Florida

Please discuss Florida federal cases here. The issues related to Florida state/county courts (Pure Bill Of Discovery loophole), please visit this thread.

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

230 responses to ‘Florida’

  2. Anyone heard anything further on the 27 Terik Hashmi Cases that were consolidated? I unfortunately am wrapped up in one of the cases.

    Thanks!

    Reply

  3. 4 more new cases by these trolls 3/28/12, showed up on RFC

    Florida Middle District Court

    Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

    we need to end all this crap soon.

    Reply

  4. Interesting. This case, John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-14 (3:12-cv-00337-HES-JRK), is targeting 14 does. It is alleging the does used bittorent and infringed ont Plaintiff’s registered TRADEMARKED works, not copyrighted works.

    Reply

    • Interesting but the complaint is not going to withstand a motion to dismiss and should not be sufficient to support a motion for third party subpoenas IMHO http://ia701200.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269629/gov.uscourts.flmd.269629.1.0.pdf Patrick Collin’s troll tried to pull this same stunt by asserting a cause of action for trademark infringement (violation of the Lanham Act) in the Eastern District of PA and Judge Davis, while not directly ruling on the viability of the cause of action noted as follows;

      Plaintiff’s complaint baldly asserts that each of Defendant’s unauthorized uses of
      the PATRICK COLLINS and ELEGANT ANGEL marks will confuse consumers into
      purchasing Defendants’ goods or services, mistakenly believing them to be Collins’ goods
      and/or services. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 61-65). However, the complaint lacks any specific factual
      allegations that John Doe Defendants sold, distributed, or advertised any goods, much less goods bearing Plaintiff’s trademarks; or that Defendants have used Plaintiff’s trademarks “in
      commerce.” Instead, the facts alleged in the complaint show, at most, that all twenty-six (26)
      John Doe Defendants participated in a BitTorrent swarm to obtain a copy of Plaintiff’s movie.
      We harbor some doubt that these facts, even if true, support a claim of trademark infringement.
      See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
      cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” will not survive a motion to dismiss).

      Click to access USCOURTS-paed-2_11-cv-07247-0.pdf

      This complaint filed by troll Eisenberg is likewise lacking in any factual specificity whatsoever; it is a POS and quite possibly grounds for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.

      Reply

    • A few interesting things about the case John Stagliano, Inc. v.
      (in a twisted and unethical troll way):

      (1) They chose Florida MIDDLE district court. It’s probably forum shopping. Eisenberg is in Miami (Florida Southern District), Stagliano is listed as Van Nuys, CA. Their chances may be lower in Miami courts, though Eisenberg is nearby. The Miami area would have a larger population to make allegations about.

      (2) Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, P.L, may be going all in, by making it clear that at least two of the partners are major lawyers for the porn studio demand scam. Steven E. Eisenberg is willing to have his name on these cases, as well as Keith Lipscomb. Added to this are the out of state cases they may also be running with other lawyers filing for them.

      (3) Stagliano has considerable experience dealing with legal matters, including troll cases in the U.S. and the U.K. going back to 2008. He is a supposed libertarian, though he has no problem disturbing Does with allegations.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Angel_studio
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stagliano

      Reply

      • Stagliano may be going the trademark route because his directors own more of the films and he would like to troll for all his films:

        “The company differs from most other porn studios in that it contracts with in-house directors and permits them to own the films that they create, while Evil Angel handles the film’s manufacture, distribution, promotion and sales and takes a percentage of the gross sales.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Angel_studio

        The troll trademark cases might be even weaker than the troll copyright cases. It is even MORE CLEARLY a scam to make threats and grab cash.

        The maximum statutory damages for trademark cases are much lower (30 thousand). There are 8 elements to trademark confusion, one of which is “Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark”. Hard to believe a plaintiff in real case could come close to establishing these 8 for a group of alleged unknown torrent participants allegedly joined for an unknown time for unknown reasons.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

        Reply

  5. I’ve noticed that they are targeting less Does (any doe is bad) ~ 12-21 does, I don’t have access to the actual documents, but are they just picking on the local people only now?

    Reply

  6. Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL has file at least 11 cases in the last two days for porn studio troll plaintiffs.

    Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL may have decided to become major representatives for porn studio plaintiffs in this scheme.

    The cases were referred to 8 different judges. The volume of cases by itself may be a mess for the Florida Middle District court. It’s probably not an accident that Eisenberg’s plaintiffs are going outside of the Florida Southern District court, where more troll cases were filed.

    Reply

    • First, the Miami-Dade cases are under the State of Florida county jurisdictions, and are not Federal cases. As described at the top of this page, those cases are here:

      https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/

      Second, there are about a dozen or more Miami-Dade county troll cases. If you are asking for info, it’s good to give the case number(s), the date of filing and the lead plaintiff, if you know.

      Reply

      • Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-915, Since it’s not a federal case, does that work in my favor since i’m from MI?

        Reply

        • No, it does not matter. Miami-Date state court is a hellhole, they do not care: 100% of anonymous per se motions are denied, 100% of motions filed by an attorney are granted. And this is not a lawsuit per se, it is discovery only, thus fighting pro se using a real name defeats the purpose of the fight and delivers exactly what trolls ask from this court: a Doe’s identity.

          I understand that this is confusing, but we have 2 threads/pages regarding Florida. State cases are discussed here.

          Reply

        • If a 100% of motions filed by an attorney are granted, why can’t we get some FL lawyers here to step up and help out? I’m not expecting them to do it for free, but I think a lot of people would kick in a few bucks to have them file an MTQ for them, as opposed to the $1-2k that they seem to be offering their services for. Obviously, if the case progressed and more personalized representation would be needed that would be understandable, but how much effort is really required to file a MTQ?

