Guardaley | X-Art

“Polygraph”report ricochet: Defendant moves to compel Lipscomb not to lie

No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.
Abraham Lincoln


It is always nice to observe defense attorneys perform judicial jujitsu, i.e. using trolls’ statements against them in an efficient, energy-saving manner. Since Keith Lipscomb’s industrial-grade lies imply inevitable bloopers, no black belt is necessary, yet attention to detail and tedious work is required.

On 4/14/2014 attorney Jonathan Phillips filed defendant’s renewed motion to compel Lipscomb/Malibu to answer to discovery requests in an eventful lawsuit Malibu Media v. John Doe (NDIL 13-cv-06312).

In short, Phillips calls out Lipscomb’s disingenuous attempts to stonewall the discovery, specifically, his refusal to answer interrogatories #3 and #5 because, according to Lipscomb, 1) the information sought is “neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and 2) the work required to compile this information constitutes undue burden. I won’t analyze the former lame excuse: read Phillips’s argument below; instead, I want to stress that the “undue burden” lie has been debunked because of Malibu/Lipscomb’s recent status report. This report was widely covered in the media mostly because of Lipscomb’s brow-raising practice of offering victims to undergo polygraph tests, yet there is much, much more in this document. Given that our trolls have demonstrated that they keep their data tidy and can run complex queries, Phillips reasonably questions Lipscomb’s desperate attempts to sabotage the discovery:

Malibu has the information sought, as well as a great deal of other information. It is able to produce this information in an astonishing level of detail, as indicated by the Malibu Status Report. Malibu can simply run a computer script, already developed, to search for and report the information sought. This is not unduly burdensome.


The response to interrogatories (or rather a lack thereof) was signed by Colette Field, although I’m not positive that she even read it. Just look at the answer to another question:

Attorney Mary Schulz has a standard tiered contingency fee agreement. […] Plaintiff is responsible for paying all of the costs and fees associated with this litigation. Plaintiff is the only other entity that has a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. No other entity is entitled to any share of the monies which may be paid from Defendant to Plaintiff.

No other entity? Prenda-strength denial, isn’t it? Just like AF Holdings’ “CEO” Mark Lutz, Keith Lipscomb now works for free. Right. Poor girl will eventually be held responsible for this perjury, while Lipscomb will likely weasel out.


Overall, I feel a good trend: the more pressure defense attorneys (especially Jonathan Phillips and Morgan Pietz) apply — the more twisted logic is poured into the court dockets. The more twisted logic trolls produce — the more inevitable slips of the tongue will occur. In the end, Lipscomb and his gang will be suffocated by the web of lies they had woven.



Fresh from the press (hat tip to Calvin Li, who wrote a program that subscribes to certain courts’ PACER RSS feeds and tweets as soon as new documents are filed): Jonathan Phillips filed Defendant’s second motion for an order requiring Malibu Media, LLC to show cause why it should not be held in contempt.

This motion is short and sweet: no need to annotate it. You will like it:

Followup (and conclusion)

wordpress counter


13 responses to ‘“Polygraph”report ricochet: Defendant moves to compel Lipscomb not to lie

  1. I have to say I think it was ingenious to use Lipscomb’s lie detector admission against him in reverse. While I am sure Lipscomb will seethe privately about that, you can bet that the bravado side will just brush it off like it didn’t even phase him.

    Once again the failure to turn over discovery items requested will be the start of the threads starting to unravel where IPP/Guardaley affidavits have been used to seek ISP subscriber information and file these porn suits.

    If the court finds that IPP/Guardaley evidence isn’t worth the paper it is written on then we should see a lot of Malibu LLC litigation in troubled waters. Lipscomb will need to go and fire up his IP patent lawsuit settlement letter machine and start cranking them out ( my opinion of course ) because this end of the game could be D.O.A.

    The one thing I find a tad interesting is the Excipo angle. Is the game so lucrative to give up for Lipscomb that knowing the IPP/Guardaley may taint further litigation cases involving Malibu LLC that he very well may file new Malibu LLC cases with Excipo providing the monitoring and affidavits to keep the settlement -er I mean enforce copyright holders rights an on going concern.

    I suspect this is the case in my opinion, what would poor Collette and Brigham do if they had down grade from their 16 million dollar mansion to one that was 12 million ( oh the horror…Poor Collette sitting on her leopard skin run in the great room drinking from her 400 dollar bottle ( okay, okay 40 dollar box of wine ) tears streaming down her face as Brigham tries to console her and tell her how they will have to do with just one butler and cook and maid service every other day but they will stay strong and will fight thru the pain that the copyright infringers are inflicting upon them as the massusse sets his table up on the deck overlooking the views from the balcony.

    Champions they are, I don’t know how they will survive it, but they are purveyors of the finest smut that 9.99 a month can find… I don’t throw around the words Heroes very much but damn if a movie shouldn’t be made about their valliant struggle to overcome evil and save the world from Illegal porn.

  2. Of course they couldn’t handle up to a thousand or more cases nationwide without an excellent database that can easily furnish the requested discovery items. So what are they trying to hide?

