73 responses to ‘Connecticut

  1. SJD twittered an email today to the effect that Troll Lipscomb has a lacky in CT ready to commence trolling. Good! Cannot wait, asshole! Read Beever’s “Stalingrad” so as to prepare.

    • What’s the reason for no troll activity in CT to date, either mass ISP subpoena or individual Doe? It seems like New England (with the exception to Mass.) has been immune in general. Even though CT is small geographically, it has a high population density with decent per capity income, and is right in between two states with a reasonable amount of troll activity (NY and MA) where you would think some of those trolls are also licensed in CT. Or is this a case where even geolocation of the IP address becomes suspect due to its small size and that you can get to any one of three other states in a very short time from almost any given point? According to rfcexpress, MA is the only one of the 6 New England states with troll activity on record. Just wondering why that is, and we haven’t seen any court activity in the rest of New England?

  2. Raul, take a look at the date on the email 7/1/2011. More than a year later and nothing. Proves how full of it these guys are.

    • Oops! Extreme annoyance with trolls sometimes makes me oblivious to the obvious.

  3. Seems that Ruggiero is going against young male students. . . For what I can Google
    Is that right?

  4. Seems like the Guava plague is hitting CT courtesy of Ruggiero….



    OK, so this is against one currently unidentified John Doe. I went into PACER and looked at Exhibit A associated with the complaint. I didn’t want to recap it since I don’t want to be the one posting the exact IP addresses relating to this Doe. Yes, I said adderssES and not address.

    In summary, Exhibit A to the complaint has 3 IP addresses listed and each one DOES NOT HAVE A DATE/TIME STAMP. After putting each of those IP addresses through whatismyipaddress.com, one is associated with Charter in the southwestern end of the state (lots of money there!), and the other two are associated with Metrocast in the southeastern end of the state. So, how can these all be IP addresses for the same person…3 IP addresses from two different ISPs in different ends of the state being alleged to belong to one John Doe? Seems like BS to me!

    It also seems like Chief Judge Alvin Thompson in CTD has a significant judge shortage in CT due to some recent events (judicial elevation, deaths, etc) and it is so bad that he has sought the help of other judges in other states…..


    This article was written/posted on 9/24. Judge Kravitz just passed away from ALS on 9/30. The article says that 9 judges from other jurisdictions will be helping out in CT on a staggered basis.

    Is there a way to inform Judge Thompson about the trolling plague and what’s gonna happen to his dockets if he doesn’t find a way to kill trolling in CT sooner than later? Based on the story posted above, it seems as though CTD doesn’t have the resources to move legitimate let alone frivolous cases at the moment. Does Judge Thompson really want to enlist his (few) own judges let alone those from other states to deal with the likes of Ruggiero? Thoughts?

    Basically, what can we do to help get the word out to help end trolling in CT before it even has a chance to really take hold and plague our state?

    Posted by Raul on 7/19:”Read Beever’s “Stalingrad” so as to prepare.”

    Will do, Raul!

    • So far in the guava style hacking cases then, in AZ the motion to quash was denied, in Ohio it was dismissed, and now in CT discovery has been granted, correct? Then there’s the actual Lightspeed case in SDIL.

  5. Hello all, Just recieved a letter from troll Daniel Goldsmith Ruggiero in regards of the First Time Videos, LLC. v. John Doe case.

    I currently reside in northern CT. Prior to this particular troll taking the helm in said case the infamous Joseph Perea had filed the initial case out of Florida. I was at the time not at all frightened or moved due to the fact that the initial case was filed far out of my jurisdiction. However, now that Prenda found this particular scumbag to take up their money grubbing extortion scheme in my state, I am a little shaken.

    However! I need to know what I should do in regards to this case. The file does not exist on any of my computer devices, and an ip as we state time and time again does not = infringer. I don’t, and probably will not have anywhere near the kinda money they ask for in these cases to pay off these scumfucks, the letter I recieved today is asking for an outright payment of 6 grand… almost double of the usual 3 grand.