          Reply

  9. I have said it before; this FL lawsuit is all about getting paid. The trolls, and the defense attorneys with the judges taking care of that this smooth method of soaking Does moves along unimpeded. I have also said this before, this would make for a great story for a Miami-Dade newspaper who could protect your anonymity as a source. Be sure to let the press know that these state courts are presiding over what are essentially copyright infringement cases over which they have no subject matter jurisdiction.

    Reply

    • i have always woundered if the defense attorneys are cavhorting with the plaintiff attorneys, i contacted one of the lawyers who advertises that he fights these cases and he told me it would cost $1500 for him to negotiate a settlement for me and that the average settlement he is able to negotiate down to is around $2900, he also said that filing a MTQ would not help because it would probably get denied by the court. i guess in his mind everyone should get paid. i hate lawyers….

      Reply

  10. I have based the date on MTQ. What is confusing me is i feel like i would have gotten some settlement letters and stuff by now but we’ve only recieved one phone call. I talked to a few lawyers one charging a $5,000 retainer and it sounded like I’d probablly end up only getting a little back. The second lawyer said that his fee for a MTQ was about $2,500, that seemed high. Since I passed the date anyway, he was charging $1,200 to what he called “deflecting calls”. First lawyer mentioned settling a few times, second was lawyer was very anti-settlement. I’m not sure what to do. Decided to just let it go for a bit since we really haven’t been contacted very much. Does anyone know the rate in which people actually get dragged into court? I think being represented at all has to lower the chances. Any more opinions on the matter?

    Reply

    • I appreciate the prompt answers. I just have one more. What the difference in a discovery and a lawsuit? How does that affect me?

      Reply

      • Discovery in these cases mainly refers to the troll plaintiff (porn movie business) and their henchmen getting the name, address and phone of the account holder from the ISP for the I.P. addresses that make allegations about.

        When trolls get the contact information, they start making demands-threats really-as described here:
        https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/about/

        A lawsuit to actually get a court judgement against a person involves the trolls to file an individual case and name the defendant, then serve a subpoena to the defendant and go through stages of a trial.

        Some stages of the legal process are described here:

        http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/
        (click on the “don’t panic” article)

        The trolls have mainly extorted cash before the naming stage. They have not been going to trial against defendants who respond. They can collect thousands from a single uninformed doe with an hour or two of work. Even if it were possible for a troll strong evidence (look at this and other blogs) and a proper allegation, going to trial to collect from a single Doe would take months.

        This is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

        Reply

    • The denial of the MTQ in the Florida Middle District is disappointing. The judge’s citing of precedent is very selective and consistently in the plaintiff’s favor.

      Calling jurisdiction as proper overlooks that most Does are out of state. This could easily be determined by the plaintiff, the judge or anyone using free I.P. geolocation. The court overlooks numerous rulings where jurisdiction and joinder in similar cases have been judged improper.

      The court’s reasoning that a Doe must submit notarized evidence of location outside of Florida is circular. For notarized documentation, a Doe would be presenting the information that the troll is trying (improperly) to discover.

      Judge Chappell’s opinion notes: “Plaintiff does not assert in its Brief which provisions of the Florida long-arm statute are specifically relevant to personal jurisdiction over these Defendants.”

      Geolocation searches could be immediately validated. No troll “proprietary” forensic software method has ever been validated, in a court of law or elsewhere.

      The troll case lacks accuracy of allegation and evidence. The court appears to allow the Plaintiff to pay a single tiny fee while asking thousands of Does, at their expense, to disprove things that the troll Plaintiff could not have and has not established.

      Reply

  12. Thought everyone might like this little gem that just came out yesterday:

    IN THE CIRCUIT COUNTY
    FILED ST. CLAIR COUNTY
    TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS

    APR 12 2012

    ORDER
    Case called for hearing on pending motions to quash subpoenas: parties present through counsel, arguments heard IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
    1) All pending motions to quash subpoenas filed by the ISPs are Denied.
    2) All ISPs shall comply with plaintiffs outstanding subpoenas (consistent with the court’s order entered 12/16/11) as follows: ISPs shall issue any required statutory notice of this order to their subscribers and shall produce all client subscriber identifying information (including but not limited to name and address) on or before 6/12/12. (By agreement of plaintiff and Comcast, Comcast to produce 80% of its compliance on or before said date with final compliance to be completed by 6/26/12.)
    3) The 18Ps shall provide the following notice in substantially the following form to their subscribers:
    “we have been ordered to provide your identifying information to Prenda Law pursuant to a court order dated April 12,2012 in the case Lightspeed Media Corp. vs. John Doe, case number l1-L-683 in 81. Clair County, Illinois. The court has ordered that any motions filed relating to this order will be heard on July 20, 2012 at 10:00am. No other dates will be set to hear any motions relating to compliance with outstanding subpoenas. All Non-Attorneys are prohibited from directly contacting the court in any manner other than in writing.”
    4) In the event one or more ISP subscribers file a motion of any kind relating to the release of their private information, that ISP shall delay production with respect to the moving subscribers only and shall not delay the release of the information of any other subscribers.
    5) All pleadings objecting to the release of information must list the IP address associated with the person objecting. The ISP that has the subscribers information shall preserve all information until the court rules on the objecting motion.

    Let me summarize it for those of you who are not used to using more than one brain cell, or one hand, at a time: The Master Troll came out from under his bridge and taught Comcast, Verizon, ATT, BellSouth, WayPort, Qwest, Cox, CenturyTel, Embarq some law! (After typing all those ISP names, I know what your right hands must feel like!). So for the 6500 pirates (that number is not a typo) in this case who were gloating that your ISP’s were protecting your crimes, get ready. There are some eager people that have been waiting for this day for some time. I know what your thinking, most of the crap written on this site is not true, how do I know this is accurate? Here is how you can tell. In the next ten days, a little bird has told me that the first 100 individual cases against NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#. If you see your name in lights (or the names of 100 of your pirating buddies), maybe, just maybe, they are really are coming after you thieving criminals.

