Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Aaron Kelly (The Kelly / Warner Law, AZ)
- Lambert & Lambert PLC (Bloomfeild Hills MI) — (248) 642-7774
- John T. Hermann (Berkley MI) — 248-591-9291; Hermannlawoffices@Comcast.Net
- Steve Glista (Kalamazoo MI)
- John Di Giacomo (Revision Legal, Traverse City MI)
- Morgan E. Pietz (Manhattan Beach CA)
- Jeffrey Antonelli (Antonielli Law, Chicago IL)
- Samir B. Dahman (Dahman Law, OH)
- Elizabeth V. Janovic (Wilson P. Tanner III, Ann Arbor MI) — (734) 997-0000
Relevant posts
- Former Malibu Media attorney Paul Nicoletti found guilty on four counts of bank fraud (5/7/2019)
- Righting the wrongs: Malibu Media defendants appeal bad rulings (6/17/2016)
- Malibu Media fails to find a new counsel, judge dismisses the case (5/23/2016)
- Blaming X-Art’s owners, Lipscomb wants to withdraw from Malibu Media representation in three cases (4/18/2016)
- Malibu Media drops the case after its expert found dozens of X-Art videos on defendant’s hard drive (4/1/2016)
- Malibu Media attorney Paul Nicoletti is criminally charged with bank fraud (9/12/2015)
- Good Man Productions, Inc.: a zombie troll plaintiff (2/8/2015)
- Malibu Media blackmail: deep in the Prenda territory (9/28/2014)
- Defendant reasonably refuses to trust copyright trolls, judge somewhat agrees (7/21/2014)
- Michigan judge grants Malibu Media’s motion for default judgment… with a twist (7/9/2014)
- Copyright troll Malibu Media cries “Mommy!” (7/5/2014)
- Malibu Media subpoenas Comcast for the “six strikes” data: why it is a big deal (6/29/2014)
- Keith Lipscomb and X-Art/Malibu Media are shaking down an 80 y. o. woman (12/18/2013)
- Defense counsel: Malibu Media’s lawyers are a trolling enterprise (10/10/2013)
- The emperor has no clothes: a Doe moves for summary judgment in a Malibu Media lawsuit (10/2/2013)
- Indiana attorney Paul Overhauser tells judge about the real ugly face of troll Nicoletti, requests a $500,000 bond to be posted (5/24/2013)
- Judge severs Does from a case; troll Nicoletti says: “F’you, judge” and adds them back (1/10/2013)
- Malibu Media’s massive fraud: an update (11/13/2012)
- Malibu Media’s Massive Fraud (11/10/2012)
Fight © Trolls 
I’ve been keeping an eye on cases in Michigan off & on. I have a sweet spot for the mitten – beautiful country up there, and it’s a damn shame to see Trolls take up residency in one of my favorite stompin grounds.
Your resident douchebag in MI is John S. Hone (aka Jon Hone, Jack Hone) of Hone Law Firm P.C. Michigan Bar #: P36253. Office phone: (248) 948-9800. Office Fax: (248) 948-9811. Office address: 28411 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 960 Southfield, MI 48034. Office e-mail: jhone@honelawfirm.com
So far he’s the only one in MI, but he’s makin’ bank and hirin’ help.
He’s specialized in medical malpractice lawsuits, specifically birth injury settlements. He used to have a nice site that he’s torn down since going to the dark side (as if being an ambulance chaser wasn’t dark to begin with). Fortunately for us, the web remembers:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110303195812/http://www.honelawfirm.com/
Yes ladies and gentlemen, he’s gone from defending cute lil’ mentally handicapped kids in wheelchairs (ambulance chasing) to defending sleazy pornographers’ “intellectual property” (copyright trolling). Seems like a pretty big drop from “Poor lil’ harelipped Johnny” to “Her Ass Earns Them Money for a Living”.
His clientele is the standard fare: Nucorp, K-Beech, Raw Films, Patrick/Frank Collins, etc…
His cases are the standard fare. A dozen or so cases filed at the end of November. Most likely, Hone is just a hired gun taking a percentage from one of the big dogs out of Florida (Lipscomb). Most judges have just been pushing pens & passing paperwork to let Hone start fishing for settlements. There’s one or two cases where the judge even appears to give a damn and have asked for some kind of “WTF” hearing. One has a date coming up in the next few weeks here.
I’m no lawyer, and give no actionable advice, but as a general rule, don’t bend over for these fools unless you like a good ass-reaming for no good reason. Especially when it comes to a limpie like John Hone. If you’re a Doe in one of his cases, take a close look at all the details before you even CONSIDER settling. The majority of his cases are all bark, no bite.
I found the Nucorp cases the most interesting: almost all of their titles imply some kind of prostitution: Rough Sex for Sick Cash, Getting Slutty for Love and Money, Interracial Sex for Cash, Young Pussy on Sale, etc … and almost all of them applied for copyright more than a year after they were published. Some of them even have M.K. Lipscomb listed as their copyright filing correspondent.
