Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Samuel Perkins (Boston MA)
- Edward R. Molari (Boston, MA)
- BoothSweet LLP: Dan Booth and Jason Sweet (Cambridge MA)
- Nicholas Guerrera (North Andover MA)
- Catherine Rajwani (Northborough MA)
- Eric Menhart (Washington DC)
Relevant posts
- Copyright troll victim prevails in the first action against trolls (4/24/2014)
- Prenda’s local attorney Daniel Ruggiero denounces his employers (8/14/2013)
- Alexandra Capachietti of Burson and Levinson LLP is NOT a porno troll (4/6/2013)
- IBM to sue Marvin Cable for trademark infringement (4/1/2013)
- Booth Sweet LLP tells court a story of Prenda’s deception and abuse, asks for a bond to be posted by AF Holdings (2/2/2013)
- How do you call a lovemaking act without a partner? (1/23/2013)
- First powerful defense in Prenda/Guava individual federal case (12/17/2012)
- Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery (11/7/2012)
- A motion that made my day (10/9/2012)
- Another Massachusetts Judge issues a strong anti-extortion Memorandum and Order (10/4/2012)
- Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice (8/25/2012)
- Another day, another defendant is fighting back (8/20/2012)
- The Fifth Column: Marc Randazza attempts to sabotage defense against copyright trolls (8/6/2012)
- Lightspeed Media v. John Doe: a must-read motion written by a real IP attorney (7/13/2012)
- Do you still think that talking to plaintiff’s lawyer is a good idea? (10/14/2011)
- More light under the bridge (6/10/2011)
Fight © Trolls 
A couple does filed EXCELLENT MTQs and MTSs in this combat zone vs does 1 – 84 3:12-cv-30085
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.15.0.pdf
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.11.0.pdf
unfortunately i am not a lawyer and i dont know what much of this means 😦
looks like those links might be dead…or do I just need to sign up?
im not really good w this whole recap / pacer thing just learning
it looks like the links take a bit of time to validate / post to archive.org?
troll cable put in a dismissal motion on a doe’s MTQ in 30086 on the grounds of pro se anonyminity and proper joinder among other things, looks like he’s trying and not just spamming keys
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.9.0.pdf
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.143790.17.0.pdf
one ‘think’ cable managed to shit out which interests me is the following:
“As for the purely speculative assertion that joinder may coerce unjust settlement from
innocent defendants, one must keep in mind Plaintiff’s basis for the lawsuit. Plaintiff is
suing owners of IP addresses from which infringing activities were found. After learning
the identities of doe defendants, Plaintiff sends letters alerting them of Plaintiff’s claims.
When defendants settle after receiving these letters, a logical inference is that defendants
are settling because they are guilty of copyright infringement and are now faced with
evidence of their illegal activity. It is not as if Plaintiff plucked these defendants out of thin
air. The complaint is based on evidence of infringement gathered by experts”
if you can call nicolini an expert then yeah, call out your own troll activities
Docket No. 3:12-cv-30100
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the appearance of Marc J. Randazza, BBO # 651477, as
counsel for Defendant John Doe 30 in the above-captioned action. Further pleadings should be
served upon:
Marc J. Randazza, BBO #651477
mjr@randazza.com
Randazza Legal Group
6525 W. Warms Springs Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone: (888) 667-1113
Fax: (305) 437-7662
wth?
Is that a unicorn i see?
”
Randazza … insists the number of innocent people who are scared into settling is tiny. “I think that happens as often as you see a unicorn. People don’t pay because they didn’t do it. People pay because they did it or it wasn’t them and it was somebody in their household,” he says.
”
SCARED?
PEOPLE DONT PAY BECAUSE THEY DIDNT DO IT??
thats all the defense we need from this nozzle, just dont pay
more like randouche’a amirite? what a shit head,
I BET THE DOE IS HIS BUDDY
Kind of purposely ironic that Randazza mocks himself insofar as he sued a blogger who had the audacity to make the same joke. What a flaming hypocrite, despite his self serving protestations to the contrary. http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studio-goes-after-self-proclaimed-pirate-his-unicorn-and-leprechaun-110310/
Just got a letter from the copyright troll asking me to settle with him. First of all, I live in an apartment with about 100 units in it. Not to mention the simple fact that I never downloaded this porn movie that I’m being accused of downloading, and I was at work at the time I’m accused of downloading this movie as well (4pm on a Monday, I work until 6pm). Isn’t porn free to stream on the internet anyways?? Who’s downloading it illegally? Not sure what this is all about really, but if this guy wants to drag me into court to pry the last $30 bucks I have in my checking account away from me, more power to him.
His document basically states that I have until the end of the month to settle, or else I’m at risk of being taken to court. The only thing I’m concerned about is that I literally don’t have any money at all for a lawyer to defend myself. So I guess I’d just be showing up to court representing myself. I can’t imagine what I’d say though. I’m guessing it would go something like this. “Did you download this porn movie illegally.?” “No, your honor, I didn’t.” I won’t be “settling” for something I didn’t do, but I can see how this is a complete scam to get even innocent people to pay up because the cost is essentially what it costs to hire a lawyer. So I guess that’s smart on their part. (Essentially, their business model as it seems)
I am having some health issues that I’d rather not get into, and I have a pregnant wife as well, so I have much more important things on my plate. I can’t really take the stress of all of this without knowing really what’s going on. I hope that not being able to afford a lawyer doesn’t prevent me from being able to successfully defend myself if I’m actually taken into court. Hopefully it doesn’t cost me a dime to simply show up and be as ignorant as I am regarding this whole thing.
I was in a very similar situation and remember the confusion and anxiety in the beginning. I also did not infringe, and had less supporting “evidence” than you. If this gives some reassurance, nothing came of it beyond my worry.
First, know how to ignore and say the minimum to trolls. Please review the FAQ here and at DTD:
http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/
Second, a fraction of one per cent of these cases go to the point of an individual Doe being named and served with subpoena. If you were at a casino, and the odds were 99 to 1 that you could gain thousands of dollars by letting it ride, you would let it ride. Make yourself comfortable while waiting it out.