    PS. 1000 cases in May 🙂

    Reply

    • Big deal John. Talk Talk Talk. Zero Zero Zero. We have all dealt with the various courts eventually releasing subscriber information, especially in the jurisdictions friendly to you. Funny how you can claim the 6500 pirates are not a typo, but your firm can’t get the correct number of cases you have filed and NEVER served a single defendant into a court document in CA. Wow, you are going to name people and put them on your Web site. Please, go ahead and make it easier for the people who actually file counterclaims against your Plaintiff. Can’t wait to see how your two CA cases turn out. Bottom line Master Troll – your evidence (public IP address) is weak and you know it. You will no doubt get some people to settle, that is the nature of this game. Be warned as you try to be more forceful, more lawyer on the other side will see a chance to take your Plaintiff for everything they have. Can’t wait to see your technical experts get tore up.
      DTD 🙂

      Reply

    • Trying to gather some info, so any insight would be helpful. Steve Eisenberg of Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker filed some lawsuits on behalf of some pornographers instead of his partner Michael Keith Lipscomb who normally files all cases on behalf of these pornographers in FL. Recently in some of these cases Lipscomb has moved to be substituted in and the motion is granted as a matter of course. But why go to the effort, both Trolls work under the same bridge?

      Reply

      • Some possibilities: M. Keith Lipscomb prefers to have a less widespread and obvious association as lead attorney for porn studio schemes. It may be that for whatever reason, he was not available to file at certain times.

        Take a look at the more recent Miami-Dade county case at the court clerk website. (I know that the state cases have a different page, but this relates to the question on this page.)

        PATRICK COLLINS INC vs DOES, JOHN (1-22) 3/7/2012
        2012-8861-CA-01
        13-2012-CA-008861-0000-01

        Previously, Michael Keith Lipscomb aka M. Keith Lipscomb aka Keith Lipscomb was the attorney of record for many Miami-Dade porn studio copyright troll cases, including at least ten for Patrick Collins (with other plaintiffs, like K-Beech, Raw, Zero Tolerance, Third Degree), and 2 for Nucorp & Malibu Media. The cases involved thousands of Does.

        More recently, Patrick Collins, Inc, the repeat porn studio troll plaintiff in Miami-Dade has a different attorney of record listed. On this one,

        Thomas S. Ward of Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez is the attorney of record for the March 2012 case for long-time troll Patrick Collins(aka K-Beech/Frank Collins). This lawyer “practices commercial and business litigation, with an emphasis in real estate”. The entire firm has stated interests in real estate, housing, and commercial law. No mention of copyright work at all.

        Could it be that this attorney is filing papers for another lawyer or firm ?

        Reply

        • Thank you. Now let me ask you this: Could it be that Lipscomb is smarter than your average Troll (thinking of you,Buffy) and he realizes that the source of the Doe info (Miami-Dade pure bill of discovery cases) could be attacked at the federal level because it was obtained improperly in a state court that had no subject matter jurisdiction (federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright matters) to order the release of the info in the first place and is trying to cover his tracks?

          Reply

    • Reply to Raul’s comments about jurisdiction, I had always wondered about this being something like the saying “Fruit of the poisonous tree” since they obtained the names “illegally”.

      Keep up the great work Raul, DTD and SJD !!

      Reply

    • Shameful indeed.

      Another interesting nugget on this case: dkt 10: “The Plaintiff was given until April 12, 2012, to respond to the Related Case Order (Doc. No. 4) and the Interested Persons Order (Doc. No. 5), both entered March 29, 2012. Plaintiff complied with the Interested Persons Order (Certificate of Interested Persons at Doc. No. 7) but has failed to respond to the Related Case Order. Therefore, the plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by May 3, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed, which may include dismissal of this case, for failure to respond to the Related Case Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on April 19, 2012.”

      Click to access gov.uscourts.flmd.269605.10.0.pdf

      Suck it trolls

      Reply

      • What is also interesting is that Troll Lipscomb’s partner Eisenberg filed most of these recent MDFL cases and, now, Lipscomb is making numerous motions to be substituted in as plaintiff’s attorney of record. There has to be a reason, I just don’t see it.

        Reply

        • Let’s pick at that list of shame a little bit:

          1) two trolls show up on the list:

          – Alexander O. Lian of Lian & Associates in the earlier cases through #10 – (11-cv-00358) and
          – Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL in #11 and later
          (curious to learn more about the connection, researching…)

          2) NONE of their FL-Miami-Dade State cases showed up on the shameful list. Technicality? Perhaps a troll could argue it if it ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. But it reeks of a LIE VIA OMISSION from my point of view. The list is simply too huge to overlook.

          3/16/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC, NUCORP LTD DOMINICA CORP, RAW FILMS LTD A UNITED KINGDOM CORP, v DOES 1-1053
          FL Miami-Dade County – M.Kieth Lipscomb
          2011-8344-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-008344-0000-01

          3/22/2011 RAW FILMS (LTD) vs DOES, JOHN 1-871
          FL Miami-Dade County – M. Kieth Lipscomb
          2011-8875-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-008875-0000-01

          3/22/2011 Raw Films, Ltd. v. Does 1-647
          FL Miami-Dade County – M. Kieth Lipscomb
          11-08875CA21

          5/3/2011
          PATRICK COLLINS INC, NUCORP (LTD), RAW FILMS (LTD) vs DOES, JOHN (1-661)
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2011-13848-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-013848-0000-01

          6/17/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC vs DOE, JOHN (1-1003)
          FL Miami-Dade County – Lipscomb
          2011-18746-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-018746-0000-01

          7/29/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC CALIF CORP vs DOEXS, JOHN (1-350)
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2011-23734-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-023734-0000-01