    I am just kinda lost at this point as to where to turn or what to do, and I think we need to bring these cases to light not only here but on dietrolldie as well. We need to open the profile on these cases, and let it be known in these states in which these cases are just coming into existance that this is some kinda well organized extortion scheme. I cannot afford counsel nor to settle, so I feel as though my best bet is to expose this before they get the first word in. I need help, and I need guidance.

    If anyone at all can help me in any way I urge that we please do this. Not just for me, but for other’s involved in this case.

    Thank You.

    • I, too, received mail from Ruggiero demanding $6k. The letter was from his firm and the “payment authorization” was from Prenda. The letters say I’ve got a 10 day window…

      “This letter is to advise you that a suit will be filed if you do not attempt to resolve this matter. To that end, my client seeks resolution without judicial involvement, and accordingly you have ten days from the date of this letter to respond to me to discuss settlement. If you fail to do so, I will file the action against you on behalf of my client.”

      These were related to other cases from the one trolldestroyer cites. I’d previously gotten threat letters from Prenda (Duffy) and had received phone calls on and off. Those letters indicated they would eventually refer my info to local attorneys to file suit. The calls picked up in frequency over the last 2 weeks, they all came from bogus phone numbers (888-888-8888) and the vmails threatened that the client had authorized them to move forward, they’ll file in federal court, etc.

      In the opinion of the resident experts, is this just another stage in the series of threats? I, too, am on the fence with my path forward at this point. The money is more than I can afford, as is litigating.

      Additional comments welcomed.


      • What case was your letter referencing? First Time Videos, Lightspeed, etc? Were you actually served papers or just mailed a letter? Can you post a copy of the letter here?

        • I must’ve hit the lottery because my envelope had 2 letters, I’d rather not say which two so as to identify myself to the trolls. The outside envelope had labels affixed, not printed directly on the envelope so this was obviously a mass mailing job. No idea how my IP wound up in their sights, I did get a notice from my ISP for one of the two existing cases and letters from Prenda previously.

          I quoted a portion of the letter in my original post. No papers have been served that I know of, but like others have posted since mine, the threat of a suit in 10 days’ time has been made by Ruggiero.

          Why would Ruggiero be doing mass mailings on Prenda’s behalf?

      • This is a horrendous game of chicken and you would think Prenda would research their victims before filing individual lawsuits.

        To the best of my knowledge, Prenda stooge Ruggiero is sitting his scummy ass on a small mountain of summons but has yet to properly serve anyone. Keeping my fingers crossed for you.

        • Yeah, how does that work? He filed 6 random suits in early October and there’s been no activity on any of them. Does he have any clock to serve people?

    • Below is a letter that we wrote to send to the AG in Connecticut. We strongly encourage you to do the same thing! As we are in the same boat as you. When this began for us almost a year ago, we wrote to them and were told they couldn’t do anything as they did not have enough cases to investigate this. So please consider copying and pasting your info into it and sending it out!!! Every letter will/should help our cause! Good luck!

  6. My particular case is the First Time Videos case.

    I will have the threat letters scanned (blocking out my ID ofcourse) and see if I can post them here.

    Personally I am probably one of the worst target’s in one of these scams as I have literally 0 assets.
    No car, no home (do not own a home rather), more than likely no credit, and no substantial possesions.

    So far not personally served.

  7. I do wonder if now is a good time to get a CT lawyer just to send a response to the latest threat. Doesn’t seem like Ruggiero would have much interest in a named suit against someone who has lawyered up.

      • This is my biggest concern is that I don’t believe many if any at all CT lawyers would understand the fine details of these cases.

  8. I should clarify what I mean, just read it and it looks wrong.

    What I mean I don’t know how much time a lawyer not tackling these particular cases would spend educating themselves fully on exactly how shady the business practices of the trolls are. It seems that in many a cases lawyers not in the know suggest some kind of deal with the trolls.

    That is my largest concern, the state of CT having absolutely zero familiarity with these kinda cases.

    • Yes I think it would be hard to get someone who could really evaluate your odds of wining a case and filing counter suits and such. I think they would probably say “wait for an actual suit then see how much they want to settle for.” And if that number was $5k, they would probably say settle.