Third, in the most unlikely and extreme scenario, it IS possible to respond to a subpoena on your own. The term for it is “pro se”. Responding to a subpoena is complicated for a non-lawyer, but it has been done in these cases. If that thing occurred, readers of this forum would make suggestions. The best things would be to get assistance from a lawyer, within your financial limit.
Fourth, in your area, there are pro bono (free) clinics, often linked to the area law schools, where you could get legal assistance if needed.
Fifth, continuing down a list of unlikely events, if the trolls did start an individual suit, they would do legal “discovery” before any trial in the court room. This would probably cost the troll thousands of dollars. If they found you were at work and that your computer did not have the file, the trolls would be fools to go further. [PLEASE DON’T volunteer this information to the trolls, now or before trial. Trolls work hard for ways to incriminate even the innocent. Trying to reason with trolls as if they were decent people has much risk and no benefit.]
Sixth, if there’s clear proof you were at work at the time of the infraction and that there’s no torrent file on your computer, you could consider suing the trolls. (It not technically counter-suing if you do it first.) If trolls were put in a bad position, they would pay you to settle. There are lawyers in your area working on a class action counter suit:
http://boothsweet.com/
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/counter-actions-against-trolls/
It’s possible to discuss things with an attorney (free consultation, hopefully) and see if it’s possible to sue the trolls with your attorney being paid on contingency (as a percentage of the settlement funds).
https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense
There’s much more information (thanks to SJD especially) about these extortion acts than there was six months or a year ago. It’s damned trouble having to learn about the law and procedure of this crap, even with a lawyer’s assistance. But concerns settle down as there is time to think about these things.
has anyone had experience being named in TWO of these troll suits SIMULTANEOUSLY for different infractions? both of them are against multiple does and in MA, filed by our friend Cable, but should i tell my friend she might should lawyer up? head in the sand? tell em see you in court? what about the 41(A)(3) dismissals does have tried in MD, has anyone done so in MA?
www1.WHDH.com ran a video “Hank Investigates: Illegal porn downloading” which is a fluff piece discussing Troll Cable’s reign of terror (he is not mentioned, chicken shit talking heads) but it does have a Sweet and a Randazza sound bite. Sorry about my inability to link-easy to locate with Google.
Yes, it’s not very informative. It gives the limited impressions impressions about the dreadful extent of the scam.
http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/BO148356/illegal-porn-downloading-/
Among other things:
(1) Open Wifi is one of many sources of error in troll allegations
(2) $1750 is at the lower end of the troll demands
(3) It may be the lawyers & others are running the porn purveyors than the other way arround
(4) While the EFF resources are a start, the EFF site is too polite and constrained to describe how nasty things are.
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.142861.29.0.pdf
an interesting ‘threat’ in the 1:12-cv-10532 case, which is pretty old,
in his opposition to booth’s motion entered 7/13, cable says
“Importantly, Counsel for the Plaintiff in this district is proceeding differently from of
attorneys in other districts. In this next week, Plaintiff’s Counsel will be amending a
complaint, and filing 8 – 12 lawsuits in this district on behalf of Patrick Collins, Inc. These
new lawsuits will be filed against individuals and not multiple Does. These individuals
were discovered and investigated using the subpoenaed information (like the information
sought here), in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 45, 1:12-cv-10537 (D. Mass.). Counsel will
be doing the same in all other cases for Patrick Collins, Inc.”
if his record is moot why mention more actions and threats? Looks like patty c really needs some dough and cable is out of ideas
some people probably didnt listen to not talk to trolls
That case is 120 days old next week. Doesn’t he either have to file individual cases or drop the case within that time?
Marvin Oh Marvin, you claimed 2 weeks ago that you will be filing multiple suits against individuals within a week, yet I see no suits on pacer? Why is this? Are you boldly lying to the judge to get your way? For shame.
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/07/16/doe-22s-motion-to-quash-bad-faith-pleadings-abuse-of-process-112-cv-10805-discount-video-center-inc-v-does-1-29/
Anyone catch this post? It looks like Ch Magistrate Sorokin is looking into what is going on a little closer based on a MTQ filed. Specifically he wants to have a hearing and hear Cable’s explanation for why they state in their discovery request that they are suing “subscribers” , yet CEG’s own lawyers admit a 30% error rate in subscriber vs infringer in other cases.
Yes, it is a good motion with a novel, up-to-the-point arguments that will be extremely difficult to counter. I even considered a post, but DTD has beat me to that (and I’m grateful to him). I linked this firm and their motion from the resources page.
It is amazing and great how much mileage that admission by Troll Meier is getting. I bet he wishes for a time machine every day since.
Doe 22 filed counterclaims today before the hearing. Wish I was a fly on the wall for this.
Raul, SJD..could you plese help us understnad whats going on with the sunlust case. thank you so much for great work.
Which one, I believe there are 4?
Combat Zone indeed! (one to keep an eye on) http://ia601206.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143790/gov.uscourts.mad.143790.docket.html
Raul, any reason for watching this case. I am one of the does listed and was just curious. Thanks
With 9 Doe defenders combating Troll Cable and the number of pending troll lawsuits in MA reaching critical mass, this lawsuit is one of a handful which could tip in favor of Does IMHO.
Any one familiar with Celestial Case 12-cv-1098-DPW?
Getting ready to file MTQ as a John Doe (pro se). no lawyer.
I hace been told that the Massachusetts Judges throw out all annonomous cases with no contact info.
I’m considering calling the trolls and just paying them. It seems that even the innocent are screwed in these cases.
Basically what you are saying is: “There is a robber loose on the block and he publicly threatens to rob, kill and rape me once he learns my identity. I’m ready calling the police, but I heard that police does not care. I consider going out, finding this bastard and let him rob me, hoping that he withdraws the kill and rape threats.”
well said SJD
DO NOT FEED the TROLLS !!!!!
Last night I spent an hour or so reviewing the MA troll cases and it looks as if many of the early ones have reached the tipping point with motions to dismiss/sever/quash fully submitted and awaiting a decision. With the way these lawsuits are trending across the USA I’d say there is a very good chance these decisions will tip over in favor of Does. Just hold tight!
