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.
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”