What’s it all mean? Hone’s cases have a thousand and one flaws that a retarded monkey with a cerebral hemorrhage could rip to shreds. Maybe after he loses to that monkey, Hone could take it as a client and try to sue its hospital for malpractice in causing said cerebral hemorrhage.
Explanation for new Does:
There is a difference between statutory damages (which trolls want to claim) and actual damages. Statutory damages for infringement theoretically could be high (the trolls are always tossing around the maximum). Actual damages might be something closer to the retail price of a video (20 dollars or so).
Statutory damages can only be claimed ob the troll plaintiff and lawyer IF the registration was done in a certain time period after the work’s first publication. Registration of copyright to claim statutory damages is required to be within 90 days of publication or 1 month before learning of the infringement (There’s some gray areas about how the date of application and effective registration relate to infringement litigation.)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html
Some of the troll demands are for works where they could only collect actual damages-not enough to stay in the troll business.
Do not speak to the trolls. But check copyright registration. If the work is old and registration is not done with no evidence of registration application, the troll case for statutory damages may be in question.
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/
This is for discussion purposes only and is not legal advice.
Potential Good News for MI Does!!
RFC Case Number: C-K11-15224J
Court Case Number: 2:11-cv-15224-NGE-MKM
File Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Plaintiff: K-Beech, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John S. Hone of The Hone Law Firm
Defendant: John Does 1-22
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
Judge: District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
Notes:
Docket Text
This may not be the most complete up-to-date docket information.
For daily updates on this case, sign-up for a Lawsuit Tracker.
See the box on the right side of this page for details on the Lawsuit Tracker
Date # Docket Text
3/19/2012 4 NOTICE by K-Beech, Inc. of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of all John Does (Hone, John) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
This is great news indeed, the court has now closed this case as it is finito. My guess is that we will see the companion K-Beech lawsuit (case no. 2:11-cv-15226) go belly up as well shortly.
Good bad or ugly – it’s all relative. What it tells me is that Michigan’s resident trollawyer has gotten what he’s come for – names, address and phone numbers of people to harass into a settlement – and has closed up shop before the judges get a chance to close it for him.
He’s still free to call all those people and threaten to sue until he’s blue in the face. I’m sure he’ll be either very “helpful” or very “nasty”, playing good cop or bad cop as the situation merits, and will try to fish out any kind of details to turn around and use against you to twist your arm that much harder.
So far, Hone has proven himself to be unimaginative and rather weak. Going for the easy buck, and picking off the low-hanging fruit. Hope it’s worth it, John.
I hope his heart is not weak because I think he is in for a big surprise in his remaining case.
Mystery! I love mysteries, especially if there is a hint for a happy end (or an unhappy end – depending for whom – protagonist or antagonist).
There is also the possibility of a nice surprise in AZ and Maryland along the same lines.
Here is the text of Hone’s dismissal
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE OF ALL JOHN DOES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,
Plaintiff hereby voluntary dismisses all John Doe Defendants from this action without prejudice, because the period of time for which the Internet Service Providers will keep data records have elapsed. Consistent herewith, Plaintiff consents to having its case closed for
administrative purposes.
This 19th day of March, 2012.
/s/ John S. Hone
John S. Hone
Michigan Bar No. P36253
Attorneys for Plaintiff
28411Northwestern Hwy., Suite 960
Southfield, Michigan 48034
(248) 948-9800
jhone@honelawfirm.com
“Plaintiff hereby voluntary dismisses all John Doe Defendants from this action without prejudice, because the period of time for which the Internet Service Providers will keep data records have elapsed. Consistent herewith, Plaintiff consents to having its case closed for
administrative purposes.”
That is the same lame excuse that Steele uses…..
Yes, this appears to be a new tactic with both Prenda and CEG: get info, dismiss case to avoid judicial oversight, harass Does, extract settlements, rinse and repeat.
Just today, I had the US District Court in Detroit grant my motion to quash. The plaintiff was Patrick Collins, Inc. and also involved John Hone.
Great news.
Maybe judges in Michigan are quickly getting word about this scam. About 11 troll suits have been filed there so far. John Hone has been the lawyer of record for these porn studio extortion filings in all ten of the cases since 2011.
John Hone is listed as a lawyer who deals with Class Action, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Railroad Injury, Toxic Mold & Tort.
There is no indication he has much copyright experience. The guess is that his strings are being pulled by an out of state lawyer for a porn studio.
Wonder how things will go when this scam collapses? Wonder how future clients will view retaining someone who fronts for porn studios and distant lawyers to unethically siphon money away from Michigan citizens?
Congratulations to you Steve and John Hone http://www.lawyer.com/john-hone.html can suck it!