Still waiting on Marv to make good on this threat to not waste the courts time and file “multiple suits against named defendants in all pending cases for patrick collins” like he said he would 2 weeks ago and still hasn’t. so much for proceeding “with great respect to the law”
Hello l am one of the Does … funny you post on the nest day of the file Court date … July 25
your Internet letter was fast ….. got my on the August 3…
does anyone know anything about 12-CV-10761-WGY? Got a letter from Cable about it and trying to figure out my options
I want to know if I understand this correctly. According to Rule 4.1 [1], troll cable has 120 days until he has to name the defendants in the lawsuit. The 120 days is from when the complaint is filed, which is always document 1 in pacer for a particular case. So for example, the date for 1:12-cv-10532-GAO Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1 – 79 is 03/23/2012, so troll cable would have had to serve defendants by 07/21/2012 [2]. He now has the option to file for an extension, for 14 days after that deadline, which is 08/04/2012 [3]. After that passes the case is dismissed.
Is all of that correct and if the case is dismissed, does that mean that a case cannot be opened again for the same reason (with prejudice)?
Thanks
[1] http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/pdf/LC/LOCALRULEScombined.pdf
[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=120+days+after+03%2F23%2F2012
[3] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=134+days+after+03%2F23%2F2012
Does anyone know what is going on with Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72 (1:12-cv-10760)?
2012-07-28 – Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
2012-07-30 – Case Assigned/Reassigned
I’m not sure but it sounds like the trolls didn’t like the judge and wanted someone more friendly to their practices.
“Voluntary dismissal” usually means that the Doe has settled with the troll, in this case Marvin Cable representing the porn purveyor Third Degree films for the “work” “Illegal Ass 2”. The previous voluntary dismissals by Cable on 6/30/12 were for Does who had not filed motions.
Occasionally, the porn purveyor troll lawyer will dismiss a Doe who has made a motion that troubles the troll case. the troll wants to avoid a legal discussion which would sink the whole case.
I don’t think plaintiff lawyers can influence judge assignment after it is made. Trolls do plenty of forum shopping as is. If they had choice of judges, they’d be fishing for troll-friendly judges in every case and jurisdiction.
Glancing at dockets of other recent Massachusetts porn purveyor troll cases filed by Cable, there’s no trend of case re-assignment. It’s doubtful the case reassignment here is for consolidation.
So… what do you think about the first Randazza’s motion as a defense attorney? His appearance is signified by attacking a motion to sever filed my another Doe through attorney Nicholas Guerrera.
Randazza claims that the joinder in appropriate using very crooked arguments.
After reading this I had a facepalm reaction :
What a liar! “then likely file”!
Randazza’s involvement as a defense attorney can be described in 2 words: FIFTH COLUMN.
IMO, Randazza can inflict much more harm in this capacity than as if he was a troll plaintiff.
Randazza is a hero to many but he has always appeared as an overreaching asshat attorney to me. Maybe I need a new eyeglass prescription as now he just appears to be a disingenuous douchebag.
I think Randazza is prime candidate for the Biggest Douche in the Universe award.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153799/there-he-is
any update on the 24 suits brought by cable that is over 1200..judges seem to be blind in Massachuesets at least for now…I see that even defense lawyers are seeing this as a money making scheme ans talk settlement…sad
yeah, my lawyer is trying to get me to settle with cable…not happy about it – never been more stressed
Although settling IS the option is some rare circumstances, settling with a CEG-affiliated troll does not make any sense: CEG does not bite, only barks. They cynically work the numbers, reap the loot from those who succumbed to fears and don’t bother pursuing those who’ve shown them a middle finger.
Although settling IS the option is some rare circumstances define please
If your are a schoolteacher for example, and merely linking your name to a teen porno can ruin your career.
If your marriage is shaky and merely linking your name to a porno can ruin your career.
In other words, you can’t afford even 0.01% chance that your name is associated with pornography.
Otherwise, settling does not make any sense. What is price for not being a subject of harassing calls that you can easily screen? I would probably pay $100, maybe $200, but not more. Would you buy a 100K car insurance for an old Hyundai? Statistically, settling with trolls is equivalent to this.
Hi SJD, I understand but troll cable seems to be different. He is supposedly going to be naming individuals shortly.
All of them scumbags are “different”: all promise to name everyone. Some even name, so what? First, the probability is extremely low. Second, same zero evidence bluff. Until you give him ammo in a form of self-incriminating statement, he won’t be able to do anything. Prenda “named” a hundred: I don’t have time to write analysis but all their cases are crumbling one by one.
Trolls are as big as your fear, no bigger, no less.
If named, then start worrying, but just a little. It is generally wise to solve tomorrow’s problems today, but only the likelihood of these problems is significant. Do you sit and think what to do if you are involved in a car accident tomorrow? No. Same here, only the probability is even less.
Look at it this way , Marvin the great has promised on July 13th that within a week he would start naming people in ALL his patrick collins cases. It is now August 6th and he has yet to do so. It doesn’t mean he wont, but it does mean he’s already a liar. He even used this “promise” as a reason that they should see things his way in the case where someone is REALLY challenging him (the discount video center one where Sam Perkins bitchslapped him and caused the chief magistrate for MA to hold a hearing on all this.)
He also lied during that hearing straight to the judges face and told him that they were using the information received during early discovery to open dialogues with people to find out whether or not they were actually responsible, rather than just demanding settlements. Perkins then filed an example of Mr Cables take on “great respect for the law” in the form of a , dum dum dum, demand for settlement rather than a letter asking to open a dialogue about whether or not they were actually responsible 🙂
So while Mr Cable may end up naming people, he has already failed his own “set” timeframe for doing so despite his threats, AND he is already lying straight to the face of the Chief Magistrate for the district of massachusetts about what he is doing.
anonymous2 where you supeoned with a court date scheduled or just threated with letters
No subpoena – just the settlement letters. But it is still nerve racking.