    • Its not the lawyers it is getting the CT judges up to speed but they’ll look to MAD, SDNY and EDNY and figure this scam out fairly swiftly.

      • I wonder what the best way to go about this is. I am considering contacting numerous media outlets to expose this operation and exactly how it is these trolls conduct themselves. I think it would be good for people to get the right idea about what exactly is going on here, before they get the wrong idea and things get out of hand!

        Btw Raul I will get my threat letter scanned. I just need to know who and where to send it to, if you could assist me in this matter that would be excellent.

        • contact the Attorney General’s office!! we did when this all started and was told they haven’t got enough cases to investigate this!

          • Could you draft an announcement so I copy-paste it on the page above? If you can, also include where to contact: believe me or not, some people are eager to do something but the major showstopper is the inability to find the contact information quickly. Ideally, provide the template/wording. The easier for people to do it — the more will do it. I don’t want to say anything bad about people, but this is the way we are: everyone has a procrastinator and a sloth to a certain, even the smallest extent inside him or her.

        • my husband will get all the info and we will post it on here. just give us a day or two!

        • SJD-the letter on here is what we have sent out to the AG again! Please, anyone feel free to copy and paste this letter and send it off! If we flood the AG’s office with these letters, they will have to take this seriously! Again, our lawyer tells us to sit back and ride it out until we are properly served.

  9. I’m in NJ and I too received a letter from Ruggiero saying I have 10 days to reply or pay $6k. Is this another tactic from pretenda to scare us?

  10. Methinks Ruggiero is a bit over-extended. To my knowledge he has filed federal cases for Prenda in CT, PA, MA, NJ and RI and I believe he’s he’s also licensed in NY and ME. His bread and butter is debt consulting/negotiation/consolidation/whatever for defendants and what looks like lemon law suits for plaintiffs who sue dealers who sell them shitty cars. Well, at least in CT.

    Go there and type his name. You’ll find that his CT Juris # is 427574

    Now plug his Juris # of 427574 in here and select pending cases.

    As you can see he has 16 pending cases in CT state courts alone revolving around debt defendants and lemon law plaintiffs. If you select “pending and disposed” for case status you’ll see he has 39 records consisting mainly of lemon law and debt type cases dating back to 2008. I can’t find any history ANYWHERE of this guy practicing IP or copyright law BEFORE his Prenda activity began in September.

    Now add in all his potential state and federal court obligations in all the states where he’s licensed that are not related to Prenda (don’t have a combined list, but extrapolating from the CT data alone) , then lump in the recent Prenda stuff (dozens). That’s how I get to my conclusion that he’s likely very overextended as just one dude, and not in just one small state, but across the eastern seaboard from MA to PA and almost everywhere in between.

    BTW, the CT civil inquiry links above are a good way to keep track of his CT state level suit activity as that search (I believe) encompasses all CT jurisdictions. CT at least makes this part of finding cases easy, whereas most other states make you fish around from county to county, and many states have several dozen or even 100+ counties with inconsistent formats! Good news is that the above search shows he hasn’t filed any state level suits for Prenda (in CT at least) as of this time.

    To summarize, learn about and know thy enemy first, then use that to guide you on what’s best to do for your own personal situation. This is just the opinion of one individual and is not to be taken as legal advice!

    • I know it’s a pain to search through Pacer in all the various courts, but has Ruggerio done any actual litigation beyond the initial boilerplate filing in the individually named cases? Heck, it seems like he may not have even served the defendants yet.

  11. so we received our letter from Ruggiero today as well. we haven’t heard anything from them in almost 6 months! Back when this all started we contacted the Attorney General’s office but was told they couldn’t do anything for us because there weren’t enough cases of this happening in our state! If everyone here posting contacted them via phone and mail, they would have to take all this serious!!! We will be contacting them again to say that they have moved into our state now! I really think we all can help each other out with this! I, too am very nervous about this as this is way to close to home now, when it was in Florida I felt much easy! the amount has double and the time frame as lessened!