In what I believe is the first Eastern District of Michigan decision granting a Does motion to sever and quash Judge Steeh found and held that:
“Based on plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently allege that the Doe defendants engaged in
the same series of transactions with respect to their alleged infringing conduct, the court
concludes that the Doe defendants have been improperly joined and severs Doe
defendants 2-23 from this action under Rule 21. The court rejects plaintiff’s argument that
allowing severance of the Doe defendants will prevent copyright holders from being able
to protect their ownership rights. The court’s decision does not prevent plaintiff from
bringing separate actions against each individual Doe defendant. See Lightspeed v. Does
1-1000, No. 10-C-5604, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35392, * 6 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 2011)
(rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that joinder at this stage of the litigation serves the
interests of judicial economy); see also, K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-41, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS, at *14-15 (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that severing the Doe defendants would
prevent plaintiff from being able to enforce its copyright.) That many ISPs do not retain
accurate records which may thwart plaintiff’s efforts to identify significant numbers of
infringing defendants is immaterial to this court’s analysis of the propriety of permissive
joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, plaintiff’s desire to keep its
litigation costs low also fails to persuade the court that severance is inappropriate. As one
court stated:
Plaintiff’s motive for seeking joinder, therefore, is to keep its own litigation
costs down in hopes that defendants will accept a low initial settlement
demand. However, filing one mass action in order to identify hundreds of
Doe defendants through pre-service discovery and facilitate mass settlement,
is not what the joinder rules were established for.”
There is much more to read and enjoy in what I hope is the precedent that will get Hone back to chasing ambulances. http://ia600800.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.mied.264671/gov.uscourts.mied.264671.8.0.pdf
The troll can continue to suck it on 11-cv-15231 !
Click to access gov.uscourts.mied.264671.11.0.pdf
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
On March 26, 2012, this court entered an order granting John Doe’s motion to quash
in part and to sever. See Dkt. No. 8. The court’s March 26, 2012 order severed Doe
defendants 2-23, except for Doe defendant 1 (associated with IP address 71.238.74.7),
from this action concluding that joinder of the Doe defendants was not permitted under
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on March 29, 2012, plaintiff
filed a notice of settlement and voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Doe defendant 1 only.
Accordingly,
This cause of action is dismissed with prejudice.
To the extent plaintiff’s counsel continues to engage in settlement negotiations with
Doe defendants 2-23 (Doe defendant 22 was similarly dismissed after this court’s March
26, 2012 order was entered), counsel SHALL IMMEDIATELY inform the Doe defendants
there is no pending cause of action against them.
Yeah Baby! Judge Steeh is DA MAN! Apparently the good judge got word that Suck It Troll or his two bit plaintiff was still trying to shake down Does. Nice short sequel to a case that I thought was history.
I cant wait for the 13th to see where My case goes. Hopefully to court, after the other 17 Does are severed from the case.
Doe1of18,
I believe it is indeed a small world.
Looking over your docket I see that Dan Lambert has made an appearance on your behalf and filed a motion to sever. Weirdly Mr. Lambert and I had a discussion about a month ago regarding the artistic work at question in your lawsuit and its obvious homage to an earlier work. No wonder you are eager for a fight. Good luck!
So far, 2 of the 11 cases I am following here in Michigan via rfcexpress.com have been dismissed without prejudice. Most of the others are in the midst of “motions to quash”. Hopefully, they to will be dismissed.
I realize that this could mean that they have the info they were trying to get, but it is still good to see these cases out of the courtroom. I hope the courts got a good whiff of the scams these trolls are using and busts them all before they start another round of this madness.
I am a Doe in the Michigan case Third Degree Films that was dismissed without prejudice, and unfortunately you are right. The trolls have already gotten the information they were looking for and now I am receiving calls about once to twice a week from a lawyer (whom I have not yet spoken with) in California – not the lawyer John Hone who had obtained the information in the first place. So in my case the dismissal seems to mean nothing – the trolls got what they were looking for. Hopefully the tide will start to turn since it seems like more and more judges are seeing through their bullshit. Until that happens keep up the good fight.
Hone is getting a lot of help from out West. Not that it matters, I just keep feeding my lawyer info, and cash. They have contacted him a couple time now trying to get a settlement. They even threaten to add more infringements for other companies. We are still fighting. I hope Hone reads this lol, we wont settle! We will go all the way to trial! Still holding my cards to my chest but if you have PACER Case No. 11-cv-15226 Eastern Michigan. Feel free to take a look.
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Effectuate Service of Summons and Complaint on Each Doe Defendant——— file on 3/26/12 for the remaining 9 cases I am following.
Hopefully some of the good news happening in other cases throughout the US can aid us hear.
A few good blows have been landed recently against the trolls.
@Doe 1of18 you might want to head over to DTD’s blog…
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/02/single-pro-se-doe-makes-k-beech-troll-jason-kotzer-dismiss-him-with-prejudice-111-cv-02371-virgins-4-colorado/
In the comments Raul points out that the movie listed in your case is a recut of an older movie.