Tell them to pound sand…this is a scam, black mail and extortion pay no mind called my brother who owns a large company and has lawyers and told him i got an isp letter he laughed and said the same thing till they serve you…do nothing and do not talk to them!!! they have no right contacting you…Think about it…when has any lawwyer contacted someone to settle before filing….never…it is a ploy,…example I posted a lawsuit saying the troll was an ass, scumbag with no morals and asked him for 5000 to take it away..or i would file this… do you not think they would have me arrested for extortion…yup…shame our judges are too old or liberal or just plain dumb….lawyers take care of lawyers,..modern day tax collectors…they will make some money on the defensless they will need it to buy AC in hell….funny thing about this,…they bully people and chances they were bullied growing up…I know a genralzation..but people who have good characters do not do this stuff to make a buck.,..they just don’t
So has Troll Cable served anyone in any lawsuit yet… The lawyers that EFF recommended (Majority) but not all said that most settle….no one takes this guy on…why? – I know this will not work in court and not with me…The only time any of these win if someone does not show up and they get a default judgement, which to me is not a win, In my mind I did not do this, I will not pay and have already told my wife and family (actually they laughed) so they cannot embaress me and told me to fight it till the cows come home…which I plan to do…I also plan on counter suing for harressment, extortion and friviolous sueing, if they serve me.
From what I can see, no, Cable has not named anyone at any point. And as I stated up above, he set a timeframe for himself to do so, and has missed it by weeks now. In less than week it will be coming on a month past his timeline.
I think you need to read between the lines with the attorneys you contact and what they say – it’s obvious that if you want them to, they will fight (and will fight well) Molari, Sweet, Perkins (good god especially him) and others have all fired salvos Mr Cables way in various suits – it’s just that they know that while a lot of people may be upset or emotional, the vast majority of people who contact them are probably also not willing to spend the time nor the money to fight back. So they tell them the cheapest and fastest (guaranteed at least) way out is probably for them to negotiate a lower settlement on your behalf (true).
They also seemed to want to make it crystal clear to me that I had better be certain I didnt do this so that there won’t be any evidence on my computer – because if you fight and there is, they can put the screws to you like crazy as far as judgement goes, and it would hurt the overall defense scene to have a fighting doe that turns out to be irrefutably guilty. So I think there is a lot of reasons they all bring up settlement – they need to make sure they give you all the options, they need to protect future for real innocent does, and they need to make sure you are for real. This is all reasonable.
Oh I agree to you…but I cannot see a judge giving a search warrent for an open ended search for looking through computers on a civil suit or telling people to freeze your computer activities…they is not enough evidence,…I can say that you got my address by adding it on your own also from an attourney I spoke with quote “Please note that I have seen some attorneys working for the plaintiffs in various suits admit there is at least a 30% error rate. Likewise, there is a federal suit against one of these companies in US District court where there was evidence that the technology used by the companies to track alleged infringers was defective. Further, there was a study done in California on this type of case which showed that the technology was pulling up wrong isp addresses”
“They also seemed to want to make it crystal clear to me that I had better be certain I didnt do this so that there won’t be any evidence on my computer – because if you fight and there is, they can put the screws to you like crazy as far as judgement goes, and it would hurt the overall defense scene to have a fighting doe that turns out to be irrefutably guilty”
Just was thinking how do they know this? if no one has ever been down the road to this point….I mean a lawyer would so fight this and not even allow any searches. I would think and say it is not up to us to help you proove your case,,,and than destroy them at deposition…guessing here really….from what I have read no one has been through the whole process minus default judgements right?
AFAIK there has not been a single actual trial. But I’d imagine that if there was, and that was the only pertinent evidence a judge could certainly compel you to hand your PC over for forensic examination. But IANAL so that’s just how I perceive things – I don’t know that for a fact.
This is a great site…how do we get the Judges in the district courts to read these stories…If they saw this (scam, extortion) they may act differently. I wish they had published email address’s so I could forward this site and stories….
Please send me Marvin Cable’s demand letters. Reason: Marvin dismisses a Doe’s letter exhibit claiming that since it was sent to another Doe, it is irrelevant:
Need to help that Doe to prove that MC is a lying POS.
As usual, I assure you that I double- and triple- check if all the identifying information is properly redacted and all the PDF metadata is cleaned.
Do you want letters from specific cases or any Cable cases? What’s the email?
Any Cable’s case: need to see if they are essentially the same. Will not share them unnecessarily. Added email to the announcement above.
I suggested it to SJD earlier today, based on activity in the discount video center case going on right now in MA.
Basically what happened is there was a hearing in front of Chief Magistrate Sorokin, and Samuel Perkins on behalf of a doe accused Cable of the shakedown scheme. Cable responded that he doesn’t just demand settlement from everyone whose name he gets, and that he instead tries to work with them in good faith to find the true infringer.
A couple days later Perkins filed a motion containing an example of a Cable settlement demand letter, and Cable immediately responded claiming that letter is a “special case” , that it is not how he handles things generally, and that it’s not indicative of the majority of people whose information he receives from ISPs.
I saw that and thought “wouldn’t it be great if we leveraged the power of this site to get as many cable demand letters as possible, send them to Perkins, and let him show Sorokin what a lying piece of shit Cable is” – So I contacted SJD to put out the call 🙂
Note: I am NOT involved in this case (although I am involved in 2 other Cable cases) – I just felt that Perkins is the one putting the screws to him the most right now, and has the ear of the Chief Magistrate for the district. So it’s a good chance for us to help make Massachusetts an unwelcome place for this nonsense.
Sorokin has already grabbed the referral for motions in at least half a dozen other Cable cases already, and has demanded the same thing of Cable in each one “Tell me whether you are suing the infringers or subscribers, and if you intend to demand settlements from subscribers” – this is a good opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.
“Special case” ? Special ?!
In addition to being a fabrication, it is not even plausible that Cable had time for “special cases”.
Here’s Cable trolling case record in 2012:
Since February 1, 2012, he has filed 38 troll cases involving 1387 Does. The cases appear all to be working for PORN purveyor plaintiffs. By the way, that’s about 68% of ALL the copyright cases in Massachusetts during that period.
From May 1st, 2012 until now, Cable has filed 21 troll cases involving 866 Does. He appears to be in solo practice. How could a small office do anything but minimally track those cases?
