wordpress counter


142 responses to ‘Maryland

  1. Thanks! This is great! Calling all Does who’ve received documents from PLLC (Mike Meier) with a settlement offer…

    We can fight this. I personally am ready to if I could team up with some people. Bowing down to this extortion racket is unacceptable. I have not done anything wrong and am sure a lot of you are in the same situation.

  2. God bless you and best of luck . SJD -this is the beauty of these site specific pages which will hopefully catch on. My next assignment will be to wade into the convoluted word of Maryland trolling or maybe the easier realm of NY.

  3. If by chance you are looking for a group attorney you may wish to interview:

    Ryan P. Siney @
    901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610
    Towson, Maryland 21204
    Telephone: (410) 825-5223
    Telecopier: (410) 825-5426

    I understand that that Mr. Siney is a fine defense attorney and he is privy to certain secrets regarding the pedigree of the copyright of certain pornographic works which may help your case. Just mention K-Beech.

  4. SJD has asked that we initiate these pages with some basic info regarding the state of trolling in each state so today I am going to briefly write about Maryland. There are three active trolls in this state: (1)Thomas Dunlap of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, (2) Mike Meier and (3) Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox, Hoppe, Hoofnagle & Haley, LLC. Being that copyright trolling is a relatively recent phenomenon in Maryland there is little caselaw regarding these lawsuits. However there have been 2 judicial determination which have denied Does’ motions to quash/sever one of which can be viewed here Nonetheless as of this writing there are currently pending dozens of motions to quash/sever in these filed lawsuits so if someone finds an order granting such a motion please post it to this page as it will be most helpful to the Maryland Does.

  5. Raul,

    I did a quick review of the case you mention above (11-cv-01774-AW). I downloaded Doc #27 and Doc #28, where K-Beech voluntarily dismisses most of the Does, including Doe #11 (whose motion to quash was denied by the court), and then the court grants the dismissal. Any thoughts on why K-Beech chose to dismiss the Does?

  6. The typical arc of these cases is the troll obtains Does’ personal identifying information and/or counters motions filed by the Does to not disclose this information. The troll or his agent
    calls to harass the Does he has info on into settling (“pay up or you will be named in a federal lawsuit involving pornography”). After the troll collects an amount of settlement monies that he considers a reasonable return on his $350 investment (federal court filing fee) he dismisses the case without prejudice. This is the typical arc of a troll case but there are atypical ones out there. If yours is a Mike Meier lawsuit I am pretty sure (not positive ) that the lawsuit will follow the typical arc.

    The above should not be construed as legal advice but is submitted for discussion purposes only.

  7. Defendants from 8:12-cv-00088-AW, please contact me ASAP! My lawyer friend suggested some unusual idea, and he is confident that it will work.
    The case may be over as early as next week, but we need to get together ASAP, ALL of us. Please!

  8. On vacation but keeping an eye on K-Beech v. Does 1-31 (case no. 12-cv-00088), I have hopes and expectations about this one.

      • I did not notice that but it is becoming more and more common as these trolls crank out the complaints as fast as they can (I’ve see it in motion papers as well) but this case has a top tier law firm on the defense, hence my high hopes and expectations.

        • SJD-you will see an example of this in a recently dismissed SDNY case where a Doe goes batshit on this issue. I think you know where to look.

      • So SJD has the gift of fortune telling. Her April Fool’s joke came true, in a way, with one less douchebag to terrorize his neighbors. As Anonymous points out there are over 50 troll lawsuits that need severance and will get it very soon as all MD judges are behind their Chief on this one.

    • This one has a great time line. On April 24th Judge Williams denies Doe motions to quash/modify or dismiss. The next day Chief Judge Chasanow yanks the case away from Judge Williams. Less that a week afterward, Judge Chasanow eviscerates the troll lawsuit by severing all Does but Doe 1 on May 1st as part of a concerted judicial effort to torch troll operations in MD. With his troll empire in ashes, Troll Hoppe pathetically asks the Judge for more time to shake down Doe 1. Just sad.

      • Judge Chasnow has good reason to consolidate an approach to these cases. In 4+ months in 2012, there were 52 troll filings in Maryland, compared with 11 in all of 2011. Hoppe’s fee is probably on commission and the incentive would be low for one Doe. Hoppe is not a copyright lawyer. He is being directed by an overseer lawyer. Who would craft a Florida state court strategy and file many cases in Miami Dade county for Patrick Collins Inc/K-Beech ?