Meaning the copyright might be incorrect, taking the big money off the table and opening them up for having mislead the court.
Which means you could sue for your legal fees and a buncha other things…
They most likely would seek to dismiss you with prejudice, but a motion pointing out these facts could torpedo the whole case.
Yes. Made a correction to the post and updated it with screen shots from two online DVD review sites for both movies. The seven performers listed are the same for both movies. Stupid Trolls. DTD 🙂
Its so uplifting to my spirit when we find the huge flaw that can’t be explained away…
I’ve always thought that this is the sort of thing that ought to be looked into by the U.S Attorney General’s Office.
Nice, Wonder if I should ask the judge to order K-Beech to provide Grand Slam, and Gang bang virgins to the court for comparison since K-Beech owns both. I would prefer not to buy the material I have children in the house.
Strange but I have both titles and no longer need them If your attorney would like to have them in his arsenal I will gladly mail them to him, let me know.
Doe 1of18,
I see that the Troll in your case has filed an amended complaint which I have not read but which I bet now includes causes of action based on alleged violations of the Lanham Act (trademark infringement). This is relatively new and these claims are pure BS and a sign of desperation. One attorney addressed these allegations this way http://ia600507.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.381832/gov.uscourts.nysd.381832.24.0.pdf and a EDPA judge opined about this issue here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_11-cv-07247/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_11-cv-07247-0.pdf
Best of luck!
It may be Good Friday but I am afraid to report some bad news, there now is a split of authority as to the issues of joinder and severance in the Eastern District of Michigan. Magistrate Judge Mark Randon issued a report and recommendation yesterday in which he disagreed with Judge Steeh’s order that I discussed above on March 26 which found joinder improper and ordered the severance of all Does except dor Doe 1. Magistrate Judge Randon does not see it that way and finds joinder proper in the context of a troll lawsuit. The case is Patrick Collins v. Does 1-21 (case no. 11-cv15232). I could not RECAP it as I am on my stupid IPad. Hopefully an exception will be made and an appeal taken.
Does this mean that Judge Randon is trying to reverse the severances? I wonder how many of these cases are being handled by Magistrate Judge Randon versus some of the more conscientious Judges.
No; different case.
Does take exception with Judge Randon’s Report and Recommendation and timely file Objections. http://ia700807.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.mied.264672/gov.uscourts.mied.264672.docket.html
It’s been over a month, and still waiting for courts decision on my objection to Judge Radon’s recommendation. These plaintiffs and their attorneys are truly ass sucking scum.
My family has been received a subpoena notice from my cable company from Florida. I was had a few questions. Does anyone have news on the lawsuit in Miami-Dade County or know where I can stay updated on that particular case? We received the letter a couple weeks ago. Should I contact an attorney in MI, where I live, or FL? So far we received one phone call that I know of and no settlement letters that I know of. Any advice?
Unfortunately you were quite vague so my advice is limited. Your case is either a FL pure bill of discovery case which can be read up on here https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/ or it is a Lightspeed Media case which can be read up on here https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/lightspeed-password-hacking-cases/
To answer your question you will need a FL attorney if you think you need to retain counsel and both of the above threads contain FL attorney contact info as does this link http://dietrolldie.com/copyright-defense-lawyers/ and I believe SJD also has a list but I have no idea where to locate it. Help?
“Legal resources” is at the top of the resources page. It does not have a separate pull down menu. There is no state by state list, but the first link is to the EFF page that has a state listing.
Still, only 2 out of 11 cases “voluntarily dismissed”. Quite a few MOTION for “Extension of Time” and this strange one. I don’t understand what they are trying to do here.
RFC Case Number: C-K11-15226J
Court Case Number: 2:11-cv-15226-AC-LJM
File Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Plaintiff: K-Beech, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John S. Hone of The Hone Law Firm
Defendant: John Does 1-18
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
Judge: District Judge Avern Cohn
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Notes:
4/11/2012- 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by K-Beech, Inc. against John Does 1-18. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Hone, John) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
I just logged on to PACER and it cannot find my case….
Weird, did you query 11-cv-15226?
2:11-cv-15226-AC-LJM ,11-cv-15226 both versions of that, and nothing.
If comes up fine on my PACER account, maybe you need to reboot your computer?
How do I use RECAP to post info?
The only way to upload dockets and documents is via the Firefox plugin.
The guys behind the Recap project are great, but so far they developed a plugin only for Firefox, not any other browser. Even if you don’t use Firefox, it is still not a big hassle to install it and use for this stuff – it peacefully co-exists with other browsers.
Then, every time you access a history of a document, a copy is uploaded to archive.org behind the scenes. Also you see the indicators which documents are already uploaded and can click a link to see them for free.
My fault… some how I was in the bankrupture area, cost me 14.50 in fees on a querry lol. Found it now.
Make sure you use Recap plugin – it is beneficial to you and us.