          8/8/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC, NUCORP LTD, RAW FILMS LTD vs DOES, JOHN (1-1544)
          FL Miami-Dade County – Lipscomb
          2011-24714-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-024714-0000-01

          10/19/2011 LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORP vs DOES 1-160
          FL Miami-Dade County – Lipscomb
          2011-34345-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-034345-0000-01

          11/14/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC, THIRD DEGREE FILMS INC, K BEECH INC, RAW FILMS (LTD), NUCORP (LTD), ZERO TOLERANCE ENTERTAINMENT INC vs JOHN DOES 1-915
          FL Miami-Dade County) – Lipscomb
          2011-37821-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-037821-0000-01

          11/14/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC, THIRD DEGREE FILMS INC, K BEECH INC, RAW FILMS (LTD), NUCORP (LTD), ZERO TOLERANCE ENTERTAINMENT INC vs JOHN DOES 1-1024
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2011-37823-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-037823-0000-01

          12/19/2011 PATRICK COLLINS INC, K-BEECH INC vs DOES, JOHN 1-414
          FL Miami-Dade County – Lipscomb
          2011-42412-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-042412-0000-01

          12/19/2011 RAW FILMS LTD vs DOES, JOHN 1-321
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2011-42407-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-042407-0000-01

          12/19/2011 NUCORP (LTD), THIRD DEGREE FILMS INC, K BEECH INC, RAW FILMS LTD, DIABOLIC VIDEO PRODUCTIONS INC, BERLIN MEDIA ART JT EK, ZERO TOLERANCE ENTERTAINMENT INC, PATRICK COLLINS INC vs DOES, JOHN 1-246
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2011-42403-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-042403-0000-01

          1/5/2012 NUCORP LTD, MALIBU MEDIA (LLC) CALIFORNIA CORP vs DOES, JOHN [1-451?]
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2012-331-CA-01 / 13-2012-CA-000331-0000-01

          1/17/2012 PATRICK COLLINS INC CALIF CORP, THIRD DEGREE FILMS INC, MALIBU MEDIA (LLC), RAW FILMS LTD, K BEECH INC CALIF CORP vs DOES, JOHN [ 1-397, 1-347? ]
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2012-1794-CA-01 / 13-2012-CA-001794-0000-01

          1/17/2012 PATRICK COLLINS INC, MALIBU MEDIA (LLC) vs DOES, JOHN
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2012-1797-CA-01 / 13-2012-CA-001797-0000-01

          1/19/2012 RAW FILMS (LTD) vs DOES, JOHN 1-139
          FL Miami-Dade County – KEITH LIPSCOMB
          2012-2134-CA-01 / 13-2012-CA-002134-0000-01

          3/7/2012 PATRICK COLLINS INC, MALIBU MEDIA (LLC), EVIL ANGEL PRODUCTIONS INC, K BEECH INC, NUCORP (LTD) vs DOES, JOHN (1-22)
          FL Miami-Dade County – THOMAS WARD <<<<< …. NEW GUY – WHO IS THIS TROLL ??
          2012-8861-CA-01 / 13-2012-CA-008861-0000-01

          Reply

        • re: “Lipscomb is making numerous motions to be substituted in as plaintiff’s attorney of record. ” I found that curious too… My guess (hope?) is that Eisenberg may have concluded the sh!t is gonna hit the fan …. I could imagine something like: “Lip-scum, you talked me into this mess, but I’m getting out before you take me down with your burning ship of lies.” Can a troll grow a conscience? Or maybe it’s just an ass-saving move. One assumes Eisenberg had a (less-despicable) business before trolling.

          Reply

        • I agree we may be seeing a convergence of the FL state pure bill of discovery lawsuits and the newly filed federal lawsuits. It will be interesting to see how quickly the trolls move for expedited discovery of Doe info (a duly filed motion could also be a charade as well but it risks an early severance) if that is the situation. Is the new troll strategy going to be file complaint, shake down Does and then close down lawsuit before the judge is any wiser? If so there is the risk that a Doe will advise the federal judge as to the extortion and the judge will ask the troll why the Does were not named in the first place which will be uncomfortable for the troll to justify a subterfuge on the court.

          Reply

  16. Anyone heard anything further on the 27 Terik Hashmi Cases that were consolidated? I unfortunately am wrapped up in one of the cases. I know that they were dismissed without prejudice (No. 4:11-cv-00570) but I anticipated them being refiled by now.

    Thanks!

    Reply

  17. I encourage anybody who is thinking of filing an MTQ to do two things:

    1) Look up your particular case and see if the judge/mastritrate is granting MTQ’s and on what basis. If they are not granting MTQ’s, it’s probably a waste of money to file one unless you want to make the troll work harder.

    2) If you do decide to file a MTQ, shop around. I received quotes ranging from $400 to $2200 for a lawyer to do this. Most are fixed-fee quotes, some are retainers.

    Reply

    • I have a question about districts. I do not live in the Middle district of Florida, but elsewhere. Can I MTQ on being filed in an incorrect district?

      Also has anyone worked with a lawyer in Florida that is reasonable for a working class guy?

      Thanks

      Reply

      • I am not from FL and mu ISP notified me they were served in FL and would comply with the order unless I contested and my attorney contacted them.

        This guy is great and in FL. He’s the lawyer I hired after 3 weeks of research (I would have done more but my ISP didn’t give me any more time). Rates are more reasonable than some of the other attorneys in FL:

        Richard M. Viscasillas, Esq.
        3400 NE 192 Street # 508
        Aventura, FL 33180
        Tel: 954-663-4969
        http://www.cyberdefenselawyer.com/index.html

        Reply

  18. Any news on this case?

    10/19/2011 LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORP vs DOES 1-160
    FL Miami-Dade County – Lipscomb
    2011-34345-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-034345-0000-01

    Reply

  19. Frequent filer attorney M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker filed EIGHT new cases for porn purveyor plaintiffs in Florida Middle District (FLMD) Court this week. Lipscomb is also attorney of record for many Miami-Dade county Florida state court cases involving thousands of mostly out of state Does.