        • Hoppe has already nailed seven Does for a “Settlement Fee” of about $3,500 each by the looks of the proceedings. These are Does that have been dismissed with prejudice so far by Hoppe. A cool twenty five grand before the plug was pulled on him. Not a bad return on a $350.00 investment. It’s a shame these people couldn’t have held out paying him blood money until this case was Quashed. I wish there was a way the court could order Hoppe to return their money. That would really burn up a troll lawyer like Hoppe as all that money slipped backward thru his fingers.

  9. Nu Image’s 02/2012 Maryland case (2000+ Does), for the video Conan, is case is their second mass troll case in Maryland.

    The Nu Image case from 09/2011 (4000+ Does) for the video The Mechanic is still going on. Mass cases have improper jurisdiction added to other troll bad deeds. They have been trashed in other states and in DC, where these lawyer trolls withdrew another case.

    Would the EFF file another amicus brief ? The Maryland court is near the EFF DC office.

    Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PLLC is clearly FORUM SHOPPING in states convenient to them. The 9/2011 cases in Florida Middle district and Maryland were both for The Mechanic.

    Troll lawyers for Nu-Image are Thomas M. Dunlap and Jeffrey W. Weaver of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PLLC.

  10. any news on Third Degree Films v. Does 1-85, 12-CV-00023-RWT, Jan. 23, 2012 Mike Meier of The Copyright Law Group? Received a demand letter, but have ignored it.

      • Thanks for the info. What I have not been able to find out is any information on the trolls taking folks to court who have not responded to their letters. Does anyone know of any cases in which they actually followed through on their threats?

        • Looking through RFC, there is no listing in the past two years for a troll filing against an individual Doe. RFC is not necessarily complete, but it’s an overview.

          The troll attorney for the troll plaintiff is most all these Maryland porn copyright cases is either Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC (filing papers for someone, perhaps M. Keith Lipscombe of Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, P.L.) or Mike Meier. Each attorney has filed for several plaintiffs.

          Meier’s cases are newer ones, so many of his cases, esp. in calendar year 2012 are still in process.

        • Mike Meiers has not voluntarily named an individual Doe much less taken him to the service of process stage that I am aware of to date.

    • Judge Motz’s efforts to stem the tide have not succeeded, yet. However he does have 3 of the 15 by my count; hopefully he can round up the remaining 12.

      To all New Does: We are in the Third Massive Wave of Filed Troll Lawsuits. Nonetheless, we know it and most Trolls suspect it-this is the last massive wave of troll lawsuits in their traditional stomping grounds.


        Apparently alarmed by the fact that this site and that of provide tons of information and advice gathered from experience, some trolls are now going to fast track their motions to take early discovery/expedite discovery.

        As part of the Third Massive Wave of Troll Complaints, Troll Jon A. Hoppe has filed his motion to expedite discovery simultaneously with the complaint. In the past the Trolls were more leisurely in the filing of their motion to discover Doe info but now,due to heightened awareness, they are bum rushing the court. I think they are speeding things up because sites like this and that of DTD are looking into these matters before the lawsuit in in full swing. In other words, as a community, we can strike the first peremptory blow and the Trolls are adapting to that fact.

  11. Summarizing the assault on Maryland April 18 & 19 by Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-37 12-cv-01191
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-28 12-cv-01192
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34 12-cv-01193
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-12 12-cv-01194
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34 12-cv-01195
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-32 12-cv-01196
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-38 12-cv-01197
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-01198
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-23 12-cv-01199
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 12-cv-01200
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-14 12-cv-01201
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-10 12-cv-01202
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-01203
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-01204
    Patrick Collins, Inc v. John Does 1-10 12-cv-01205

  12. For Third Degree Films v. Does 1-85, 12-CV-00023-RWT, Jan. 23, 2012 Mike Meier of The Copyright Law Group:

    I just checked PACER today and found this ruling below, and although I am not very good with legal speak, it appears the case was dismissed. Below are the orders at the end of the ruling, copied and pasted. I don’t know how to post a PDF, but it was listed as Document # 36 in PACER if anyone wants to pull it and post:

    Accordingly, it is, this 18th day of April, 2012, by the United States District Court for the
    District of Maryland,
    ORDERED, that All Doe Defendants are SEVERED from this action, except Doe #1 ;
    and it is further
    ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s claims against severed Doe Defendants 2-14, 16-20, 22-24,
    26, 28-53, 55-57, 59-65 and 67-81 are DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
    ORDERED, that, all subpoenas seeking severed Defendants’ personal identifying
    information are hereby QUASHED; and it is further
    ORDERED, that Plaintiff SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY subpoena recipients that
    the subpoenas have been quashed and that Doe Defendants, except Doe #1, have been severed
    and are not litigants in this case; and it is further
    ORDERED, that that Plaintiff shall FILE UNDER SEAL copies of all notices sent to
    the severed Doe Defendants; and it is further
    ORDERED, that moving forward, all documents filed in this action that contain Doe
    #1’s identifying information shall be filed under seal; and it is further
    ORDERED, that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23,
    25, 28, 30, 33, 35) from severed defendants are DENIED AS MOOT.

  13. More good news out of Judge Motz’s Maryland chambers. On 4-26- he kneecapped 5 of Troll Hoppe’s lawsuits by severing all Does but Doe 1. The cases are:


      • Yes, Does or their lawyers can cite these determinations in support of an argument to sever in their seperate case (especially if it involves the same plaintiff). If you read Judge Motz’s legal reasoning as to why joinder is improper in these cases he is relying on federal precedents made in other states.

    • This is huge as it is Chief Judge Debora Chasanow who had earlier killed a troll porn lawsuit upon which she premises the NuImage order This memorandum opinion quotes a lot of Judge Motz’ reasoning from an earlier memorandum order in CineTel Films but she does find that:

      “Against this backdrop, the risk of extortionate settlements is
      too great to ignore, especially when joinder is being used to
      that end.” (great quote!)

      Now that the Chief Judge has ruled that joinder is improper in a troll lawsuit expect to see all the other judges joining her, Motz and Titus in finding likewise. Trolling is dead in Maryland as no troll, even DGW, have the balls to take this issue of joinder up on appeal.

      • Chief Judge Debora Chasenow has also been collecting troll lawsuits from other judges recently. Mass severances to follow with Hoppe and Meirs retreating back under their bridges, hopefully for good.k

  14. In MD the Night of the Long Knives for troll lawsuits has commenced: 12-cv-1197, 12-cv-1198 and12-cv-1203 per (trying to reign in my PACER expenses so there may be more)

  15. Motion to Quash granted K-Beech Vs. John Does #1 -31

    Full docket text for document 31:
    ORDER SEVERING all Doe Defendants from this action except Doe 1, DISMISSING the claims of Plaintiff K-Beech, Inc. against the severed Doe Defendants 2-12, 14-19, 21-23, 25, and 29-31 without prejudice, QUASHING all subpoenas seeking severed Doe Defendants’ personal identifying information, DIRECTING Plaintiff to immediately notify subpoena recipients that the subpoenas have been quashed and that all Doe Defendants except Doe 1 have been severed and are not litigants in this case, and DENYING as moot all other pending motions from severed Doe Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 05/01/2012. (nd, Chambers)

  16. What happens to Doe #1 in these cases? Everyone else get dismissed but unlucky #1 has to continue the battle. Any advice?

  17. Doe #1
    NUCORP, LTD. Civil Action No.DKC 12-0089, US District Judge Deborah K Chasanow
    Did not know what a Bit torrent was until I got the letter from Comcast. I can prove I was at work when the movie was downloaded/uploaded. Didn’t happen on my computer. This is nothing but a shake down and I can’t understand why these Judges don’t see it that way. Unamerican! should not be allowed to happen.

  18. Why are you so sure Hoppe will not serve me with a summons and complaint? He has responded to my motion to quash and the Judge agreed based on previous cases. He already has his $350 filing fee invested, why not try to get something out of it. He also has already seen my defense and must have some experience in these dealings. Why would he just let it go?

  19. Because he knows a second year law student can beat him in court. Remember the judge is hostile to Hoppe, his “evidence” is bad and your defense is excellent (you were at work and can prove it) which Hoppe has to wary of. Hoppe has yet to name and serve a single Doe yet and,trust me, he will not do so in Chasenow’s courtroom if he has an iota of brains. This is just a waiting game that you can and will win if you keep calm about all of this, ignore all communications from Hoppe. By July 4th you and your friends will be laughing about your current predicament.