The judge should ask Mr. Cable how he has the time and staffing to track, let alone dialogue with, over a thousand recent defendants. This also does not include any other previous cases, troll or otherwise. If Mr. Cable is not doing it, then how can he represent that it is he himself that is “handling” anything? If Mr. Cable is the local face for a larger group, what would be the enterprise of that group and who does it include? Mr. Cable’s statement raises questions, which the court may pursue.
Thanks for this forum…has been extremely helpful for us! I would like to pose a question regarding civil action No. 12-CV-10948-DPW. This may be similar to other cases.
We received a letter in the regular US Mail…not certified from “Verizon” our internet provider. This letter does not appear to even be official Verizon letterhead. Within this letter is the subpoena for our information, which many of you have posted about. The interesting thing is I have called Verizon and talking about wifi and upgrading security settings to highest possible and they have not seen a flag on copyright infringement to this day. I spoke to legal department, which would have informed me of this letter and they also confirmed I should have received an email as well, but they too confirm I have not been flagged for copyright infringement.
Is this a new trick from these trolls? Has anyone else confirmed w/ your cable provider that this “infringement” is on record? These trolls need better fake letterhead! 🙂 The image at the top of the lefthand of the page is a blurry image of a Verizon jpeg that I found on google.
Thank you!
I hope you send a copy to SJD. (Save the envelope and postmark if you can.) It would be important to track down what it is, and see how trolls chose the targets. I’ve heard of other fake official notifications, but not with a fake ISP letterhead.
The case referred to is the first case in a few months for that plaintiff. However, there have been lots of filings by Cable/Meier/Sperling/Ira Siegel/Thomas Gerald Jacks for other porn purveyor plaintiffs.
The docket says summons issued on 5/29/12. Of course the ISP should clearly know about discovery notices to them.
http://ia600709.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.mad.144202/gov.uscourts.mad.144202.docket.html
So this is all lovely info. Does this mean to imply if the regular 6 to 6 job (no long can we get away with just 9 to 5) doesn’t work out I can just go to the library and download logos over the internet and start threatening people like the old Chinese protection extortion scheme? Man have I been living wrong for so long!! Just to think. I could be hanging out in an island paradise and working this scheme over the Internet (on open WiFi no less) while some cutie serves me drinks with those cool umbrellas in them. Then I could spend the alcohol crazed afternoons swimming with dolphins! Evenings in the clubs blowing all that dough on hot babes and good times, and likely feeding the coke habit!
My parents must have been way off when they tried to instill morals, values and the hard working ‘American Way’ in me.
Boy do I feel cheated!
Now its off to bed, early morning meetings, deadlines, and deliverables due! Not to mention I have to take out my own trash and do my own laundry. Boy do I feel cheated!
Well, at least I will be able to sleep with myself knowing who I am!
Anyone else prior to the 30D release of information call your ISP provider to confirm they sent this notice to you? I have searched online and have not seen fake letters.
This is a new twist that us “old-timers” have not seen. Please email to SJD as she will redact all your personal identifying information sophisticatedjanedoe@yahoo.com and it will be sorted out. Incredible if true.
Got the envelope out of the trash .. ;-[ .. Address look ok Verizon Legal compliance P.O Etc tec San Angelo . TX 76902 … Now the funny part is the zip code portsmark on letter is 20705 i look it up and is of … ” Beltsville , MD … Going to send pictures to “SJD now
Thank you!
I have the same thing from “Verizon.” Envelope has the Verizon logo in the top left, and it’s 8″x11″ in size. There are two label, one with “Verizon Legal Complaince” out of San Angelo, TX 76904. But the postmark shows Zip Code 20705 which is Beltsville, MD.
I never received an email from Verizon at all, nor have I called them. But I have received a letter from Marvin Cable with my actual personal information on it, as if he had received it from Verizon. I received the letter in the mail, and also via email. I’d be happy to scan and email these letters if it will help.
Just wondering why this would be postmarked out of Maryland, but somehow Cable still got my contact information. Can they somehow obtain that kind of information with an IP address?
The letter from Marvin Cable is the one asking for money and what is the asking $ .
In case you missed SJD’s Tweet, good news for MA Does! Troll Cable’s business model just received a massive hit from Judge Sorokin. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102579598/Sorokin-8-10-Order Have a great weekend
I wish wish wish that a chief magistrates ruling was binding across the district.
This is a really great ruling IMO. The Judge basically recognized Cable talking out of both sides of his mouth and said he can’t have his cake and eat it to. Really Cable, stand in court and say the subscriber does not have standing and then send them a demand letter stating they have been named in a lawsuit. NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Attention all Next Phase Distribution Does; here is a very nice SDNY Decision and Order you could place under a Judge’s nose. http://ia601206.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.396484/gov.uscourts.nysd.396484.10.0.pdf
Does anyone know if the Skorkin order affect other pending Cable cases?
He is making the same ruling he said, on a bunch of other cases he is referred on (cases not handled by a magistrate, so the motions are referred to a magistrate), but his ruling is not binding on other magistrates cases. Hopefully they will see it and take it into account (and Doe’s lawyers can certainly use that ruling and Cables words against him in those cases!)
I spotted this order dated Friday by Judge Sorokin in 1:12-cv-10532 this morning:
Just checked the Pacer site on 1:12-cv-10532 and saw this order dated Friday.
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.142861.36.0.pdf
It appears that Cable’s found a Judge (or hopefully, a Court) that is, at minimum, skeptical.
SJD this deserves a post, I think Cable’s run is coming to an end. This goes along with the above order.
Click to access gov.uscourts.mad.142861.35.0.pdf
I expected that DTD would post about this since he had already covered this case. And my expectations were correct.
Just a hypothetical thought….
Let’s say I own an Adult Film Company (AFC). I’m not making any money, but seeing as I might be associated with folks that would do anything for a buck (Troll Lawyers), (Associated Folks), I come up with a system to make thousands.
• Make a Copyrighted Adult Film.
• Notify the “Associated Folks” when I plan to post this film on a P2P network.
• “Associated folks” target previously scouted OPEN WIRELESS NETWORKS.
• When the film is posted, “Associated Folks” download the film via the targeted networks.