    FLMD is not the nearby court for Mr. Lipscomb. His office is in Miami, located in Florida Southern District Court Jurisdiction. His office is between 156 & 345 miles (2&1/2 to 5&1/2 hour drive times) from the 5 branches of the FLMD Court. The range of distances between the 5 Middle District Court branches is 79 to 215 miles (1&1/2 to 3&1/2 hour drive times).

    This looks like deceitful FORUM SHOPPING. The Florida Middle District Court is a busy, with large geographic area & large population. Two recent FLMD cases for porn purveyor Celestial Inc. (plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey W. Weaver of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, PLLC) were granted expedited discovery.

    Mr. Lipscomb filed 8 cases total for two porn purveyor business-Malibu Media LLC & Patrick Collins, Inc. The cases were filed at 3 DIFFERENT branches (Ft. Meyers, Tampa & Jacksonville) with EIGHT different judges assigned. The aim may be to hide the plan and number of filings.

    It gets worse. Mr. Lipscomb’s partner, Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL, used the same sneaky apparent forum shopping tactic on 3/28/12. He filed 14 total copyright troll cases for 5 different porn purveyors involving 5 branches of FLMD and 12 DIFFERENT assigned judges.

    Reply

  20. Here’s a list of 5/15/12 copyright troll suits in Florida Middle District Court with multiple branches and judges:
    Plaintiff Counsel: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL
    File Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

    1. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-67
    Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00267-UA-SPC
    Judge Sheri Polster Chappell –Ft. Meyers

    2. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-20
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-01076-JDW-AEP
    Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli –Tampa

    3. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-55
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-01075-SDM-TBM
    Judge Steven D. Merryday Referred To: Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III –Tampa

    4. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-01074-MSS-MAP
    Judge Mary S. Scriven Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo –Tampa

    5. Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-32
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00574-HLA-JRK
    Senior Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Referred To: Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt –Jacksonville

    6. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-01077-SDM-TGW
    Judge Steven D. Merryday Referred To: Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson –Tampa

    7. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00575-MMH-TEM
    Judge Marcia Morales Howard Referred To: Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris –Jacksonville

    8. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-25
    Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00266-JES-DNF
    Judge John E. Steele Referred To: Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier –Ft. Meyers

    Reply

  21. Here’s a list of 3/28/12 copyright troll suits in FLMD with multiple branches and judges:
    Plaintiff Counsel: Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL
    Court: Florida Middle District Court File Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2012
    Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement (except for Stagliano case, #2)

    1) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-20
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00340-MMH-JRK
    Defendant: John Does 1-20
    Judge: Judge Marcia Morales Howard –Jacksonville
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt –Jacksonville

    2) John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-14
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00337-HES-JRK
    Defendant: John Does 1-14
    Cause: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement
    Judge: Senior Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger –Jacksonville
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt –Jacksonville

    3) Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-16
    Court Case Number: 6:12-cv-00477-ACC-KRS
    Defendant: John Does 1-16
    Judge: Chief Judge Anne C. Conway -Orlando
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding –Orlando

    4) Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Candace Herron et al
    Court Case Number: 6:12-cv-00478-GAP-GJK
    Defendant:Candace Herron, John Does 1-11
    Judge: Judge Gregory A. Presnell –Orlando
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly –Orlando

    5) Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-8
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00334-TJC-JBT
    Defendant: John Does 1-8
    Judge: Judge Timothy J. Corrigan –Jacksonville
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey –Jacksonville

    6) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-19
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00335-UATC-MCR
    Defendant: John Does 1-19
    Judge: Referred To: Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson –Jacksonville

    7) Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-18
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00336-UAMH-JBT
    Defendant: John Does 1-18
    Judge: Referred To: Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey –Jacksonville

    8) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-21
    Court Case Number: 5:12-cv-00159-MMH-TBS
    Defendant: John Does 1-21
    Judge: Judge Marcia Morales Howard –Jacksonville
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith –Ocala

    9) Nucorp, Ltd v. John Does 1-11
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-00665-RAL-EAJ
    Defendant: John Does 1-11
    Judge: Judge Richard A. Lazzara –Tampa
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins –Tampa

    10) Raw Films, LTD v. John Does 1-11
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-00667-SDM-TBM
    Defendant: John Does 1-11
    Judge: Judge Steven D. Merryday –Tampa
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III –Tampa

    11) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-9
    Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-00669-SDM-AEP
    Defendant: John Does 1-9
    Judge: Judge Steven D. Merryday –Tampa
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli –Tampa
    12) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-13
    Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00177-JES-SPC
    Defendant: John Does 1-13
    Judge: Judge John E. Steele –Ft. Meyers
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell –Ft. Meyers

    13) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-35
    Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00178-UA-DNF
    Defendant: John Does 1-35
    Judge: Referred To: Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier –Ft. Meyers

    14) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-6
    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00338-HLA-MCR
    Defendant: John Does 1-6
    Judge: Senior Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. –Jacksonville
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson –Jacksonville

    Reply

      • Whats that mean?
        Is it mean they’re asking the plaintiff to release their information regarding the case?

        Reply

      • A Corporate Disclosure statement is a legal document that discloses the power structure and financial activity of a company. This statement serves as a permanent record of the key executives at the company, their financial dealings as well as their misdeeds. BURN!!!!

        Reply

    • Someone posted this in another thread, I re-posted it Yesterday.
      It is a podcast with Adam Curry, who happens to be friends with the owner of X-Art/Malibu Media. Around the two minute mark, he discusses how torrents impact his business.

