This is an update to my recent post “Defendant makes a powerful move against copyright troll Malibu Media in Maryland” (MDD 14-cv-0223, 14-cv-0257 and 14-cv-0263). While normally I simply modify the original post, adding new developments, I have decided to write a separate post: these cases are very important. These three Maryland suits are among the few Malibu Media litigations¹, where defense can finally crack the tough nut of the Lipscomb-Germans-XArt relationship, the very foundation of Lipscomb’s extortion machinery. I’m almost sure that such revelation will cause the collapse of Prenda #2. Thus, we have been keeping an eye on these cases, and we invite all the defense attorneys to pay attention to them as well.
It is not unexpected that Lipscomb’s firm took Pietz’s powerful motion extremely seriously, and on 4/29/2014 Jon Hoppe filed a 35-page opposition. While being rather elaborated, this opposition is full of evasiveness and pseudo-technical stuff. Nothing new: usual Lipscomb’s slithering through the cracks between the words and their meanings.
On 5/15/2014 Morgan Pietz responded to plaintiff’s opposition in two pieces:
- ISP subscriber’s reply in support of motion to: (1) intervene anonymously; (2) consolidate malibu media cases; and (3) temporarily stay outstanding subpoenas;
- ISP subscriber’s opposition to Malibu’s motion to strike — the declaration of Morgan E. Pietz.
While the “opposition” piece mostly deals with Malibu’s procedural attacks, the “reply in support” masterfully calls out
- Lipscomb’s forum shopping:
Since Malibu refuses to do so voluntarily, unless the Court orders Malibu to show cause, Malibu can keep dismissing any defendant who starts asking the right questions, and the issue will never see the light of day, with lawsuits and discovery, predicated upon work done by a champertous contingent fee witness, continuing indefinitely.
- his dishonest statements:
Malibu’s assertions that each of its cases is totally different is basically absurd. Malibu files the same complaint. It relies on the same (questionable) declaration from Tobias Fieser and IPP to file the same early discovery motions. It sends out the same deposition notices, at which it presumably asks the same questions. If it ever actually gets so far as serving anyone, it sends out the same overbroad discovery. When Does respond and seek discovery of their own, Malibu makes and then stands on the same boilerplate objections in each case. And then, as a last resort, if any defendants prove difficult in insisting on relevant discovery, Malibu files the same notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
- and unwillingness to let anyone under the cloak of his shady dealings with Germans:
[…] it seems that Malibu was not fully candid as to the inputs that went in to fashioning the system, and that it has now figured out how to game it, by simply dismissing any case where defendants start asking questions about the champertous German computer firm truly behind this litigation business.
¹Another notable case is ILND 13-cv-06312, where Lipscomb throws tantrum after tantrum and sabotages a legitimate discovery. I wrote about it a lot in the past, and maybe I’ll cover recent disturbing developments soon (in short, Lipscomb, just like Prenda last year, is scared about all the publicity and may be mulling an idea of shutting the critics down via a SLAPP lawsuit).