• Notify the ISP that the film was illegally downloaded.
• Extort thousands of dollars from the “criminals” with open networks.
Not feasible, can’t be proven, but possible.
Can be proven, Cable is a listed partner in CEG https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/11/25/copyright-troll-subspecies-weretroll/ Of course their new website no longer touts the uploading bit.
Perkins dropped a bomb on Cable today. Glorious!
Do you have a doc to share? I don’t mind to Recap, just don’t like to waste money and hate to pay when it is not necessary…
Just emailed it to you so you can post it – I don’t use firefox so I don’t end up recap’ing anything (hurry up chrome version)
Thanks! Will make a post in 15 minutes.
I was interested in checking out that post. Is there a link?
Here.
I am involved in one of the Marvin Cable cases and I immediately hired a lawyer when I got the notice from Verizon. Can anyone explain why I receive numerous extortion letters from his law office? The reason I got a lawyer was to prevent my family from seeing this information. I was under the impression that the letters were to be sent to my lawyer. Thanks in advance.
If your lawyer properly communicated the fact that you are represented to Marvin Cable, than you can consider moving for sanctions. Direct contact with a represented party is one of the most obvious “sins” that neither attorneys nor judges like.
What SJD said * 100. If your lawyer notified them that s/he was representing you, and Cable continued to send demand letters directly to you, please have your lawyer drop the hammer on him and notify the MA bar association and the Judge in your case. I would go so far as to say you should have your lawyer notify Mr Perkins as well, as it would be more fuel for the fire he is stoking under Cables feet here.
Gaaaa! I am so frustrated when I read this site. What can we do to notify the masses? I realize people are chipping away at them little by little but how do more judges not know or care about these extortion rackets? I’m a doe in another case and all I can think about is how many other suits will be brought against me whether it’s legitimate or not.
I can’t keep this from my family or I’ll die of stress (I’ve already lost 10 lbs wihin a month and that ain’t healthy). It seriously disturbs me that these lawyers can behave like this and get away with it. I just can’t fathom how this profession doesn’t think they are doing any harm with these tactics. If I got up every day and my job involved destroying people both emotionally and financially I don’t know how I could live with myself. If their goal is to scare me away from downloading, they’ve succeeded. It’s too bad they’re just in it for the money. Sorry for this totally useless post; I just don’t have anyone I can vent to.
Hi, I am a college student and I just received an email from CEG TEK representing New Sensations, sent by Ira Siegel telling me I have apparently downloaded a copyrighted adult film. The troll gives me a deadline to assess the settlement offer and settle online or “the claim(s) will be referred to our attorneys for legal action. At that point the original settlement offer will no longer be an option and the amount will increase as a result of us having to involve our attorneys”. I really do not want to drag this out or have to deal with courts/sub-poenas, etc. Any suggestions? How do CEG/Siegel usually deal with college cases in Mass? Thanks a lot!
Can I be nosy and ask what the settlement offer is ($$-wise). DON”T log into the website if it isn’t on the letter. I’m sure others would advice you of that as well until you determine what you’re going to do (and even then avoid website at all costs if possible). If you don’t want to publish the amount that’s OK too. I was just wondering what the going rate is these days.
Cable/Siegal has yet to name a single Doe in MA much less serve one with a summons. Is Seigal even admitted to practice law in MA? I case you have not been following closely, copyright trolling in MA appears to have entered a death spiral. Just sit tight for the time being and ignore the threats. By Thanksgiving this will be nothing more than a bad memory.
I didn’t log in–just visited it through a proxy. I think you can only access the settlement through the webpage.
Did the email look like this?
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137751
Ira Siegel was sending those in 2009.
Here is another thread about his email threats.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100401/0846028831.shtml
Settlement of 3500 in a letter i got today from Cable. . .
Check out the announcement at the top of page, and if comfortable shoot the demand letter to SJD who will redact all your metadata and identifying info. New reason to see the letter is to ascertain whether Cable is still conflating subscribers with infringers which would be a Big No No.
New laptop does not remember me! Probably does not possess enough malware yet.
Troll Cable has sent me email with settlement offer in Mass case, any update on Perkins stuff though he asked a judge to throw all this stuff out…says i could be named in a case wants 3500 dollars….should I respond to email or ignore..thoughts…would perkins be interested in this email with pdf attachement..how long till I see a formal supeona from court…need to get a lawyer…any advice?
Ignore the letter and send a copy to Perkins. Under no circumstances should you communicate with Cable. So far Cable has not named or served a single Doe with a summons and complaint. All he does is try to extract settlements so you do not need to hire an attorney other than to act as a shield from the harassment. Hang tight as Cable’s trolling operation is slowly disintegrating.
Thanks do you have his email address or can I send it to you or SJD to pass along
(617) 880-7100 or bhpklaw.com – I’m sure he’d love more ammunition.
Says I have to the 30th of September to respond…anyone else got a letter with a date….or one that passed from this troll
All troll letters have BS deadlines which they keep “graciously” extending. You’ll see.
what is the case number? some of his cases are nearing 120 day territory and he’s beginning to request extensions, and others have been salvoed by perkins and sorokin. Dont feed the trolls under any circumstances
12-CV-10803-DPW I will fight this..looking at perkins if it comes to that
Wow just check the letter is exact duplicate form letter that perkins had in motion as well this form letter is the same used by many trolls across USA…just the letter head is changed…how lazy and unoriginal is that…also checked on pacer Cable only cases are those from porn companies 37 how sad is that….
BTD-
Marvin Cable aka the ball-less wonder is a struggling childish douchebag lawyer who is currently sabotaging his career in a fast dying scheme. Ignore him and his stupid copy and paste letters. Act only if you get officially served. By all accounts and his record… he doesn’t serve does. He just extorts them. Nice legacy.
So Cable dismisses Doe 22 without prejudice today, and says he is filing an individual suit against them. (Remains to be seen if this will be a “single doe” suit or actually named)
Claims demand letters Perkins showed were his updated attempt at addressing the concerns of Ch. Magistrate Sorokin (letter text says this happened on your internet connection, rather than you did this)
Letter STILL SAYS -YOU- MUST PAY OR WE WILL NAME YOU IN A LAWSUIT. I would think this is the important part. Not some horseshit phrasing about “happened on your internet connection”
He also calls Perkins a mountebank attempting to play hero instead of acting like a real attorney. Interested in how this turns out now.