      The best part is where Adam Curry explains how Malibu came into the trolling business.

      He claims that the copyright owners are only receiving 10% of the settlement amounts.

      http://409.nashownotes.com/

      Reply

      • He described the copyright trolling scheme quite well:

        “essentially pressuring them, like mob, into settling.”

        “a complete mafioso operation.”

        As for the company who received the $300,000 check, he adds “they stopped doing this because they thought it was kinda inherently wrong.” He must not be referring to Malibu Media seeing as their last lawsuit was filed on May 15th.

        Reply

        • It may really be that Malibu Media/x-art.com is no longer giving rights to file suit for infringement. Recently filed troll cases could be for rights obtained months ago. The so-called forensics team wants several months to run the honeypot. Then the list of allegations goes to the troll lawyer partner, and local troll lawyer.

          It’s a little encouraging if x-art.com/Malibu Media really is stopping its participation. Large studios may realize malicious schemes by troll groups make porn businesses even more open to question.

          Reply

    • Good find. The RFC listing seems to indicate that Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding presided over some of the case, while Judge Anne Conway signed the order to close the file. According to the FLMD website, the Honorable Anne C. Conway is Chief District Judge. The contributions of both a Magistrate Judge and the Chief District Judge suggests momentum is shifting to discourage the trolls.

      As mentioned before, FLM has 5 branches in a large territory. AFAIK the 22 troll cases filed by Lipscomb & Eisenberg are spread over at least 4 of the branches. It appears these troll lawyers want to sneak in many cases without the total being noticed in the district. Hopefully, FLMD judges realize the extent of this frivolous burden on a busy district.

      Wohlsifer’s site lists many of these Lipscomb & Eisenberg cases, plus some others

      http://infringement-attorney.com/bittorrentlawsuits/bittorrentcases.html

      Reply

  24. Does anyone know of Wohlsifer, William rates? Curious to see how him representing John Doe 11 goes. Hopefully they’ll shut down the entire case.

    Reply

    • The Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-13 case is at the Fort Meyers branch of FLMD. The failed Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-16 was judged at the Orlando branch (3 hours away).

      The Chief District Judge knows directly about the Order to Show Cause in the Orlando troll case. It’s possible that Wohlsifer sees Ft. Meyers decision as especially important (long travel time to the Ft. Myers court), following the recent troll setback.

      Interesting that the same attorney, Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker, filed these two cases on the same date, heard at different branches. He also filed 12 more cases on that date that are spread among the FLMD branches.

      Reply

    • Hi Raul,

      Sorry, can you explain in easier terms, I tried to read the doc, is this even in the NJ courts?

      thanks as always for your input

      Reply

      • It means he is trying to get the court to prevent due process on behalf of the defendant. Comcast might hand over the account holder’s name tomorrow and he doesnt want a MTQ to be filed before he has a chance to the IP details. I notice he didnt server comcast with notice that the subpoena was in question.

        Reply

    • 16. Finally, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enjoin Defendant from filing a Motion to Quash in New Jersey before the matter is resolved with this Court to avoid conflicting rulings, the need for both parties to obtain local counsel, and further litigation costs.
      WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an order enjoining Defendant from filing a Motion to Quash in New Jersey and directing Plaintiff as to the proper course of action to take with respect to the subpoenas.

      That part of the petition to the court right there makes me want to laugh, so hard. It’s okay for them to go around and demand people get legal counsel in their Florida rampage, but god forbid someone step up and demand they actually obtain counsel to get what they need for the shake down in a proper venue. I mean. Am I the only one that sees the Hypocrisy of them suing someone half the nation away, and demanding they seek legal counsel in Florida, when they live in like. Maine? Or heck say Washington or Oregon. Yet they demand the court not let the same system they use, be turned around on them?

      Reply

      • Hypocrisy yes. The fake concern for the Defendant and court economy is especially laughable:

        “to avoid …the need for both parties to obtain local counsel, and further litigation costs”

        Imagine if a troll lawyer accidentally swallowed truth serum:
        “Your honor, we want to avoid proper jurisdiction and proper joinder, because due process is just too expensive. Our cases are unethical and too shaky to proceed. Please let us just make a quick buck with harassing demands.”

        Reply

  26. SJD tweeted about this Fort Lauderdale newspaper article today:
    Adult-film downloaders increasingly face ‘John Doe’ copyright lawsuits
    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-copyright-trolls-porn-20120520,0,853123.story
    “Miami attorney M. Keith Lipscomb, who represents the two producers, said in an email statement the newest suits target “the worst-of-the-worst habitual infringers” who have illegally downloaded scores of films from his clients and others.”

    It’s quite a claim. The Lipscomb quote does not mention accuracy. How does he claim to identify the worst of the worst, if he doesn’t know the name of one ? He can’t reliably link an IP address to an individual. How could Lipscomb claim that these alleged infringers download from other rights holders? Residential I.P.’s are not static. They change often. Would claim Lipscomb that a single IP address is alleged downloading scores of films on the same day ? He claims alleges habitual users but gives no evidence for alleged multiple infringement

    For example, take the 3/28/12 FLMD case Malibu Media vs. Does 1-35. The work is “Veronica Wet Orgasm”. The honeypot I.P. collection runs over two months. An unproven alleged technology of unknown accuracy with profit motives claims to identify collaboration over months of unknown persons who also do not know each other to unknown extents.

    “He [Michael Keith Lipscomb] said his clients have no choice but to sue to prevent further harm to their businesses…”

    The lawyer groups for Malibu Media (x-art.com) & Patrick Collins Inc. (Elegant Angel studio & others) have filed hundreds of troll cases for porn purveyor plaintiffs. If there’s no other choice for copyright protection, where are the numerous takedown notices to web sites ? This is pretend righteousness by plaintiff counsel. Interesting that Lipscomb used the “ worst-of-the-worst” label to describe his aim.