  20. Our case was dismissed but the troll was instructed to inform defendants immediately. Nothing so far. How long is “immediately ” supposed to take?

  21. I am shocked that Hoppe has noT notified Does that his lawsuits have been dismissed! Truly! He wouldn’t be unethically trying to finalize settlements that were put in motion prior to the dismissal would he? If I were you I would anonymously write the judge and ask for some clarification as to this situation.

    • Which case are you refering too. It may be the case did not progress to the point that Doe’s named were divulged before it was quashed by the judge

  22. Both Nu Image Inc mass copyright troll cases in Maryland have now dismissed all but Doe#1. The 2/21/12 case, Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-2,165, was severed on Monday 5/14/12. Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow presided over the end of both cases and seems to be taking the lead on copyright troll issues in this district.
    As noted on the Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver page, the order severing all but Doe #1 from the 9/22/11 Nu Image case is on the web: Nu Image Severance Order.pdf

    For the 9/22/11 Nu Image Inc. case, Judge Chasanow also ordered to keep information about Doe #1 UNDER SEAL, removing the troll threat of naming the Doe before proving the case. Hopefully, the same condition applies to the remaining Doe in the 2/21/12 case.

    Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC, has filed cases for Patrick Collins, K-Beech, and other porn purveyors in Maryland. He has filed 8 cases for porn purveyors (plaintiffs Malibu Media LLC & Patrick Collins Inc.) in DC instead within the last few days.

  23. Case is Third Degree Films v. Does 1-85, 12-CV-00023-RWT, Jan. 23, 2012 Mike Meier of The Copyright Law Group. Nothing received from copyright law group informing us of dismissal.

  24. I am really wondering about Judge Chasanow.
    And what scheme is troll Meier up to with this !? Check our RFC Express.
    Metro Media Entertainment, LLC v. Does 1-47 , 12-cv-00347 (mdd)

    March 20 – Doc 5 Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow grants discovery
    June 2 – Exhibit Additional 19 Copyright Infringements discovered
    June 5 – Amended Complaint to include the above.

  25. I am the unlucky Doe 1 in one of the cases of Patrick Collins (don’t know how much information to give out here). What should I do? Just got notice from Verizon. Please advice.

  26. I can only say, do not respond to any calls for settelement, do not give them any information if they ask, do not respond to settlement letters, ( but keep them) if ever needed & wait for the storm to blow over. They have never won a case yet to my knowledge in court with a defendent present, only by default.

  27. if you are not in that case’s jurisdiction then file a motion to quash based on that fact as the court does not have athourity over you. otherwise wait it out and hope they never serve you. (definately definately definately get a lawyer if they do serve you)

    • Unfortunately I am in the jurisdiction. So would a motion to quash fail? I am planning to get a lawyer today, to file a motion.

      • Try to relax, Troll Meier has never voluntarily named and served a Doe with a summons and complaint anywhere. He also does not call Does but just sends out harassing letters and emails. In about 30 days or so you or your attorney could file a FRCP 4 (m) motion to dismiss if the judge does not beat you to it.

        • Sorry, I thought he already had your info by reason of the earlier order. Rule 4 (m) reads:

          Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).

        • It varies between when the court grants discovery to when the ISP turns over the info. Nonetheless I suspect that Judge Chasenow is impatient with this entire dog and pony show and wants it to just leave MD. Expect her to force the issue with Meier in the next 30-60 days.

      • Another question – what is the deadline for this guy to make his move to court? How long do I have to hold my breath?

        • I think his deadline will be 7-21 unless he applies for and receives an extension of time to serve which is doubtful under the circumstances.

        • I have just received a notice from Verizon. Wouldn’t the timer start once they have my information? Raul, thank you answering my questions, I really really appreciate this.

        • So that would mean, after he has my information, he has to file his complaint against me personally and then he has 120 days to serve me? Or would that be 120 days from the time Verizon got the notice? So sorry to ask so many questions. Thank goodness for people like you who would take time out to help me understand where I stand.

  28. also a flaming bag of poo on a doorstep never hurt anyone…..not reccomending anything, just sayin….

  29. I have a question, if anyone anywhere has an answer to. Has any Porno purveyor troll lawyer been sucessful in winning a case in court with the defendant present other than by default in any of these John Doe cases involving peer to peer file sharing as a form of copyright infringement anywhere in this country?