    • Kind of wish Blumenthal was still the AG rather than being the about-to-be Senior US Senator after Lieberman retires and Murphy gets sworn into his seat. Blumenthal was very pro consumer and pro constituent and vigorously attacked fraud, anti-competitive practices, and anything that was perceived as predatory or generally fucking over the little guy. If the letter to Jepsen’s (new AG) office was also forwarded to Blumenthal’s office, well, it might just be the sort of thing that would naturally pique Blumenthal’s interests, who is now on a higher plane. Just saying.

      • I definitely think he would have some say on all this! we are all for contacting him on this matter! we just need to get enough people who visit this site to take a stand and then it will shut down any chance these trolls have of getting anywhere in the state! there is no way we will pay them for anything, we are innocent and I would rather fight in court to prove it then to lie down and take this so called deal! Our lawyer still says to do nothing until actually served but now they are in Mass, way to close for comfort! Although when we did contact the AG, they immediately said it is a scam and to not pay any money!

  12. This is a copy of the letter I am sending off to the attorney general. I took out the dates and extortion amounts. If everyone affected by these trolls sends a letter off to the AG they will be more likely to take action. I had sent a similar letter almost a year ago but because there weren’t any other victims in CT the AG chose to do nothing at that time. We should also send a copy to Richard Blumenthal (who loved to champion these sorts of cases as the AG)

    Attorney General George Jepsen
    Office of the Attorney General
    55 Elm St
    Hartford, CT 06106

    Dear Attorney General Jepsen:

    On date (enter date) I received notice from Prenda Law that I had illegally downloaded copyrighted material from their clients. The purpose of this initial letter was to extort money from me and other Does in the amount of (enter amount). Since that time I have received numerous phone calls from attorneys stating they are representing the plaintiffs in this matter requesting that this matter be settled outside of the court for (enter amount). Prenda Law continues to send letters every few months threatening legal action if their ransom amount is not paid. Now on (enter date) I have received notice from an attorney, Daniel Goldsmith Ruggiero, stating that I have 10 days to pay $6000 of he will file a suit with the court.

    I have consulted with an attorney on this matter who insisted that this is a 21st century shakedown of unsuspecting Does and that we should completely ignore them until such a time as we have been properly served by an officer of the court. Up until this time I have felt comfortable doing so but now that Prenda Law has Mr. Ruggiero filing cases all over the northeast including Connecticut I am bringing this to your attention as this has and will affect several of your constituents.

    Certainly, similar extortion schemes are more prevalent in other states than ours where they were given legal footholds by unsuspecting judges. I am requesting any assistance that you may be able to give in this matter. We must kill copyright trolling in Connecticut in its infancy


    • Thanks for composing this letter. Here are a few comments and suggestions:

      (1) There’s a typo on the blog copy of the letter:

      “Ruggiero, stating that I have 10 days to pay <> of [should read OR] he will file a suit with the court.”

      (2) I’d suggest replacing the word “kill” in the summary sentence with another word (stop, quash, etc.). Of course I understand that this phrase means ending a detestable practice. It’s just best to say something that is less easy to misconstrue.

      It might be mentioned that:

      (3) Letters (and calls) not only prey on the unsuspecting, but are sometimes sent to the outrageously innocent, including the elderly, the blind, police, soldiers deployed overseas, and the dead.

      (4) The plaintiffs are usually disguised business entities, with no record of bringing cases to actual trial, even with 250,000 plus allegations nationwide. The threat (of course) without above-board pursuit of creative rights clearly revels the tactic as extortion.

      (5) Outside of cases filed in Connecticut District federal civil court, the same plaintiff(s) harass other Connecticut citizens in the same way. These other allegations result from discovery flawed by improper jurisdiction granted in other states.

      (6) The Prenda network has raided multiple states, with many improprieties noted by many judges.

      I mention these points as reminders for possible future correspondence. I appreciate that letters to public officials need to be clear and concise.

