Guardaley | Lipscomb | Voltage
Florida man teaches the troll a lesson in persistence
|
A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success. | |
| Elbert Hubbard |
Copyright trolling is not a harmless phenomenon; hence it is usually not a joking matter. However, an essential feature of the society’s immune system is people not being serious amid desperation. That’s why I simply can’t help sharing some hilarious moments that I discover while browsing mostly gravely boring dockets.
1
In one of recent single-defendant non-porn Lipscom’b cases initiated “on behalf” of a Prenda-like shell plaintiff of questionable legitimacy (Poplar Oaks v. John Doe, FLSD 15-cv-60281), the defendant decided to file a “protective motion to quash or vacate the Subpoena” on 4/1/2015:
As you see, not only this legally illiterate document had nearly zero chances of success, the defendant signed it with his actual name, totally defeating the purpose of such motion. Alas, it is not an exception: laypeople often don’t realize that absent proper protective order/motion to seal, everything they send to the court (including envelopes) will likely be publicly filed.
Keith Lipscomb, together with one of his minions (Jason Cooper), filed a serious 3-page memorandum in opposition. Not surprisingly, Judge William J. Zloch outright denied the defendant’s MTQ on 4/28:
2
The defendant didn’t like it, and on 5/11 he decided to try and convince the judge one more time using exactly the same text.
The troll was slightly annoyed:
Either Defendant’s Motion at CM/ECF 11 was filed in error or Defendant is attempting to get a second bite at the apple by re-filing the exact same Motion this Court previously denied. Defendant previously filed the exact same Motion on April 1, 2015. See CM/ECF 7. Plaintiff responded on April 24, 2015. See CM/ECF 8. On April 28, 2015, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion. See CM/ECF 10. Defendant’s re-filed identical Motion is improper and should be stricken.
On 5/27 the judge, however, rather than striking the second MTQ, simply denied it… using exactly the same language as in his previous order.
3
The defendant thought it was unfair that his thoroughly written motion was denied again and decided to give it another try on 6/15 (needless to say, the text didn’t change).
At this moment we must realize that Judge Zloch does possess a strong sense of humor, as in his 6/30 order denying the third MTQ, he again used exactly the same language.
4
“It must be a misunderstanding!” — thought the defendant, filing the very same text (the fourth MTQ) on 7/13.
“No,” said the judge, returning the ball with an elegant, reflexive racquet swing (7/15: the text is identical to his previous three orders).
Lipscomb, who is unquestionably spoiled by his victims’ predictable reactions (the majority either pay the ransom or ignore), apparently suffered from an acute cognitive dissonance, became depressed, and on 7/24 voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.
A mandatory cliché “which means that the plaintiff can re-file the case” is expected to accompany “without prejudice.” Well, the troll certainly can refile, but he never will, even to give everyone another chance to enjoy defendant’s outstanding persistence: Lipscomb is a man of many virtues, but sense of humor, alas, is not one of them.
5
In the meantime, the defendant already hinted that initiating a new case against him would be futile — by preemptively filing a fifth identical MTQ on 7/27, this time after this case was dismissed for good.
Fight © Trolls 
Well, why wouldn’t Lipscomb dismiss? It’s pretty well established that the main tenet of their business is to use discovery to get the identities corresponding to IP addresses, then use that for blackmail bypassing the courts. The only reason to actually stick with a case is for not wasting their credit with the courts for the sake of future subpoenas.
So here they did get the address they wanted. They are finished with the part they needed the court for.
One thing that I wanted to write but didn’t is Lipscomb’s 6/9 motion for extension of time to serve, in which he bullshitted the judge talking nonsense about his communications with the ISP, but not mentioning that at the time of the motion he know the defendant’s identity for 2 months already.
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
That is really interesting Jason!
Is it possible the defendant ran out the clock of ISP retention of log. The defendant’s attorney may have later been able to prove that his client really didn’t know if the IP address was his at the specific time of the download. Without log, Lipscomb would not pursue case because there would to much doubt.