    My hat is off to Jonathan Phillips, This case may be about whether defendant owes X-Art/Malibu Media $4800 for innocent infringement while exposing much of the game that is being played by the Plaintiff’s operation geared for fast settlement with little or perhaps no evidence.

    Let’s hope the German spies are deposed and their ties to Guardaley are exposed.

  3. It looks like the cat is out of the bag. Weasel Lipscomb needs to start asking himself whether he feels lucky. Well, do you punk?

  4. So Malibu Media LLC was created in 2011 in Calif. XArt was created long before then, which in turn one would have to think that the Malibu Media shell was created specifically for Litigation purposes. Malibu Media LLC started much of it’s litigation not long after that.

    Now who was Malibu using early on to detect their works were allegedly being infringed? Could it be that Guardaley was the monitoring firm way back when Malibu started it’s litigation strategy. IPP was not around then I believe and it was in 2012 that IPP came to be after the ACS/Guardaley relationship hit the skids and blew up and hit everyone involved in the pocketbook.

    If that were the case are we about to see a moment of Deja-vu were IPP/Malibu/Lipscomb relationship is about to hit the skids….Perhaps. There seems to be some fear in the air, that all of a sudden IPP isn’t the got to firm and now it is Excipo and alas another moment of Deja-vu a monitoring firm is changing names but I would suspect the same names will be in the backround.

    So Malibu Media is a Calif company which in turn would have to be paying state and federal taxes on it’s income and monies received in Federal and State court from settlement and awarded damages.

    Let’s hope that Malibu has been doing this, after all we all know what the Prenda gang will be finding out when the IRS Criminal Division starts looking at their financials and of those involved.

    I predict there is going to be some very peculiar results when Malibu has to submits it results from their litigated infringement cases, I am sure the settlement numbers and the actual monies that Malibu got are going to have a lot of factual differances.on the accounting ledger. if they settled from a infringer for say 5k are we actually going to say that they got that whole 5k or is it going to be 500.00, should be interesting to see.

    Now this is hypothetical of course, but I wonder if Lipscomb is a consultant to Malibu? Curiosity on my part of course.If you remember Hansmeier and Steele were consultants to AF Holdings and received large sums of money for their work through their UnderTheBridge Consulting company.

    • Lipscomb is currently working hard to invent his own “Lutz’s unborn children” story. The caveat is that there is a big difference between bullshitting lazy judges and legally ignorant Does, and those who are determined to bring the extortion cartel down.

      As for the XArt/Malibu relationship, Raul wrote a pair of nice posts:

      Malibu Media’s Massive Fraud.
      Malibu Media’s massive fraud: an update.

      Unfortunately, Baylson has bought Lipscomb’s explanation of the scheme and created, although not binding by all means, yet a bad precedent.

  5. I don’t think the following warrants a separate post, so let it live here.

    Yesterday Lipscomb, via Nicoletti, filed a mind boggling motion to seal the motion for protective order. As I understand, this community drove them shitless scared: the information we publish is more and more damning, and it reaches more and more people.

    A facepalm moment ensued when the scumbags intrigued the judge with the word “scumbag”:

    While I don’t necessarily disagree that certain information should be protected, sealing the argument why a protection order is necessary is Kafkaesque. These people filed 1,800+ lawsuits against semi-random Internet subscribers and now think that they are entitled to be protected from the criticism (ironically, the same dirtbags who called people multiple times threatening that their porn habits “will be on the first page of the Denver Post,” call the fact of calling out unethical and/or illegal conduct “harassment”).

    A heavily redacted motion for protective order is here.

  6. All the Scribd inserts are showing the same document (Document 10). The links to PDFs work, but from your description I was expecting at least one of them to mention polygraphs, and I haven’t seen that.

  7. This has nothing to do with any case, just the comfort of those that follow. Phillips style and font that he uses for his motions if far easier to read than most. I suggest the court system adopt it as a standard.

      • LISP is very interesting.
        I hope this latest weirdness doesn’t upset anyone. Right and Wrong are not shades but obvious.
        Downloading a file others have to pay for is simply wrong and must stop. Is this lawsuit fad the answer? Obviously not, ie Game of Thrones.
        The facts in this situation are very simple
        1. The files being sued over get onto the internet before they are available on DVD.
        2. B Movies involved are purchased in bulk. Note that these movies populate the torrent websites soon after their purchase. En Mass.
        3. The pornography currently embarrassing many law professionals have numerous flaws in distribution. In many cases they are available on the torrent websites before the copyright paperwork is done .
        4. The age verification requirements have not been tested in a court as far as I can tell.
        4. The Napster argument some may remember is that Mr. Ulrich was seeding his work from hope. Accusation yes but he won no cases once that accusation was made.
        5. The uncanny ability for hackers to consistently steal these new works. This situation alone would have warranted changing digital distribution network in the least. Anyone producing this much (can I say incredible?) would be using a secure ISDN to their warehousing company.
        Now we ask new question. Who does the warehousing?

  8. Anyone else notice that the lawyer is from Peoria, and Mayor Jim Ardis seems to think he owns the town??? Wonder if the judges there are corrupt, too???

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