Guardaley | X-Art

Two quotes

Colette Pelissier (Filed), a co-owner of a hardcore pornography site X-Art, is busy filing hogwash affidavits in a barrage of new Malibu Media shakedown cases in Eastern Wisconsin:


Her lawyer Keith Lipscomb, the mastermind of an unprecedented assault on the productive population, never fails to induce stomach spasms (if you don’t know the whole story, you should read it):


Make your own conclusions.

wordpress counter


11 responses to ‘Two quotes

  1. Don’t they know that ANYTHING you do online is traceable and could be used in court. The shakedown continues…

  2. When I first read this declaration I laughed at how ridiculous it was. Colette, you are either a fool or you are an active participant in this sick business model (Question & my opinion). My opinion is you are both of these things. Just like the title of copyright troll, you have earned it. FYI – these are all my opinions and you and anyone else are welcome to review the various document and facts out there and judge for yourself.

    Where are the efforts to try and locate the source of the BT uploading??? Your silence in this area is very telling. Digital fingerprinting each download with a code tied back to a paid subscriber to your site is a logical action you decided not to do. This would allow you to cancel the account in question and possibly seek redress if the person is in the US. Instead you target the people in the US (nowhere else) whom your troll can threaten with financial ruin. *** You did try to go through the German courts but were shot down. *** My opinion of the German court action that it was just a logical extension of the business model (settlement generations) and not trying to stop the source – please correct me if I’m wrong.

    You also mention the multiple DCMA take down notices you send out, but fail to inform the court that these take down notices are NOT sent to the ISPs of those Does you target for settlements. The ISPs are only protected from legal actions (safe harbor status) if they abide by the legal requirements (of the DMCA) and make an effort to stop the infringing efforts originating from THEIR IP addresses. You effectively allow the ISPs a “free pass” and they are more than happy to keep sending you’re the subscriber information when you send them a subpoena. Sounds like a pretty good deal doesn’t it??? They even get some money out of it for their services. The money is not much, but not going after them in court is a greater pay off for them in my opinion.

    One area I wanted to go over was the last sentence in the email where Lipscomb instructs “Crystal” to send Mr. Ferreiro the “Offensive Discovery” package. Here it is in all its glory. It is truly “Offensive” in its design (causing displeasure or resentment). This discovery document is overly broad in scope and designed to cause the maximum amount of emotional stress and financial burden as to make a recipient give up and settle. Really Colette??? You do not wish to cause financial hardship? This was sent to a defendant your Troll knew was not responsible for the infringement and was foolish enough to pursue for settlement. If you think this was a one-off instance you are an even bigger fool than I original took you for.

    I don’t doubt that you lose money from the infringement, but getting in bed with the trolls (figure of speech) is not the right way to fix your problems.

    DieTrollDie 🙂

    • I understand the caution qualifications in your post, but if Colette actually followed through with a defamation lawsuit she’d put herself at risk of being deposed. The last thing she needs is an interrogation of what she’s actually doing placed into a court document. She runs the risk that it will be unsealed and will most definitely be used against her in any of her current court cases.

      The same thing happened to Prenda. Once you get one of the Trolls deposed, the entire scam starts falling apart. Her scam is just like Prenda’s scam. You can’t fool anyone by putting lipstick on a pig.

    • If he owns an Xbox 360 (and I’m quite certain it’s the same for a PS3 or Wii), sending Lipscomb a copy of all the files on his video game consoles will undoubtedly be a DMCA violation, as he would need to circumvent the DRM present to extract any installed (e.g. diskless) games he owns.

      And christ, Response No 15, this guy is an apartment manager, think how many shakedown victims that discovery would be handing over.

      If her declaration is truthful, I don’t see how she hasn’t fired Lipscomb immediately and issued a public apology for his witch hunt. THIS IS ALL OVER FILES THAT ONLY COST $24.95 TO DOWNLOAD LEGALLY, HE KNOWS MR. PELIZZO IS NOT THE GUILTY PARTY, AND YET HE’S THREATENED TO FINANCIALLY RUIN MR. PELIZZO’S LIFE.

  3. This reminds me of the quote, “then let them eat cake..” i.e. considering that taking away everything those you’re suing own – isn’t financial hardship.

  4. It is always about Colette and Brigham Fields, et al. of Malibu Media/X-Art, getting everybody’s money. It sure isn’t art.

  5. How do they go from an IP address to demanding cell phone records, video game consoles, computer equipment purchases etc? How does that even hold up in court?

  6. 2 interesting points…
    wouldn’t responding by filing your router password actually be bad for the trolls if they claim it’s important for everyone to be securing their networks since this would make the accused’s network insecure?

    Also, it doesn’t seem like they fully thought out asking for any DCMA notices, since these idiots aren’t serving them on the ISP’s

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s