I just redownloaded all files with recap installed.
Basicly what it says is they just bought the rights to Combat Zones video and the films are the same. At this point wouldnt that be Illegal to pruse a case that was not legal in the start?
The trolls must have read yesterday’s post by DTD and are now in panic mode!http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/02/single-pro-se-doe-makes-k-beech-troll-jason-kotzer-dismiss-him-with-prejudice-111-cv-02371-virgins-4-colorado/
By no means am I am expert on copyright law but the fact that they did not disclose this little fact when they applied for a copyright for a DVD that was previously copyrighted could mean they perpetrated a fraud on the Copyright Office and their application is invalid which could make the Certificate of Copyright Registration subject to revocation.The Certificate of Copyright Registration states that “Gang Bang Virgins” is authored by K-Beech (not Combat Zone) and that it was produced in 2010 (not 2006) and there is no mention that it is a derivative work (“Grand Slam” being the original work) . IMHO the Troll is screwed. To borrow DTD’s phrase Run Troll Run!
I will have to look at the documents, but even if K-Beech bought the rights to the Combat Zone movies, that DOES NOT give them the right to get a NEW copyright for just rearranging the movie and adding NO new content. It does not even equal a “derived” copyright registration as they don’t list it as derived AND you have to add something more than just minor editing. It is just a repackaging. http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/circ141.pdf
As they have filed a fraudulent copyright registration (False statement Title 18, section 1001), the complaint itself is based on a fraud AND Plaintiff new it was a fraud. Any other official documents they file claiming the copyright is valid equals a false statement. When they send out settlement demands and state they are seeking statutory damages/legal fees ($150K) because of a copyright infringement, they have just committed mail/wire fraud (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-63).
DTD 🙂
I RECAPPED the amended complaint and Exhbit E (Form CA For Supplementary Registration filed by LED on 4-3-2112!) and Exhibit D (the alleged assignment). From the amended complaint:
11. Plaintiff is the owner of United States Copyright Registration Number
PA0001757963 (the “Derivative Registration”) for the motion picture entitled “Gang Bang Virgins” (the “Derivative Work”) and the owner of United States Copyright Registration Number PA0001332187 (the “Underlying Registration”) for the motion picture entitled “Grand Slam” (the “Underlying Work”) which together are collectively known as the “Works”.
12. The “Derivative Work” is a derivative under 17 U.S.C. §103 because it is a work based upon the Underlying Work transformed through editorial revisions and production which, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship.
13. The Derivative Work was registered on or about October 24, 2011.
14. A copy of an internet screen shot from the U.S. Copyright Office’s website evidencing, among other things, Plaintiff’s ownership of the Derivative Registration and the registration date is attached as Exhibit B.
15. The Underlying Work was registered on or about May 22, 2006 by the original copyright owners Combat Zone.
16. A copy of an internet screen shot from the U.S. Copyright Office’s website evidencing, among other things, the Underlying Registration and the registration date is attached as Exhibit C.
17. Combat Zone assigned to Plaintiff the right, title, and interest in and to the copyrights for the motion picture “Grand Slam” including all registrations 2:11-cv-15226-AC-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 04/11/12 Pg 4 of 22 Pg ID 181
5
covering the Underlying Work, and Plaintiff recorded the assignment of the copyright for the Underlying Work on or about April 3, 2012.
18. A copy of the assignment of copyright and the document cover sheet filed with the United States Copyright Office evidencing, among other things, recordation are attached as Exhibit D.
19. On or about April 3, 2012 Plaintiff became aware that it had mistakenly omitted that “Gang Bang Virgins” was a derivative and filed a form CA with the Copyright Office clarifying the registration as a derivative.
20. A copy of the form CA evidencing Plaintiff’s clarification of its registration is attached as Exhibit E.
Wow.. just wow. Scumbags are aware of us being aware of the fraud and are trying to mitigate the damage. But isn’t it too late and doesn’t it warrant us aggressively approaching the General Attorney? If I have time tonight, I’ll write about it.
I have all the files, just cant copy n paste em. I cant figure recap out either. I have learned a lot about computers, internet, and some add ons but I can only learn so much so fast….. If there is a place I can send the files id be happy to.
Please send me them at doerayme2011@hotmail.com. Thanks
DTD 🙂
P.S. Just looked at the amended complaint and attached document. Still making a false statement by now stating it is a derived work. They even refiled (on 3 April 2012!!!!) with the US Copyright office that the original work was “Grand Slam.” BUT they still do not claim to the US Copyright office that it is a derived work – just been renamed. BUT to the court they lie and say it is derived. SCUM!!!!
DTD 🙂
Just sent them.