    Reply

    • Lipscomb is one clever troll, unlike most who engage in Three Stooges like shenanigans, Lipscomb does not majorly screw-up (trust me, I keep looking) but I do believe his welcome mat in FLMD is wearingq thin.

      Reply

      • Here’s a list of some porn studio business that Michael Keith Lipscomb & associates have represented, with the number of cases filed nationwide by all law groups combined:

        Berlin Media Art (3)
        Diabolic Video Productions, Inc (1)
        Elegant Angel (4)
        Frank Collins (4)
        K-Beech (75)
        Malibu Media (143)
        NuCorp (8)
        Patrick Collins, Inc. (149)
        Third Degree Films (33)
        Zero Tolerance (7)

        These add up to 376 nationwide federal cases for these porn businesses, more than 1 case per working day since December 2010. The Berlin Media and Diabolic Video cases alone included over 3000 Does. In Miami Dade county Florida state court, thousands more Does were attached to cases filed by the Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker group.

        Reply

  27. Why is it that I can’t seem to find any information on Pacer with regards to the Patrick Collins vs John Does 1-414 Case #11-42412 CA 01 or is the case number 11-42412 CA 30 ? I’m trying to figure out if anyone has been able to squash the ISP subpoena. I have until June 10th until my ISP releases my name to the Trolls.

    Reply

  28. Why is it that I can’t seem to be able to find any information on Pacer about Patrick Collins vs John Does 1-414 Case #11-42412CA30. I’m trying to find out if anyone has been successful in quashing an ISP subpoena. I have until June 10 until my ISP releases my info to the Trolls. The case is in the 11th Juidicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. I live nowhere near Florida.

    Reply

  29. Does anyone have any information on this case?
    11-cv-00358 Patrick Collins vs. Does 1-57 Middle District FL.
    I’ve received voice mails but have never called back. Do they ever go past the voice mail stage?

    Reply

  30. FYI – the judge presiding over the Nu Image v Does 1-3,932 (The Mechanic) case granted quite a few MTQ’s yesterday based on improper jurisdiction. Great win!

    Reply

  31. Hmm.. Interesting news from the Southern Florida: seems that trolls become increasingly hostile to each other in protecting their turf. Probably Steele’s and Lipscomb’s packs are involved, but maybe some less known beasts.

    Also it’s outrageous that stuff like this happens on the bridge, not under.

    Reply

  32. No doubt a German monetization outfit will obtain the surveillance video, upload it to a torrent site and in a few months Does will start receiving letters regarding the infringement of “When Blumpkins Go Awry-Hungry Horndog Trolls Go Wild”.

    Reply

    • Strange troll antics continue in Florida Middle District. Lipscomb filed 8 more cases on 5/15/12, involves 269 Does. EIGHT DIFFERENT magistrate judges were assigned cases, divided among Jacksonville, Tampa, and Fort Meyers. One of the IP lists for a Lipscomb March 2012 FLMD case seemed confined to Does within the district, not just the state.
      Combining the March cases, that makes 24 porn copyright troll cases filed in FLMD in about six weeks, involving 481 Does. The cases are divided between 4 court locations and FIFTEEN DIFFERENT magistrate judges. Unless there is a very unfortunate case assignment procedure in FLMD, Lipscomb and associates may be trying to forum/judge shop (within a district!) or to mask the large number of cases.

      Reply

  35. New troll plaintiff and lawyer on the scene in Florida Northern District. The plaintiff is Tomcat Films LLC. They appear to be a non-blockbuster movie studio, with lower profile titles than Nu-image, but not a porn purveyor. They do include “erotic” films in their catalog, including “Voyeur Beach” and “Forbidden”.

    Many of their films have names or themes sounding similar to blockbusters: Alien vs Alien, The Amazing Bulk , Thunderstorm: The Return of Thor, Captain Battle, Rise of the Black Bat, etc. The lawyer of record in the troll case is Martin Bruce Sipple of Ausley & McMullen. He has done previous intellectual property work.

    Reply

  36. Plaintiff motioned for another 120 day extension in 2:11-cv-00545 – Nu Image v Does 1-3,932. I believe that the case was opened on 09/26/2011 so if the judge grants it, it will be open for more than a year!

    Reply

    • If there is a Doe who has info that has been released to the Trolls, can’t they oppose this motion as a violation of civil procedures and undue burden on the defendants? If they know your identity, put up or shut up.

      Reply

    • Well, we all need someone we can lean on. And if you want it, you can lean on me.

      Come on, living not trusting anyone sucks big time, not a life at all. Be vigilant, but not paranoid 😉 Some inevitable kicks for extending trust to crooks are OK price for preserving the unbearable lightness of being.

      Reply

      • A random observance: Trolls are young looking and obviously lacking in moral/ethical/legal guidance. It is all about the loot and not the art/professional courtesy of litigation-this will come back sooner rather than later to bite trolls in the ass.

        Reply

      • This probably happens literally a thousand times for every one we hear about. The extortion relies on even the obviously innocent (as well as the just plain innocent) caving to the threat of legal entanglements for law abiding citizens who don’t have experience with the legal system. The inequality of arms that SJD has described includes small efforts that trolls make that cause major grief for Does.

        Lipscomb’s reasoning is: Infringement happens over the airwaves. There are airwaves that cross your residence. Therefore you are guilty of infringement. He’d lose in a junior high debating club.

        Reply

  44. You heard it here first folks Heir Weretroll Meier filing cases in ND FL today. I’m guessing he either recently passed the bar or is about to go the way of Terek and Steele.

    Reply

    • Well it just looks like the “Goof Troup,” (Prenda) made another blunder and had to ammend the boiler plate declaration they use. The reason for the amended declaration is because the fools forgot to change “Ohio” to “Florida” for this case. Otherwise it is the same declaration. Side-by-side view.
      Docket – Documents # 6 & 25.