  13. Richard Blumenthal’s address is

    90 State House Square, 10th Floor
    Hartford, CT, 06103

    You can also reach him by email at https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact/. It seems like he has a drop down menu full of categories that your issue falls under and the it will be addressed by someone who is assigned to each issue

  14. Sent a copy of my threat letter to SJD! I gave her full permission to do with it as she sees fit.

  15. Hello there. I was hoping if someone can take a look at my current situation and tell me what my next action should be.
    I received a letter in mail from my internet provider claiming that my internet could be disconnected due to my computers ISP address being linked to an illegal download of Johnny Cash songs. Included in the letter were 3 notices from the Digital Rights Corporation claiming I had infringed on copyright laws and included threats of legal action up to $150,000 per incident. But they said I could settle and face nothing if I send in $20 per incident. In a rush I paid for them despite not downloading the songs myself thus giving the company my information. They called almost instantly over my cell phone and claimed I had a total of 30 incidents! And were offering a settlement of $240 total. I said I’d call back later. I did and said I cannot pay the money and to not call over my personal phone anymore. I then went to the bank to reverse my decision to pay the 3 settlement fees and cancelled them.
    Will I be facing major issues from them? Am I going to be fully prosecuted now that they have my information? Was cancelling the payments on my debit card a big mistake?
    Thank you for any insight.

  16. I just received a summons so I guess I’m the lucky one in Ct, I want to go pro se but I’ll need help.
    I talked to a lawyer this morning and he said at least 2 grand to represent me in this case. I know the truth and I’ve been getting robo calls and letters and not this guy actually filed against me. And I’ve done nothing wrong. I need help I can’t afford this.

    • I think your state plus case type are unique enough that I wouldn’t post anything further on here.

  17. I am assuming it is Troll Ruggiero. Have you been named or or is it still a Doe case? Have you talked to the troll at all? There are a couple attorneys that would be willing to help, depending on the Plaintiff. If it is a Sunlust, AF, Guava or Ingenuity they will be more than willing to bring him down on a contingency, especially if it is Prenda Law case; he would personally be liable for attempted fraud.

    Take a deep breath and be cognizant of the 20 days to respond to the summons.

      • That’s odd. According to RFC Express there is only 1 FTV case in CT and it was just dismissed without prejudice on 12/27.

        • Probably a timing issue between the time the summons went out for service and the dismissal.

          Chas please check Pacer or call the clerk of the court.

        • Definitely do some homework, look up the case number on PACER and make sure it hasn’t been dismissed.

          In the past, Prenda has been either so sloppy or so unethical that they have sent letters and threats to people claiming a case was pending even after it was dismissed. Actually one of their specialties was carefully pretending there was a lawsuit active when they already dismissed it; they used to send out follow-up letters with a dismissed case number stating something to the effect of “we cannot inform you of the status of the underlying case, but we swear we are maybe going to actually sue you” because it was dismissed and they were bluffing, and just hoping the Doe wasn’t smart or savvy enough to do the little bit of research required to find there was no case! I would not even put it past them to fake-serve some complaints just to try to scare up a few additional settlements. And remember that pathetic episode with the informal discovery requests?

          If that is what happened here it is certainly a very compelling piece of intel. If they are shutting down cases when summons are already on the way, perhaps without the local counsel even knowing if they are just using his ECF account… Very funny stuff as Ruggerio just signed on and appeared to be part of a new offensive for Prenda, if his cases are already being shut down it certainly reinforces the impression that Prenda is in complete disarray.

        • Ok I’m John Doe, my case is in district court in hartford. i dismissed this lawsuit earlier and now I dont even know if using my name in here is safe. I did not download anything and dont even know what bittoremt is.My case is listed in a previous post. I know I didn’t do anything wrong and I refuse to be extorted. Im being blamed for distribution to thousands of others. Im being blamed as the main conspirator. It’s crazy. They are putting there eggs in my basket it seems. This is tearing into my personal life and my employment status tenious at best because of my place of employment being merged into another company. Now this and with no justiification at all.

  18. “John” I took the liberty of changing your name as trolls do troll this blog. We know it is crazy and pure bullshit but these Prenda guys don’t give a shit. Right now you are in a big game of chicken, try to sit tight. Ruggiero has not served anyone yet to the best of my knowledge and I do not think he will. Nonetheless start looking around for a GOOD IP attorney just in case.