  30. AFAIK no. Wouldn’t the trolls being crowing over a court decision and citing it in every motion to every court? Zero percent of 300,000 is how many judgements ?

  31. Doe #1
    NUCORP, LTD. Civil Action No.DKC 12-0089, US District Judge Deborah K Chasanow
    Jon A. Hoppe’s office contacted me by telephone so Comcast released my personal information to them. Referred them to my Attorney. They discussed two things:1. Could they serve my papers through him instead on me personally – he declined the offer. 2. Settlement demand – 9 hits at $1,200 each, some mention that they could accept $750 a hit but the person had no authorization to negotiate – he declined. The original letter from Comcast indicated one upload/download so I don’t know when the 9 event occurred. The judge gave them 28 days to serve which ended on 6/11 but they asked for 15 more days and were granted them automatically. Did not ask us about it. A this time I have not been served or contacted again. Waiting patiently until 6/26. Any advice or comments?

    • First off, do not construe this as legal advice as it is just several observations.

      A 10K settlement demand is ridiculous as that kind of money can purchase quite a bit of legal representation. I am not aware of a single troll lawsuit in which Hoppe has gone as far as to serve a summons and complaint so why should your case be the first? Also, assuming worst case scenario and you get served, your attorney can put in an answer for a lot less than 10K. After that where does the case go? Nowhere, troll has no conclusive proof and the case is extremely expensive to prepare/litigate.

      • Same disclaimer: do not construe this as legal advice as it is observations only.

        Raul’s comments make sense. Even 6K would underwrite considerable legal representation.

        I wonder if the 9 infringements allegation is a new shakedown tactic. It’s also possible that on the troll Doe IP lists trolls are trying to say that all infringements for one city, say, Annapolis, are the responsibility of one Doe. In one case, only one address per I.P. address for the alleged event would be released. If trolls allege other infringements, why are they only making contact now?

        It’s also ridiculous that the extortion is made based on a claim that isn’t even specified. If they claim was 9 infringements, specific details should be provided. These include I.P. address, date, time, title of work and even connection time & size of alleged data packets should be included. If trolls avoid mention of alleged infringements, their claims are all the more suspicious. If 9 dates/times are listed and you can show you were elsewhere for even one or that the IP address for that time was assign to another, the troll claim would be even shakier than inconclusive.

        It’s expected that a lawyer representing a Doe would get very specific details about full allegations, as part of a minimum service. It’s also possible that having a Doe defense lawyer at this stage is itself a deterrent. Hoppe is likely getting only a percentage commission from the gang running the porn purveyor copyright extortion. If he can get his cut, hundreds of dollars, for phone calls made by office staff, he would lose tens of thousands of dollars that would be made be moving on to easier marks.

        • Hoppe’s background gives no indication he has any major copyright law background. In addition to lost potential income in brief time making threats, would he want to be the attorney of record for a landmark case on a topic he’s never gone to trial on ? With 300,000 individual Does, trolls have not risked any real debate in front of a jury about their alleged evidence, technology, financial interests and previous troll activity. The porn purveyor plaintiff would also bear the risk of possibly unwanted investigation and discovery.

        • NuCorp lawsuits are typically “site rip” lawsuits meaning multiple titles are alleged to have been downloaded in a single torrent.

  32. I got a letter from Mike Meier, dated June 16,2012. Says I must respond by June 23, 2012. To be quite frank I do not understand any of it. CIVIL ACTION NO. (DRAFT [ stamped in bold red])

  33. Thanks. I surely don’t need any press, have enough problems with the ole lady now.. I’ll just ignore his letters and hope for the best.

    • I have decided to contact the reporter. Hope it helps.
      06/23/2012 Just don’t get it, everything you read says what evil people these trolls are, yet nothing seems to stop them. I would think the American Bar Association (ABA) would disbar them. I guess judges can only go so far. Beats me. Thanks again.

  34. Doe #1
    NUCORP, LTD. Civil Action No.DKC 12-0089, US District Judge Deborah K Chasanow

    I have had no official papers or contact from Jon A. Hoppe’s office since my last post 6/19 so I do not have any information on why it went from one hit to nine hits. I can prove that I was at work at the time of the original referenced one hit. I am hoping the extension will expire without any further action as numerous previous post have predicted.

