prenda does not amend its complaint, what does that mean to the case?
Looking at the court web site, it appears that Prenda has filed a “Motion for Extension of Time” on July 11.
It would be interesting to read the Motion for Extension if someone can post it here.
Yes: “We are so fucked up in California, Arizona, Florida and Georgia, it would be ridiculous to spend time in a court that supposed to be on our side.”
In Case 13-L-15 there is a motion hearing set for 9-3-2013. Can someone find out if this hearing is for the “Extension of Time” motion, which would be ridiculous, or if this hearing is to review the amended complaint.
Great thread. Personally I think anyone that sends Duffy one thin dime is nuts. Must be feeling the heat from the recent California cases with sanctions and lawyers fees, and is trying to shake the tree for some more green. This was filed 7/18 http://goo.gl/sbyvXT
13-L-0015 is listed today as closed and dismissed with prejudice at the St. Clair court site.
There is an order also that would be a great thing to see uploaded.
Pingbacks & Trackbacks