On top of that, the exhibit attached seems to be pushing the logic of “look how many infringements took place from these IPs, the subscriber MUST HAVE DONE IT” which is such a logical fallacy I don’t even know where to start.
Let’s see. If I’m a thief, and I find the front door to a best buy left opened at 3am with nobody there…. what do I do? I think I’ll politely walk in, steal a single xbox controller and then leave just as quickly and politely. Is this a realistic situation? No. The thief who finds an unguarded hoard of treasure steals as much as they can in the time they find themselves able to, before disappearing into the night.
So let’s say I’m a porn hound who wants to abuse my neighbors download bandwidth and I find his wifi is either unprotected or easily crackable. Am I going to
a) Politely download one movie, say, big wet anal ass sippers #96 then go back to using my own connection to browse facebook.
OR
b) Balls to the wall max out my neighbors internet connection filing a 250gb drive with porno before he wises up and improves his password.
Question for those who are legally inclined. Since Doe 22 & Perkins have already filed counterclaims against Cable, CEG, Nicolini, and DVC , can he even dismiss him from this suit to keep Perkins from filing more motions? Or will they still be party to it because of the counterclaims. Because this all seems like just a way to get Perkins out of Sorokins face , so that he stops peeing in Marv’s cheerios.
Wonder what Perkins thinks….He had motioned to try and throw out all 37 suits…by doing this he takes out the motion I guess…leaving the judge no choice but to ignore it right….to bad…I had high hopes for this one….Judges and our goverment no longer represent us…The only good thing this shows is that he is just a talker a bully when someone goes toe to toe he quits and runs and yells running away I will get you….coward….
Links?
I bet sorokin will have a field day on marvie marv for this one.
I dont use firefox, so I cant recap. If someone who has the keys to the kingdom (Raul? DTD? Did SJD leave you with those?) wants I can email it to them and they can post.
BTD – I am curious about that. Doe 22 and Perkins filed counterclaims as per my above post. So does dismissing him get him out of the case or is he still in due to his counterclaims? Not a lawyer, so no idea how that works. I do wonder if he will genuinely file an individual suit against Doe 22 though, and go toe to toe with someone who is much better armed than he is.
You can email me at doerayme2011@hotmail.com.
DTD 🙂
Sent, thanks!
OK, here is the document. http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/doe22_dismiswop_10805ma.pdf Cable is such a blow-hard. Reading it I was luaghing at what the court was thinking as he read the BS.
DTD 🙂
almost all he wrote was hearsay, he talked to my assistant I talked with him…where is the meat to his claims
no he has not changed anything, here is his body of form letter
If you have already referred this matter to your own lawyer, please forward this letter to that attorney.
IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER CONSULTING WITH YOUR OWN ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS MATTER.
We represent the owner of the copyright in the motion picture that is identified above.
That motion picture was downloaded from the Internet without legal authorization. Discovery was authorized by the Court in the above-identified case relating to the identities of the subscribers whose Internet accounts were allegedly used to download from and/or make available on the Internet unauthorized copies of the above-named motion picture in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).
The complaint in this case can be viewed online at http://www.copyright-complaints.com/removed.pdf.
Pursuant to a Court-approved subpoena in that case, the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) named above and other ISPs have disclosed identifying information about such subscribers, and you have been identified as one of those subscribers.
On behalf of Plaintiff, we may formally name you as a defendant (i.e., as an alleged infringer of Plaintiff’s copyright in the above-named motion picture) in the above-identified case, or in a subsequent case, if a settlement is not reached in connection with the alleged infringement that occurred on a computer using your Internet account by the close of business on removed, 2012.
In connection with any such case, we will seek, among other things, an award for the above-identified infringement that occurred on your Internet account for damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement, and up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement, under the statutory damages provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 504(c)), as well as costs, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction.
In the meantime, do NOT delete any files relating to the above-identified motion picture from any computers using your Internet account unless and until Plaintiff’s claim relating to the alleged infringement occurring on that account is resolved by settlement or otherwise. If you do delete such files, in addition to damages, we will be entitled to seek sanctions against you for spoliation (i.e., destruction or alteration) of evidence.
You have an opportunity to settle now the alleged infringement that occurred on a computer using your account. The settlement fee is $3,500.00. As indicated above, the settlement fee must be received by us, on behalf of Plaintiff, by the close of business on , 2012. Otherwise, we will proceed to enforce Plaintiff’s copyright with the understanding that you do not intend to resolve this matter without a lawsuit.
i love how he is threatening to single out all of perkin’s does. wasn’t there another attorney who threatened to do that via email that was posted a while back??
Even if he does, it’s going to be the same stupid game. As soon as Perkins requests discovery, he will stall , stall, stall to keep it from happening until the judge gets pissed and tosses it out.
He talks about flooding the court with paperwork but looking at the math, he has 37 suits with 1200 does say 20% (240×3500 (840,000.00) settle but he has to share that with the other scumbag worms) leaving 960 does….if he does littigate 960 cases x 350 filing charge ($336,000.00) based upon the his theory…the courts are going to love him for all the paperwork. and if he does not file he is a liar…but if he does and loses on 1 he will loose on all..not much room to move here…based upon the simple laws of probabilty I would not gamble my career and reputation on this…
this is really getting sad 300,000 people,
Music companies doing this again…
the law needs to change it was written 50 years ago and was meant for those individuals who dealt in counterfeiting..
in reality the fines do not match the crime…they cannot win against people with resources
so they go after the poor or those who cannot defend themselves….
how they sleep at night amazes me…there parents must be so proud….
on the letters he is ending out with dates has anyone received a second letter like extending date or such example you have to 7/31/2012 to settle or else…well what has happened after the date? thx for any reply
anyone curious to see is it extended date + higher amount
Can someone tell me if MC is accusing Doe 22 of downloading all the films listed in Exhibit #3 of http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/doe22_dismiswop_10805ma.pdf ? Also, for that matter is he accusing two other does of downloading all the movies in Exhibit #1 and #2? If this is for one case and one film, how can he suggest that the infringer was the same over a period of three months just because the IP was the same? Furthermore, how did he get all the info for that IP regading different companies and different films?