    • He servred me today and charged me with me with being the main conspirator distributing all this scum. I dont know. I guess Ill go back at him with trying to recoup lawyer fee. Im screwed and this guy doesnt care. If I had resources I’d really try to make it square

      • Call UConn Law School and see if they have a program to provide pro bono defense as well as other resources.

    • It is possible that the left hand simply does not know what the right hand is doing. Perhaps the decision was made to actually serve before the decision was made to dismiss the case. Or perhaps Steele forgot to tell Ruggiero he was dismissing the case.

  19. Not sure if this is Chas or craifg’s case, but if it is, wouldn’t the dismissal and closure of the case make the summons moot?

    • Oh, and one least thing. If defendant CF (initials) was originally one of the Does from a previously dismissed mass First Time Videos case (eg FTV vs Does 1-XXX) and has now been dismissed from this one (3:12-cv-01402-VLB in CTD), wouldn’t he be free and clear due to the two dismissal rule if that is indeed the scenario?

      • Yes. Two dismissals means it is adjudicated on its merits (lack of them). Note: Prenda could still refile and see if the defendant tries to get it dismissed. Prenda could claim that the two cases were not the same matter/issue, but it is weak a$$ argument. All you have to show is the same public IP address, same alleged date/time of infringement, same movie, and the “wonderful” settlement letters that stating in no uncertain terms that “YOU” as the ISP subscriber are responsible for copyright infringement.

        DTD 🙂

  20. This is Craig Fenn and I was Chas also.. I was trying to protect myself with the Chas. First of all I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart. This is a wonderful resource for those of us that are being extorted by these trolls. Here’s how it went down, 7:20 am yesterday I was served with a summons from Ruggiero that was 13 pages long. It accused me not only a one time violation but actively still distributing and profiting from sharing the video, So, I called my Atty and he said it was going to cost 2000. to fight the case. I call the clerks office and inquired about how to answer it.
    She didn’t tell me it was dismissed! So, I came back to here for help. You guys really came through for me. I called the clerks office today and asked why I got served when it was dismissed? No satisfactory answer. Now I have Grandchildren and my name is all over the internet associated with a porn movie copyright infringement that I never committed. It makes me VERY ANGRY!
    But you guys were great! Thanks again!

    • Ruggiero filed the dismissal on 27 Dec 12, and the judge approved it on 2 Jan 13. They likely already paid the process server and couldn’t be bothers to call and cancel. They might have even hoped you would decide to pay after getting the summons/complaint. Not sure on the reason, but some Prenda clients are pulling out of this due to bad press/exposure. I would also check the copyright registration to make sure it was good. http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.98606/gov.uscourts.ctd.98606.12.1.pdf Send him an email asking why he is a DB. *** It is funny that a lawyer uses Hotmail as his official email. ***

      DTD 🙂

  21. As many are aware, Troll Ruggiero filed 5 suits against named defendants in early Oct (2x Sunlust, 1x Millenium TGA, 1x First Time Videos, and 1X AF Holdings) in addition to one Guava suit against a Doe with 3 IP addresses with two different ISP’s in two different ends of the state where duplicated discovery of “co-conspirators” was also being sought. Anyway, six cases total.

    In late December the 2 Sunlust, 1 Millienium and the 1 First time Video cases were dismissed without prejudice (we knew that as of a few weeks go, and Ruggiero even tried to serve one of the dismissed defendants AFTER dismissal). The Guava case still lingers……

    Well, there’s an interesting development in the AF Holdings case against Olivas. Well, Mr. Olivas obtained counsel in CT, who in turn retained JASON SWEET 🙂 to appear pro hac vice, AND councel has filed an answer to the complaint WITH COUNTERCLAIMS! We have a fighter here in the nutmeg state. This won’t even be much of a commute for Mr. Sweet. Ha! I’ve recapped the relevant documents

    1. Counsel’s phv application for Jason Sweet

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.9.0.pdf

    2. Sweet’s affidavit

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.9.1.pdf

    3. Answer to Complaint with Counterclaims

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.10.0.pdf

    4. Updated docket:

    The counterclaim is tied to the Alan Cooper fraud!

