Guardaley | Voltage
Copyright troll’s “expert” Daniel Macek declares that he “observed” infringements that didn’t take place yet
I already reported that since the fall of 2016 this particular troll dismissed eleven victims because of the defense attorney Christopher Lynch’s letters to Lowe. This brief post is about Lynch’s twelfth letter, and the twelfth hasty dismissal (Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Bethke, WAWD 16-cv-01647).
While all the letters have a lot in common, each explores a unique topic. This time Lynch’s research revealed that the game of shuffling German “experts” went a bit too far and resulted in one of the declarants claiming that he observed alleged infringements… up to two weeks before they took place:
We looked carefully and discovered another anomaly our Courts should question. Mr. Macek’s declaration from that D CO case 1:16-cv-01761 (ECF # 4-1) is dated June 14th (maybe June 16th) – but BEFORE the date of the accompanying “observations” that ran from June 25 through June 28.
How can a witness sign a declaration that he observed something BEFORE it happened? Criminal Productions submitted four such Declarations of Mr. Macek that were executed BEOFRE the dates of the accompanying typed up list of observations that Mr. Macek swore that he made. Unless Daniel Macek is also Marty McFly, it is impossible to execute a declaration claiming to observe something that has yet to happen.
In addition,
it appears these metaphysical Macek declarations are not just temporally improper, they are also photocopies, including the signatures not separately executed. Here are copies of the signatures to examine:
Anticipating a “clerical error” excuse, Mr. Lynch notes (emphasis is mine):
Presumably Criminal Productions could present an excuse why it submitted these declarations. Your firm used “clerical error” to explain repeated use of “IP Squared” as its investigator (e.g. Dkt. #5, page 3). Our point about these “errors” is that they are direct evidence tying the Guardaley cases to undeniable abuse of our federal judicial system. We will ask the Court to examine the connections between Messrs. Arheidt and Macek and Achache and fictitious witness “Darren M. Griffin” (and to Mr. Gorfein and his duplicated and differing signatures.)
Hard to disagree. And hard to imagine that future federal investigators will have a reason to think differently.
“Back to the future” cases (troll: Scott Kannady of Kannady & Brown, LLC):
- COD 16-cv-01761-WYD-MEH: Macek’s sworn declaration | “Observations”
- COD 16-cv-01802-WYD-MEH: Macek’s sworn declaration | “Observations”
- COD 16-cv-01813-WYD-MEH: Macek’s sworn declaration | “Observations”
- COD 16-cv-01836-WYD-MEH: Macek’s sworn declaration | “Observations”
Coverage
- TorrentFreask: Copyright Troll Piracy ‘Witness’ Went Back to the Future – and Lost
- TechDirt: Copyright Troll’s Tech ‘Experts’ Can Apparently Detect Infringement Before It Happens
Fight © Trolls 
The fraud on the courts continues unabated with occasional glimpses of the laughable Three Stooges underpinnings of these judicial sanctioned shakedowns of the scared and powerless. The law profession is a self-governing profession where every attorney and judge has an ethical obligation to report another attorney if they strongly suspect fraud on the judiciary. That being said I do recall a judge (perhaps MI) who repeatedly granted early discovery of a Doe’s info with the caveat that Tobias Feiser would waive any and all objections and be amenable to a deposition if the subpeonas were acted upon. A MTQ should request this basic recourse.
“It’s called copying and pasting!” bellowed John Steele.
Looking at the letter, are we sure that “persecute” should really have a “[sic]” after it?
I’m sorry but a “clerical error” doesn’t ‘cut it’ as a reason /excuse for filing declarations bearing photocopied signatures of witnesses. I don’t know what the law is in the USA but in the UK you’re supposed to file documents bearing the *original* signature and date on them. If there are copies taken of documents then they’re only for your file on that case, and that case only, and for service on the opponent in that particular case.
If any expert witness knowingly allowed anyone else to possess photocopies of their signatures for use on ‘their’ statements in any or all future cases then I know of several judges in the UK who’d politely but very firmly make sure that any such expert wouldn’t be allowed to give evidence in any further cases, and I don’t mean only the cases before them.
They’d present the simple option to the lawyers concerned of either throwing themselves under the bus or throwing their expert under the bus. Either way, the bus would be waiting….
Is it me or is there a marked reluctance in the US courts to crack down on such behaviour?
I think this is the thin blue line in operation. The courts don’t want to crack down on their own, people in the court system (except the lower-class crooks) get the high court treatment, not the low court treatment.
You see this even in the letters exposing this….where Lee Hayes threatens action, instead of going to the judge and getting the whole operation shut down. You see this in the 5 years it took to disbar John Steele and Paul Hansmeier.