      DTD 🙂

      Reply

      • This is just getting better and better. I was reading a Troll Cable case the other day and he forgot to copy/paste the copyright date into the complaint. I wish i could remember which one it was.

        It read along the lines of. — The “work” is registered with the US Copyright Office with the Registration Number is PA000174587 and date of . See Exibit B

        Reply

  46. I just got a letter from my ISP today as my IP as been named in a Malibu Media lawsuit by none other than Lipscomb. In the past 2 hours since getting this letter, I’ve scoured the internet for information about this. I figured I’d post here for any kind of advice before heading to a lawyer.

    From what I’ve ascertained so far, I don’t think I should try and quash my name being released by my ISP to the lawyers and that this is pretty much one big extortion case. I did see the judge in NJ throw out the whole case and I’m praying the judge does the same down here in South Florida.

    I understand that you all may or may not be lawyers or are supposed to give legal advice, but any kind of information as to what I should do, who I should contact or what my rights are would be a huge help. I can barely afford to pay my bills as it is, let alone hire a lawyer or pay a $5000 or so settlement

    Reply

    • usual disclaimer: This is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

      Make sure that you have reviewed the basics/FAQ here (under the resources menu), at DTD and EFF (linked to on the resource page.) If orienting yourself is very difficult, call soon to one of the troll-repelling law offices that give a free first consultation.

      You are at the stage where trolls have gotten “discovery” and are making “demands” (threats). You don’t necessarily need a lawyer if there’s no special vulnerability at home/work to annoying troll calls. At this stage, some Does have used lawyers to stop the harassing troll calls-Does with a lawyer must be contacted only through that lawyer. Other Does have used a lawyer to negotiate a lower settlement. The point of this blog, DTD and others is to avoid feeding the nasty trolls, who will otherwise continue their extortionist ways.

      Be prepared to avoid responding to troll calls or giving them a minimal response that discourages them.
      AFAIK you have a right to tell the trolls not to call again if you speak to them directly (after they have called). There’s much danger in initiating extra contacts with the trolls, and little upside.
      http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/
      http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/15/the-richard-pryor-response-or-what-to-tell-the-troll-when-he-calls/

      The situation where a lawyer is needed quickly is where a Doe is named and served a subpoena as an individual. Naming in these cases happens rarely, and real trials on case merits never, so far. It’s far cheaper for the trolls to have lackeys make repeated threatening phone calls.

      The troll lawyer gang for porn purveyors that Lipscomb belongs to (or is the puppeteer for) has filed over 200 cases for Malibu Media porn videos alone, not mentioning their scams as agents in the name of other porn studios. They can extort more money by moving along to the next sucker rather than chasing previous targets.

      Reply

      • Thanks for the reply. As of now all they have is my IP, until July 24th when my ISP will turn over the names unless a file a motion to quash. I’m guessing if my name is turned over, that is when the harassment of calls will begin.

        I’m gonna check out the newbie section and I already found some info about a good anti-troll lawyer so I’m gonna shoot them an email.

        Reply

  47. 1:12-cv-136-SPM-GRJ

    Does anyone have a link to the docket of this case filed in ND of FL?

    Its one of Meier’s cases for Digital Sin vs Does 1-16.

    Would be much appreciated..I’m curious about two things…the film in question and if they are trying to geolocate the Does to FL.

    Thank you in advance.

    Reply

  48. In FLMD M.J. Frazier reaches a curious result in the lawsuit Celestial v. 1-242 (12-cv-82) which had been filed by Troll “Blumpkin” Weaver. In his Report and Recommendation the Judge determines that:

    “The vague and conclusory allegations in the instant Complaint (Doc. 1) are not sufficient to satisfy a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida. See, Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshal, 611 F.3d 1368, 1370 (11 th Cir. 2010). Further, participation in a BitTorrent swarm that results in copyrighted work being distributed to computers in the forum is insufficient by itself to confer specific jurisdiction over a defendant”

    Having determined that the complaint is insufficient as a matter of law the Judge recommends the quashing of the subpoenas with respect to the REPRESENTED Does?! The R&R is here http://ia600800.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.268129/gov.uscourts.flmd.268129.70.0.pdf and the docket is here http://ia600800.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.268129/gov.uscourts.flmd.268129.docket.html

    Reply

  49. What’s the story with Troll Meier in FLND? Seems he’s been run out of MD and NY. He doesnt appear on the FL bar website as being licensed and now i see several new cases.

    Reply

    • Happy Independence Day All! (not trolls who should get drunk today and then play with fireworks).

      With Troll Meier beginning to file in FLND the cynic in me wonders if he is recycling Terik Hashmi’s dismissed lawsuits?

      Reply

      • The overlapping porn purveyor plaintiffs in FLND shared by Meier and Hashmi are Digital Sin, Inc and Exquisite Multimedia, Inc. Meier’s filing for Digital Sin, Inc. involves 17 Does. Hashmi cases were all much larger, each involving at least 131 Does. Wonder if the smaller lists in Meier’s cases are to make jurisdiction seem proper.

        We know these plaintiffs have been recycling ‘creative’ “useful” ‘masterpieces’ like “My Little Panties #2” and “Supergirl XXX An Extreme Comixxx Parody” for their allegations in different cases and different states.

        Reply

  50. My IP was named in 3:12-cv-00575-MMH-TEM Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22 filed 05/15/12
    this is looking like it is going to be a real pain in the ……… I have contacted two attorneys about filing quashes waiting on the reply, I would be interested in anonymously hearing from the other accused, together we can make a stronger stand.

    If anyone has any info or advise I would appreciate it, I can be contacted at trentrb211@tormail.org

    Reply

Leave a Reply to sophisticatedjanedoe Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s