  22. Four (2X Sunlust, 1X Millenium TGA, 1x First Time videos) of the six (other two being 1x Guava and 1x AF Holdings) that Ruggiero filed in CT have been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs as previously discussed. There’s no new activity on the lingering CT Guava case, BUT the named defendant in the AF Holdings case has:

    1. Filed an Answer WITH COUNTERCLAIMS that makes reference to the Alan cooper fraud

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.10.0.pdf


    2. He’s using local counsel who, in turn, is making use of Jason Sweet’s expertise 🙂

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.9.0.pdf

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.9.1.pdf

    Ruggiero, AF, and Steele/Prenda are now on the hook in the good ol Nutmeg State. Ha! 🙂

    Docket updated

    • Very nice answer and counterclaims! This is the first time I have seen an AF Holdings response which points out the obvious; the assignee is AF Films, not AF Holdings. Accordingly the plaintiff should be AF Films. This discrepancy cannot be a mistake and has to be a, as yet unknown, part of the scam.

  23. Ruggiero moved to strike a lot in the AF Holdings case.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.14.0.pdf

    For example, in regards to Alan Cooper:
    “Finally, Defendant perpetuates a conspiracy theory regarding Alan Cooper. (ECF No. 10
    at 11-12.) As Plaintiff has explained in numerous pleading in other cases, this conspiracy theory
    is completely unfounded. Defendant even goes so far as to claim that Plaintiff and its counsel
    have participated in a “fraud.” (Id. at 12.) The only evidence Defendant provides regarding a
    “fraud” is the fact that multiple people with name “Alan Cooper” exist. (See generally id.)
    Defendant chose not to do any actual research into this false conspiracy, but instead decided to
    perpetuate it in an ill-conceived attempt to avoid liability without having to actually address
    Plaintiff’s allegation. Because these false allegations are immaterial, impertinent, and
    scandalous, the Court should strike them from the pleading.”

    I think, after reading this filing, that the first two things will be striken (the part about how many suits they have running… the other being the Forensics) but I think the Alan Cooper section will not be striken because he didn’t fully address the allegations and merely tried to lead the court into thinking that the only thing the defendant said was “There are lots of Alan Coopers.”

    I think Ruggiero knows the hunt for Cooper will go on in CT, but this is merely a delay tactic.

  24. I have a hopefully potentially interesting question to pose here regarding Ruggiero’s other action to dismiss statements in this filing here:

    Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.15.0.pdf

    In the defendants filing that he’s responding to, the defendant stated that:
    “Plaintiff is barred from seeking statutory damages, costs and/or attorneys’ fees under 17
    U.S.C. § 504 because the alleged infringement, if any, commenced prior to Plaintiff’s ownership of a
    registered copyright.”

    Now Ruggiero responds with the following:

    “Further, in judicial proceedings, a “certificate of registration made before or within five
    years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the
    copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (1977). Plaintiff’s
    certificate of registration meets this requirement and establishes prima facie evidence of a valid
    copyright. (ECF No. 1-1.)”

    What’s interesting to me about “17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (1977)” which you can read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/410 is that it seems to only cover audio recordings and books – judging by the terminology used (“published”) and looking at 17 USC § 408(b) “Deposit for Copyright Registration” which can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/408 where it states that to obtain copyright you must provide a copy of a book or a “phonorecord” which is just an audio recording. (And only covers audio recordings.)

    So, my question is: Is Ruggiero actually quoting the correct copyright laws?

    I checked copyright.gov and found this which DIRECTLY states that it’s for audio/visual/motion recordings:

    Click to access circ45.pdf

    Which states:
    “However, the Copyright Office must have acted on your application before you can file a suit for copyright infringement, and certain remedies, such as statutory damages and attorney’s fees, are available only for acts of infringement that occur after the effective date of registration. If a published work was infringed before the effective date of registration, those remedies may also be available if the effective date of registration is no later than 90 days after the first publication of the work.”

    So, based on this, wouldn’t the original rights holder have to file suit against the individuals? Wouldn’t the NEW copyright holders have no grounds since their registration effective date under their company name be after the alleged dates of infringement?

    I’d be happy to be educated if I am otherwise wrong here.

Comments are closed.