    • I believe yours is a “site rip” lawsuit meaning the 9 movies were downloaded at the same time while you were at work. Good luck!

  35. Come Tuesday, times up, the extension expires. I believe you said Hoppe was granted a 15 day extension until 6/26. I don’t think the judge will be too willing to grant another extension without a very good reason.

  36. My wife was a Doe #1 in a case, opted to settle rather than fight, even though no one in the family downloaded anything. Case: 8:12-cv-01201-JFM

    Cost $4200 to settle for “4 downloads” plus attorney fees. Was represented by an attorney that was mentioned on this site, I thought he did a great job as none of my families contact information was released to the troll.

    As painful as the settlement was, it was worth the cost to not fight it. These guys have no honor to blackmail honest folks….

    • Sorry to hear about your situation but realize that everyone has unique circumstances. Regardless, it is good that you have put this nightmare behind you and who knows someday you may be able to recoup the extortion fee if a class action lawsuit gets certified.

    • Why on earth would you settle if you did not do it. I hope you did not pay your lame attorney. He/she could not fight a stupid law suite ” blackmail honest folks….” even when the opposition had no evidence against you ” even though no one in the family downloaded anything”. Just a though – could this post be by a copyright troll?

      • Doubt the post is a copyright troll as I also harbored fears about what the effect of being attached to a nasty porno title would impact on my life. Fortunately discovered this site and that of DTD, saw RED and have been trying to bash trolls ever since and will continue until they are history.

      • I was also innocent of infringement. The troll case occurred at the beginning of the troll extortion saga, so there was much less information. Having no experience with this kind of threat, I consulted many attorneys, including a famous I.P. lawyer, a well known Doe defender, and the senior partner in a large law firm in a major city. They ALL advised me to settle.

        Even experienced attorneys viewed these cases in the way attorneys view legitimate civil court disputes. In a legitimate (and ethical) dispute, it is often cheaper to settle than to respond, even if the defendant wins. There is time lost from work and home, reputation affected by the charge though untrue, and the psychological toll. Trolls are trying to exploit all of this. Fortunately, resisting the trolls is usually good for others while being good for the individual. If there is no trial based on merit after 300,000 allegations, it’s clear many times over that trolls really can’t and/or won’t follow up.

        I hope innocent Does who feel the need to settle will, while abiding by terms of any agreements, at least start working to protest the troll extortion machine. Notify local, state, and federal officials, and media. Have your friends do this too. The troll plague has swindled millions of dollars and wasted centuries of person-hours dealing with troll greed.

      • No, not a post by a troll, o’lame one. Simply someone who, as mentioned in the threads below, did not want to have this drag on, and on, and on, and on…. Obviously you have not been a Doe #1 or have actually talked to an ISP attorney on the matter. Considering a good attorney charges $2-300 an hour for representation, you can see how quickly the settlement fee could turn into attorney fees in a protracted battle.

        Had my wife and I had more resources, I would have gladly fought the good fight since we were innocent. However, in this instance, as you have no idea of our backgrounds, it was much easier to pay the extort and have it go away….

  37. I get a call every week from 818 number. The person left a voicemail saying the lawyers have decided to move foward in a case against me and what will happen is they will take me to court where I live. Should I talk to a lawyer now?

  38. The advantage of retaining (hiring rather than consulting) a lawyer is that further troll demands would have to go through the lawyer. You would be shielded from that nuisance. If that brings peace of mind, it may be worth it.

    The troll call is the usual script. They always say they are “moving forward”. They never have to prove they are doing it, so they can make their threats & demands without consequence.

    The very important time to get a lawyer would be IF they trolls actually named and served a subpoena in an individual suit. That requires a response to the court, within a couple of weeks. As you can read here and other places, that happens much less than one per cent of the time. We have reason to suspect in those rare cases that trolls have some information (like the accusation of a neighbor) which gives the trolls more encouragement to accuse.

    • Please clarify. If these cases never go to trial then what is the lawyer charging for? A meeting and a response to a summons is going to cost $4200. Pretty high priced representation. Settling just encourages more law suites.

    • What do you mean “(like the accusation of a neighbor)”? How would your neighbor know anything about what was going on on your internet connection? And how would a troll know and contact your neighbor? Please explain further.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Pingbacks & Trackbacks

  1. A trolling lawsuit ends with style « Fight Copyright Trolls