Guardaley | Lipscomb | Voltage

In the wake of Prenda: Jordan Rushie “represents” a sham client

A refurbished copyright troll Jordan Rushie likes to pathetically repeat that

.@fightcopytrolls you fail to understand that i represent clients - not causes

The problem is not in the principle per se (although it is prone to abuse and it easily becomes a “Nuremberg defense” of the ongoing harm that copyright trolls continue to inflict upon the society). The problem is not even a casually pejorative use of the word “causes” — there is a much bigger elephant in the room if one questions the validity of the “client” part of the phrase.

First of all, in representing of one particular “client” (e.g., Good Man Productions, Inc. v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 173.63.99.202, NJD 14-cv-07877), Jordan, accusing people of copyright infringement, sees nothing wrong in signing pleadings written by someone else, without even mentioning the actual author (oh, irony). To be fair, Jordan is good at changing the font: I always give credit where credit is due:

The sad thing is that Jordan doesn’t even read what he signs:

What cases are undersigned “you” talking about, Jordan? To the best of my knowledge this is your first job as a goon for the Miami shakedown artists. Anyway, I’ll give you a benefit of doubt and assume that it was your peculiar way of saying “zero.” Indeed, 0 · 99% = 0.

I’m not even mentioning the fact that the pleadings themselves were hastily molded from a typical Malibu complaint (“copyright-in-suit” for a single claim, seriously?)

Back to the I represent clients not causes claim. The above facts are enough to make the most gullible person skeptical that Mr. Rushie ever directly contacted the “client” — an empty shell, one of dozens, created solely to register a single copyright and subsequently “plunder the citizenry,” as Judge Otis Wright aptly described the sick copyright extortion “business.” Knowing a little bit about Lipscomb’s kitchen, I believe that local representatives are not even allowed to fart without the Troll Center’s permission, less contact the rights holder (more about that in an oncoming post).

But that’s not all. The “client” in question is “Good Man Productions., Inc.,” which… is a dissolved business entity according to the California Secretary of State page:

So, even if you wanted to represent a client, you are out of luck, Jordan. Sorry, but you are doomed to represent a cause instead. What cause you may ask? I don’t know, something related to following certain emergency vehicles maybe?

Now go ahead and notify the courts that your “client” doesn’t exist and all the 11 lawsuits you filed in the NJD are essentially fraudulent. I won’t bet a dime on that though: such an act would require possessing a virtue called “candor”; or at least a basic honesty.

Everything I said equally applies to Jordan’s brothers-in-scams, who clogged the US courts with 99 frivolous (and, apparently, fraudulent) lawsuits:

  • Jason Kotzker
  • Jonathan Hoppe
  • Keith Lipscomb
  • Paul Nicoletti
  • Christopher Fiore

Dear Karma! I sinned. If you want to punish me, please make me a toad in the next life, but not a walking embarrassment for the lawyer profession that shakes down people over a Steven Seagal movie.

Thanks to Raul for a nice catch.

Update

1/18/2014

This is funny and sad at the same time: I anticipated that panicking crooks would scramble to mitigate the damage, but didn’t think it would happen so fast. So, on the very next day after Raul spotted and tweeted about the dissolution, a new entry appeared in the search results for “Good Man Productions” on the California Secretary of State page:

Too little, too late: as a commenter below noted, this is a brand new company with the same name and the same agent, not a “revived” original rights holder — unlikely a legally sound cure for the sloppiness.

I’m waiting for the information about the exact time of the dissolution and write an update (or rather a new post) as soon as I have it.

Followup

2/8/2015: we learned about the time (obtained the certificate of dissolution), so here is the promised post:

wordpress counter

Discussion

33 responses to ‘In the wake of Prenda: Jordan Rushie “represents” a sham client

  1. The trolls and their so called “clients” seem to like the idea of creating an entity to be the plaintiff to be able to sue with. The fact that these company registration for these “clients” seem to expire with no attention paid to the fact that someone never renewed it, pretty much confirms my opinion that they didn’t really care to make sure it stays current.

    That speaks volumes that the creation of the company was a mere formality in order to get litigation rolling, and was designed for that purpose. My belief would be that keeping the registration current was not a concern and no one was really worried about it.