Thanks! DTD 🙂
From Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices:
480.04 Motion pictures as derivative works and compilations.
Generally, motion pictures by their nature are derivative works. For registration purposes, the motion picture is considered derivative only when it incorporates previously registered, published, or public domain material. In these cases, the application should identify such preexisting material incorporated in the work and also include a “material added” statement. The following examples reflect how this should be stated in the appropriate space on the application form:
480.04 Motion pictures derivative works and compilations.
Preexisting “Material added” material statement
1) Previously published 1) All other cinemafilm footage from a tographic material. 1924 silent movie.
2) Novel: “The Ghost 2) Television dramatiof Hawk Mountain.” zation.
3) Screenplay regis- 3) Cinematographic tered in 1960. material.
Compilation authorship in a motion picture is generally combined with editing authorship. The following example reflects how this can be stated on an application for registration:
Preexisting “Material Added” material statement Assorted newsreel foot- Compilations and editing age, still photographs, of old materials, plus and radio commentaries new script and narrafrom 1938 to 1940, drawn tion, and some new cinefrom various sources. matographic material.
K-Beech claims on Form CA that the Material added is “Editing/Production.Photographs”.
From a copyright circular:
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original
to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new
material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting
work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new
material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and
formatting are not copyrightable.http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Tomorrow will be a fun day.
Definitely, please report back.
Something to try 🙂
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/12/call-to-action-send-a-message-to-the-us-copyright-office-gang-bang-virginsgrand-slam-12-apr-12/
Many thanks! What’s next? Maybe the huge amount of Does being fraudulently sued warrants poking law enforcement? I can organize a similar call for action.
Sweet! DTD 🙂
It will be instructive if Doe1of18 reports back as to the judge’s reaction to thus sudden development tomorrow.
I thought it might be useful to return to the infamous VAED lawsuit to see if Troll O”Bryan gave any sworn testimony as to the pedigree of K-Beech’s product. He did not but his testimony before Judge Gibney is chock full of lies and half-truths and makes for a fun read. http://ia600707.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.269663/gov.uscourts.vaed.269663.21.0.pdf
Actually it is not testimony, sorry about that.
The attempts to cover it up and spin it as ‘a mistake’ should be further damning evidence of fraud.
This is not the only case involving these 2 “works” – Gang Bang Virgins / Gangbang Virgins & Grand Slam. Check this (probably incomplete) list out for starters!
K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-19 11-cv-05786-GBD nysd
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-20 11-cv-01655 dc
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-22 11-cv-01774 md
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-24 11-cv-01493 ohnd
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-48 11-cv-00487 ohsd
K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-39, et al 11-cv-00381 nced
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-85 11-cv-00469 vaed
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-37 11-cv-03741 nyed
PATRICK COLLINS INC, NUCORP LTD, RAW FILMS LTD, vs DOES, JOHN (1-1544) 2011-24714-CA-01 / 13-2011-CA-024714-0000-01 FL Miami-Dade County
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-36 11-cv-05058 paed
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-37 11-cv-03995 nyed
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-19 11-cv-05786 nysd
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-18 11-cv-15226 mied
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-31 12-cv-00088 md
Great job compiling this information. DTD 🙂
Its a mistake if it happens once but not twice because then it looks like a pattern.
Waiting on the decision from the Judge. Seems he wants to follow these cases pretty close. Wasnt a good or bad decision from what I have heard so far.
Lambert & Lambert PLC in Bloomfeild Hills MI (248) 642-7774
My lawyer!
He is accepting new clients as of now. He wanted to wait and see how this case unfolded before adding new people to my docket. If you are in my case or another one unfolding in MI give him a call. He is pretty up to date on these cases and frequents these boards for info.
Full docket text:
Minute Entry – Motion Hearing held on 4/13/2012 re [8] MOTION to Sever For Improper Joinder and To Quash Subpoena, Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by JOHN DOE 1, [5] MOTION to Quash file by JOHN DOE 11 before District Judge Avern Cohn. Disposition: Taken Under Advisement(Court Reporter Sheri Ward) (JOwe)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/13/2012 17:35:10
If you are involved with K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-18 11-cv-15226 mied, your information is being turned over. At this point you can keep going it alone or hire a lawyer to deal with all the calls and mail. Good luck guys. I will keep updating as more info comes out.
Do you know the Judge thought about the amended complaint?
It was brought up, but to comment on a judges thoughts… cant really say. Once my lawyer has the PACER info (updated with more details) I will pass it on to DTD and post here. I dont want to say anything to soon that is not on record. I cant wait to fight in court however! I love debate and fighting. My resolve to this in the begining was to fight, now its reinforced.
K-BEECH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 11-15226
JOHN DOES 1-18, HON. AVERN COHN
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
DENYING JOHN DOE #11 AND JOHN DOE #1’S MOTIONS TO QUASH (Docs. 5, 8)
AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOHN DOE #1’S MOTION TO SEVER (Doc. 8)
This is one of several cases pending in this district, and around the country, filed
by copyright owners alleging that John Does downloaded pornographic films without
authorization using a peer-to-peer file sharing network known as BitTorrent. Before the
Court are two motions, filed by separate John Does as follows:
John Doe # 11’s Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. 5)
John Doe # 1’s Motion to Sever for Improper Joinder and to Quash Subpoena
(Doc. 8).
