Guardaley | X-Art

Defendant: Malibu Media is a scam (in a literal meaning of this word)

Once in a while we witness new defense attorneys appear on the scene, and they bring fresh ideas. In Malibu Media v. Domingo Rodriguez (ILND 15-cv-03610), a shakedown lawsuit brought by the Miami Troll Center via its marionette, a chronic liar Mary K. Schulz, the defendant hired an experienced lawyer from Chicago, Andy Norman.

Today Mr. Norman filed the defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. This is the first time I saw the claim that Malibu Media’s conduct violates Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

[…] plaintiff’s scam is “unfair” as contemplated by § 2 of the Act. See, Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 418 (2002). In Robinson the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that there are three ways to prove unfairness under the Act. In fact, plaintiff’s scam is unfair under each of the three tests. First, plaintiff’s practice of implementing its scam against hundreds of unwary internet consumers “offends public policy.” Second, it is it is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.” Finally, it “causes substantial injury to consumers.”

The word “scam” appears in the complaint 24 times, and those are not figurative uses.

I agree with such characterization.

According to Mr. Norman’s LinkedIn page,

Since 1983 he has handled more than 75 class action cases. He has counseled thousands of consumers and business owners regarding fraud, contract, warranty and other disputes, and many pastors and Christians regarding religious and civil rights.

…so this attorney most definitely knows what he is talking about.

Thanks to Raul for the find.



On 12/21 Malibu filed an angry 20-page motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim: Lipscomb appears to disagree that his firm and his “client” run a scam operation.

wordpress counter


17 responses to ‘Defendant: Malibu Media is a scam (in a literal meaning of this word)

  1. It will be interesting to see if this defense gets anywhere. I think anyone would agree that their operation falls under the common sense definition of a Scam. I don’t know if it actually violates the consumer fraud laws are not.

    • I don’t hold my breath either.

      Yet any novel defense requires Lipscomb & Co to allocate resources in order to reply — rather than to open their bag of canned responses. They are already overwhelmed, so it’s a good news. Also, Mr. Norman is an experienced litigant, and I hope he will strike where it hurts — discovery: an avenue IMO under-exploited by defense attorneys. X-Art’s owners, Lipscomb & the Germans have a lot to hide. Any attempt to pierce their scam so far resulted in dismissals or walk-away settlements.

  2. The counterclaims, in my view, easily rises to the plausibility standard Lipscomb uses to defeat motions to dismiss and motions to quash. Aside from the poetic justice, I agree with SJD, that this flings open the door to some broad discovery by the defendant (which, of course, will not occur as another walkaway will likely be offered and accepted).

  3. Hurm an experienced class action litigator… I’d worry.
    If this were to gain traction how many people similarly situated would it cover?

    • A good class action attorney will see what the judge’s response to the counterclaims is, and if it looks good enough, he will file for class status. This is the straw that will break Lipscum’s back. If this goes class in this state, it could be said that it can go class federally. If it gets legs, it will be devastating.

      Like most other criminal empires, once the start getting greedy, the house of cards falls.

      • Hi .My name is Michael Andrew.
        I agree that a class action countersuit would give a good slup on the face so BRial Heit and Brena Elrbaum will look ti a different field of activities.
        As good councellors, they should instruct their clients to protect their merchandise in a way that can not be infringed . They don’t do it and this is a clear definition of ENTRAPMENT >

    • Other than the squirming there are so many elements that could support a couple different claims against them.
      Say like anyone who “settled” over one of the illegally produced movies in the catalog, one can prove those elements easily. Then having a nice deconstruction of how it all worked would open the door to other bad things coming home to roost.
      It’ll be fun seeing which of the locals, will be the first to read that the insurance won’t cover them knowingly participating in questionable actions, will make a bee-line to anyone offering to spare their asses to get at the big guys.

  4. Malibu wants $700+ per low quality 5 minute video. When one downloads from any share site, there is no indication that the video is copyrighted. Just like free videos from Kahn, or self made porn movies like eff dat, there is no way to know what is copyrighted or not. Asking $ for a porn movie that someone downloaded and made no money reselling, is a scam. They probably add all of their own movies with seeds, then collect damages from everyone who clicked on it??? – entrapment? Same with movie flops. Just put them out there with no warnings, and collect more than you’d ever get at the box offices. They should only be able to sue the first original uploader, OOPS that would be them!

  5. Andy Norman handled my defense . He is a stand up, moral and just guy. The guy is blessed with god given empathy and is more human like than what is typically exhibited by lawyers. He’s a gentleman, even against trolls like Mary k Schulz’ unethical and nasty behavior. His rate was pretty reasonable If you’re in a jam, I implore you to contact him at:
    P (312) 332-2400

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