    The only time the trolls have really made sure these shelf company registration’s were current and up to date is really dependent on where they are in litigation. Take Malibu Media for instance, the litigation machine has been very profitable, and thus an effort has been made to keep everything current and up to date.

    Everyone remembers Crystal Bay Corporation and how once it came out in the documents filed with the court that the company’s registration in SD was expired, the trolls were tripping over themselves and probably panic dialing to get that entity back into a current and in compliance registration in SD so they could wipe the egg off their face.

    The trolls have gotten sloppy with their details, because everyone on Team troll is all looking at the money and working to get those settlements flowing in, that’s where the concentration is and that is why the details like keeping these shelf’s current is missed.

    Is anyone really surprised that we are seeing this registration be an issue in keeping them current, not on the Anti Troll side. Simply there eye is on the price, and it always will be. The more they keep making mistakes like this the easier it is for defense lawyers to show all the issues that surround the trolls in the filings of these copyright troll lawsuits and I am sure this will be pointed out to the Judge where these cases are filed.

    Much like Vandermay and Lowe, I am sure Rushie will have to explain this to the court if a defense lawyer in this case brings it up to the Judge I am sure we can start the count down how long it will take Rushie to get his “client” registration current.

    It was the details that cost the trolls a 100k in the Lamberson case, and it is the reason the Prenda gang’s porn troll business ceases to exist today, because those little details started to catch up to them and the Prenda gang is still counting the losses and it still causes them grief to this day.

    Karma has a way of catching up with those who seem to challenge it. We are seeing this over and over, and it is about time.

  2. For what it’s worth, I casually opened up a complaint filed by Good Man Productions on 2014–12–08, and found that it pleads that they are “organized and existing under the laws of the state of California”.

    Anybody have a copy of the certificate of dissolution?

  3. Surprise, surprise. A search for “Good Man Productions” at the page you linked now returns the following results:


    That certainly did not take them long to attempt to fix that problem once you pointed it out.

      • Meanwhile I will mail off a request to the Secretary of State’s office to see the certificate of dissolution as soon as the post office opens again, which might be a few days.

        Mr Rushie’s diligence in reading your blog is to be commended…

      • The funny part is the different entity numbers. Unless I’m mistaken, as far as the government website, and possibly the state of California itself are concerned, these are two different companies that just happen to have the same name, address, and agent. I’m not sure the trolls can do anything to fix that given the status of “dissolved”.

        • I agree with you. It looks like panic mode set in and the Trolls were frantically dialing to get the registration to a current status. The fact this is appears to be a new entity of the same name I believe is going to be problematic for Rushie.

          First the suit was filed by a defunct entity. The defense will surely point this out the trolls mistake to the judge. The fact that the trolls had to create a reincarnation of the first entity I am sure the defense will also point out.

          Anyway you slice it , the trolls eye on the prize has caused them to make a serious error and it will be interesting to see how a Judge will view this, when they learn what has transpired since the suit was filed.

          While I would love to see this end up in front of A judge in the vein of Judge Wright, let’s hope the Judge who does land this case, isn’t using a rubber stamp and digs into this filing. Nice of the Plaintiff and their counsel to give the defense a helping hand.

          Hey Rushie, since your an obvious reader of FCT, feel free to share your thoughts on this with us. Don’t forget your lucky tie when you go to court, looks like you may need it!

          • He won’t: as any lawyer who is full of candor, he can’t comment on the ongoing litigation — would be unethical.

  4. Nice legal conundrum seeing as all the suits were filed when GMP was dissolved which might be compounded if the claimed infringements also occurred during the dissolution. lol

    • Not only do the claimed infringements happen long after the dissolution, but the actual copyright registration itself happend AFTER the business was dissolved.

      Seeing as the copyright claimant didn’t exist at the time it was registered…. the copyright can certainly be cancelled since the claimant had no right to the work.

  5. Dissolved means that had no assets, such as copy rights. Quite a problems the trolling clowns are making for themselves. Looks like Rushie doesn’t even have a “real” client. So what is the cause? Making quick money?

    • Not only that, but the copyright wasn’t even registered until AFTER the business was dissolved. How can a dissolved, non-existing business be the claimant of a copyright?