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on April 13, 2012, John Doe
#11 and John Doe #1’s motions to quash are DENIED and John Doe #1’s motion to
sever is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Dated: April 17, 2012 S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So sorry, I saw that earlier today. Did your attorney give a read on the Order and the hearing?
Was basicly what we expected with the quash, we knew we would be going to court reguardless. The sever we had small hopes in it working. I dont have a transcript of the acctual dialog that took place. It would appear the judge is interested in what will happen next. I had my lawyer draw up a do not contact brief, since we have a lawyer they can deal with him. Just patiently waiting for the next step in this long process. It will be interesting to see what they do next.
Due to the problems with the work in question, a wise troll would take a few settlements and get the hell out but like you said it will be interesting to see what they do next. Good Luck with everything!
Luck is for the unprepared. Those videos you offered, my lawyer might want to barrow them when its time for court so please keep them close.
Will do as I need to get them out of the house and I have your attorney’s address. Just let me know. It would be interesting to see which version is the allegedly pirated version, my money would be on the earlier which could prove problematic for the troll if true.
keep up the good fight 1of18. and thanx to all who contribute here. not sure where id be if i hadnt stumbled across this site
A shout out to Doe1of18, hope you are well and are still giving the troll Hell!
A quick review of these lawsuits is less than inspiring, the judges seem to be rubber stamping every motion for discovery and for an extension of time to serve. One glimmer of hope is that today Judge Paul J. Komives held a hearing on a motion to quash in the case entitled Frank Collins v. Does 1-30 today.
Still here still fighting. No updates as of yet, however telemarketers are calling left and right. Seems I signed up for stuff online with 3 of my cell numbers. My 12yr old is getting them as well. Funny thing is no one here has signed up for anything. Guess they are also selling personal info to marketers as well.
That’s a new wrinkle in this sleazy universe. Monetizing Doe info other than by shakedown.
Still alive and kicking. Just letting everyone know, nothing happening as of yet. It would be nice if the Trolls would speed this up a little. They have the info they wanted. Lets get in the court room already. Waiting is sooooooo boring. O ya, the telemarketers are still calling endlessly! Cant wait to expose that in court as well. Keeping logs of when the calls started to coincide with the progress of this case.
Glad to hear that (not about telemarketers of course, but about your attitude towards the ordeal).
New troll, Paul J. Nicoletti http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/97950/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-46/summary/, of dubious repute.http://www.clr.org/Nicoletti-&-Associates.html
Wow, wonder if the trolls know all the nasty on this lawyer? There are a few old sayings that come to mind here tho, all shit floats, ect. LOL!
Doubt they could have found someone sleazier; frankly amazed the troll still has a law license. Nonetheless he is perfect for this extortion racket in every aspect.
Congrats! http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/85767/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-18/summary/
How can you tell he didn’t get info from isp to harass does directly. I thought it was standard procedure to dismiss w/out prejudice so they can file again?
Dammit….. I wanted to actually fight this out in court. Had some juicy plans that would have really pissed the trolls off. For the people scared and thinking of paying these people, dont unless your actually guilty of the crime dont cave in. It cost me far less in lawyer fee’s then they wanted for a settlement. I hope that at least is encouraging for some of you.
Scumbag Troll looks like an extra who just wandered off the set of “The Godfather Part II” http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-nicoletti/2b/68/4ab Scumbag Troll has a website, be sure to leave him some nice messages http://www.nicoletti-associates.com/Welcome.html
Looks like our good friend Nicoletti had some fun in the last decade with Mortgage Fraud. At one point he had a pretty good thing going, inflating home prices for profit.
http://mortgagefraudblog.com/perp-walk/item/10893-michigan_civil_lawsuit_alleges_fraud_involving_eleven_loans_funded_by_fifth
http://www.flippingfrenzy.com/2006/12/19/the-silent-second-revealed/
http://www.ripoffreport.com/organized-crime/nicoletti-associates/nicoletti-associates-pio-ma-2pccf.htm
Click to access 20110929_C294633_45_294633.OPN.PDF
Does anybody even doubt any more that these copyright cases are little more than an extortion scam?
I just check the RFC site. There are at least a dozen new filings. Most are in the Western district, but a few new ones in the Eastern District. Are they filing the same old shlock or do they have a new strategy/ load of bull?
On RFC listings, there were EIGHTEEN new porn troll suits filed on Thursday, 6/14/2012, by the lawyer for the porn studio plaintiffs, Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates. Nicoletti also filed 8 cases in Illinois the same day-24 total. Most were under the name of Malibu Media, with two for Patrick Collins and on for Third Degree films.
Been a while since I’ve posted, but I check for new case info everyday. I want theses trolls to get the smackdown they deserve. The sooner the better.