From the cover page of the exhibits.
“There are three parts of this exhibit. The first two parts are for the two Does whose demand letters were used as exhibits in Doe 22’s Motion to Dismiss, and the third part shows the infringements for Doe 22. Note: there were three letters submitted as exhibits, but two of the letters are for the same person. Also, Plaintiff chose to respect the privacy of the other two Does by not submitting their name on the Exhibits. All these infringements will be used in litigation against these Does.”
Not sure what MC is trying to say or show with these listings of BT files/movies. I think he is trying to show the court that Perkins wouldn’t play nice and settle when they had so much ‘great evidence’. The third page is for Doe #22.
What a joke. Even if all the movies were traced back to a single public IP address, it doesn’t mean the ISP subscriber did it. It could be that the ISP subscribers Internet connection has been open for a long time and someone else is doing it.
Loved the line about “respect the privacy” of the other Two Does. What a kiss ass.
DTD 🙂
That makes sense but what I don’t understand is how he can introduce this into evidence when one of the lists shows 30+ unique movies over several months. Unless he has issued a subpoena to the ISP for each infringement and gotten the info back, how can he imply it was the same user for all movies?
Also, I don’t believe MC even represents all those clients. Last I head CEK TEK handled a lot of those companies. Is MC part of CEG TEK? I can’t remember. So how did he obtain that info? Are the trolls creating an online database where they can compare IPs and cross reference with other infringements? That would seem to be an issue for the people that have settled with a NDA.
That info shouldn’t be available as part of a NDA keeps the parties info confidential. I assume this would cover the IP and the “work” infringed upon. When someone settles with a NDA, shouldn’t the plaintiff purge their DB just like the ISP no longer has to preserve evidence?
Implying guilt above more than just the suit being filed is pretty underhanded and I hope judges see through this.
Yes, he’s part of CEG, and I believe he is trying to say “look at how overwhelming our evidence against these does is” but like I said before in my thief analogy above. I highly doubt that a thief when presented with an unlocked store would steal one little thing then slink away, and it’s very disingenuous to imply that is the case. They would try to take advantage as much as possible for the time the treasure hoard was left unguarded. The argument doesn’t add any weight to his accusations in my mind.
My impressions is that he cannot sue for all only those mention in original suit…he would have to prove copyright at the time of download was valid and i know they are not for all thise titles
If the ISP issues dynamic IP’s, then a separate subpoena/request would be required for every IP with date and time stamp, even if the same IP shows up just a mere second later. For example the ISP would have to separately correlate XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX @ 12:00:00 GMT and XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX @12:00:01 GMT to the subscriber of EACH time stamp at the time if XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX are equal but issued dynamically. So if the IP’s are the same but dynamic the troll can’t simply infer that the same IP address showing up at two different (even slightly) times belong to the same subscriber once they get the info for one of the time stamps..
For ISP’s that issue static IP addresses, if the troll gets the personal for one time stamp, gets a hit for a second “infringement” with the same IP AND has confirmation the the subscriber was the account holder during that entire range of time that encompasses both hits, then the inference is more valid. However, if the troll has no proof that the subscriber didn’t change providers during that time or has proof for the date ranges that you were even a subscriber, then the inference can’t be made in the static IP case and the second correlation by the ISP would have to occur via subpoena. Wait. You may have had a problem with your modem in between both time stamps. Maybe you received a new modem from your ISP as a result and received a new static IP once that new equipment was activated. Also, if you’re a UVERSE subscriber, they might have converted you from an IPv4 static address to a new IPv6 static address, then reissued your old IPv4 address to a different subscriber during that date range.
I guess I just argued against myself on the static IP angle possibly being able to be inferred. 🙂 Even if you do have a static IP address from your provider, there are valid reasons why one confirmed time/date stamp shouldn’t be used to infer that other date/time stamps with the same IP link to the account of the same subscriber! So even a static IP for a subscriber can change, but not by simply connecting and disconnecting from the same equipment like with a dynamic IP. A static IP can be changed or swapped by equipment or protocol changes at any time by that ISP.
So, unless the troll got the ISP to positively confirm each and every date/time stamp for a single IP address, I don’t see how they can say each infringement is “you” or me or any single person by just getting the subscriber info associated with one and only one of those date/time stamps.
On top of all that, you have DTD’s point that even if multiple time/date stamps for a single IP are legally and properly correlated back to the same subscriber by the ISP, that doesn’t mean that the subscriber is the “repeat infringer” (open wifi, WPS hack, spoofing etc) 😉
Cable fails to show up for scheduled hearing on motions today for
1:12-cv-10944-FDS
New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 -83
Ha…. where you at the hearing?
No, I saw it in pacer this afternoon – they had a hearing scheduled on like 10 different motions, there was a few lawyers, and a pro se doe there, and a noshow by counsel for the plaintiff.
the demand letters from CEG generallly say that settling this case will settle for ALL of their clients, so they generally don’t hit the same person over and over, but lord only knows if their software is any good or that they get the info for one film and then geolocate for every ip for other films and assume if the geolocation and the ip match then it is the same person. this is inherently flawed reasoning as well since cable operators often have a block of ip’s for a region and cycle it through all of their customers. so one day you might have say “198.341.174.13” and the next day your neighbor might have that IP.
Is this true? Someone asked this in the “General” section but never got a response. I know some lawyers say they can negotiate a settlement for all known, unknown, and suspected infringements without anyone finding out their identity. That got me to thinking about multiple infringements and whether the CEG TEK acted like the RIAA or MPAA in that they won’t bring any other suits against you as long as they took place before the settlement. Does anyone have an experience in this or a sample settlement from CEG TEK. I suspect it would be covered by a NDA so I’m not sure if anyone can post it.
Here is one that is about a year old and it only releases as to the single “work” at issue, from DTD’s blog http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/k-beechaz_settlement-agreement.pdf