  6. And to think I had respect for Rushie back when he backed off the Randazza suit from Corbin Fisher back in the day. What a sell out. Business is hurting or the promise of easy money was too easy to ignore. What a no talent hack.

    • No talent indeed. Say what you will about Lipscomb and x-art, he at least had the sense to make sure he was mostly dealing with a real company, with real people behind it. Scumbags the lot of them, but he’s got people actively maintaining the company, who he can haul into court if he needs someone from the company to haul into court. This is the sort of rank amateur mistake I’d expect to see out of the clowns formerly known as Prenda.

      I wonder if Rushie will have the gall to continue to claim that he “represents clients – not causes” in the future given that anyone he might have reason to say that to can now respond by asking him “If that’s the case, how did you end up with a ‘client’ that technically didn’t exist?”

  7. You have to wonder about the Tax implications. Dissolving a corporation relieves the corporation from having to pay the $800 minnimum franchise tax each quarter.
    https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/faq/712.shtml

    If a corporation was dissolved to avoid the tax liability but revived as a separate entity at a later dat, then it seems that an arguement that the new entity is really a continuation of the previous entity would tantamount to tax fraud. This would seem to be especially problematic if the new corporation was created soon after a new quarter started.

    Also until a corporation is registered and in good standing with the state it is unable bring and action or defend itself in court.

    Finally, if a lawyer wanted to face the trolls in a court case they couldn’t get away from this would seem to be the time to do it. Since it is a new corporation, the defendents in the current cases may be able to file a declaratory judgement suit against it based upon the threat of a lawsuit based on the actions of the old corporation.

  8. This is fascinating.

    If that dissolved corporation held the copyright, or at least enough right that it can file suit, it seems likely that no corporation holds the right to sue. Or at least any that now comes forward should reasonably expect a complete examination of the various licensees.

    Yes, “IP rights” can just disappear like that. You don’t get to say “it was lost, but I found it in a corner of the office inside this new corporation”.

    The newly created company just adds to the questions. Primarily, who is the actual client? Who is writing the checks? There is no attorney-client privilege here, not when the putative client was a sham.

    • If you ask me this is a move to get this by the Judge before this ISP subscriber gets named and attempts to get counsel. I am sure once the Judge learns of this thru defendants counsel, they would not be happy.

      Now if the trolls could get it by before it is brought to the courts attention, they dont waste their filing fee and look like fools. That would be my opinion of this, even though I am of the belief they should have to withdrawal this litigation.

      I wonder how many other cases GMP started litigation on while this corporation was defunct? This may require some digging.

      • They may try the Prenda “good faith belief that the copyright assignment was valid and a valid assignment is not needed” arguement.

  9. Interesting, interesting, interesting…. The company was dissolved in September 2013, but the copyright was registered in May 2014 to a company that doesn’t exist. And the supposed infringement happens after that…

    Besides the whole perjury bit in the complaint, a dissolved company cannot own assets, so it doesn’t own the copyright registration and has no grounds to bring the complaint. Second, the copyright will most likely be cancelled since the company didn’t exist at the time it was registering the copyright. Take a look at the guidelines for cancelling a copyright: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/regulations/201.7.html specifically section 6. A non-existant business has no right to claim a copyright since it no longer exists…

      • This is now a complicated matter for the California Department of the Treasury. I would specifically notify them of this. Here’s the issue: If you dissolve the entity, you need to do a final tax filing for it. The assets also need to be distributed and the state needs to know this accounting. If you’re collecting money on behalf of the entity when it is dissolved, this is illegal and could be tax evasion. Additionally, if the entity is dissolved, all legal proceedings terminate.

        However, I’d notify the Dept. of Treasury because they’ll want to know where their tax revenue has gone. And since it’s tax season, now would be a good time to notify them.

    • Well, it’s not a secret what I think about Randazza. IMO, he is a hypocritical, self-serving twat. When it is favorable/convenient, he is all about causes: “First Amendment! Freedom of Speech! We are all Charlie!” Yet when it’s time to line up his pockets, he hides behind “I represent clients not causes.” Not much more noble that forum trolls who hide behind anonymity.

      Saying that, I try not to engage him since he is not directly involved with copyright trolling anymore: too much effort, too little time on my hands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s