Missed you!
Give them hell doe 1. I’m a doe in a patrick collins suit. Hope you can take these trolls down. There is a new one that filed several new cases in Michigan Eastern District Court.
I looked up some of those new cases, it looks like there claiming X art site rips on some of those cases. The exhibit that has the names of the infringing titles is like 15 or 16 pages long.
Yesterday, the Honemeister, dismissed, with prejudice, (2) defendants in Case 2-11-cv-15232-DPH-MAR-Patrick Collins,Inc vs Does 1-21. He also dismissed, without prejudice, (18) of the remaining (19) defendants and asked for an Extension of Time against the remaining defendant, John Doe 18, aka me, the only defendant that filed a Motion to Quash and Dismiss. Apparently he finds it personally offensive that a defendant would dare exercise their rights under the law, rather than roll over on their backs and bare their throat for the kill.
Still waiting for The Courts decision on my Objection to Magistrate Judge Randon’s Recommendation to deny my Motion to Quash and Dismiss.
From what I can tell, douchebag Hone just doesn’t have your personal info yet because judge Hood hasn’t ruled on your MTQ. Judgeship set a deadline of 6/27 to name & serve – but Honer’s having a tough time figuring out the phone number of John Doe XVIII. Must not be able to find you in the phone book or something.
No worries, my man. All the bullshit parliamentary procedure world can’t cover up the fact that Honer can’t prove you did anything wrong. Keep that upper lip stiff, and rest assured that you haven’t wasted thousands of dollars like those two other poor schmo-doe’s who settled & got dismissed.
yeah i didn’t want to settle, but my lawyer told me if it goes on I would for sure pay him more than the settlement he negotiated. I’ve got a family and simply couldn’t risk these trolls making trouble and affecting my job. My hats off too all the does that can fight the good fight.
Hmm, sounds like the two settled, and he got the info from the isp on the other does so they can harass them directly. I hope you prevail 18. This is extortion plain and simple. All it will take is one innocent kid that is the child of a state senator to get accused of this stuff and I bet this house of cards they call copyright infringment would come down.
A question I found a half dozen porn videos had been downloaded on my computer by my 20 year old son or his friends after a party. No one has contacted me, but I want to know if there is anything i can do to protect myself.
You could peruse this and other sites, there is a ton of info. That way if you are notified you can make some smart decisions. I for one which I had understood how to use rfcexpress.com and had already been familiar with looking this stuff up.
Apparently Patrick Collins, Inc. needed more than one bottom feeder for Case 2-11-cv-15232-DPH-MAR, Eastern District, Southern Division of Michigan. Nicoletti filed an Appearance of Counsel on Friday, 7/2012. Also apparent, is that he can’t even spell the name of the city he’s wasting the air in. It’s Bloomfield Paul, not Bloomfiled. I feel almost honored that they think I’m worth paying someone else to fight me.
Well that goes with about half a dozen Nicoletti fuck-ups just in Illinois. In one case, he filed suit against a group of Does on behalf of Malibu Media. Normally that’d be OK, except he submitted a complaint with Patrick Collins as the plaintiff, a completely different case. Judge allowed him to amend the complaint, which is sad. If he can’t even submit correct documents, his case should be chucked with prejudice. In two CDIL cases that I know of, he forgot to sign the complaint and the court couldn’t contact him so the judge entered an order that the he either sign the documents within 14 days (it’s been a month and a half) or…something will happen. In a CDIL case, Judge Baker, citing the case where he ripped Steele’s complaint to pieces last year, denied Nicoletti’s ex parte application so instead of just bailing he appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Well, that’s a problem seeing as how Illinois doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit. He then filed an appeal with the Seventh, which was shot down, but he’s still plugging away. Milton Shadur denied his ex parte application because he fucked up. Shadur even cited which rules he violated heh. Another judge busting his balls in NDIL where Judge Kennelly (sp?) actually stated in his order granting Nicoletti’s ex parte application in a Malibu case that the “joinder issue will be visited” at a later occasion. These are just the ones off the top of my head.
With time, Nicolletti will prove to be God’s gift to Does (Duffy and Perea are also in that race so it will be close).
With Steele as the head cheerleader.
Based on Nicoletti’s previous “schedule,” he’s WAY overdue for disciplinary action and somewhat overdue for a lawsuit. Perea is a fuck up but only because he’s in way over his head and scared shitless…I could tell by the tone of his voice when he tried to extort money from me. That or ashamed, or both. Duffy is stone cold and doesn’t fuck up as much, but he’s been getting a lot more careless lately with the larger caseload he’s been handling and the giant shit puddles he’s been stepping in. Nicoletti is by far the most negligent and/or incompetent of the trolls.
Raw Films v. John Does 1-38 11-cv-15227 (mied)
6/27/2012 : ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE – In denying Plaintiff’s second motion to extend the time period for effectuating service on the thirty-eight John Doe Defendants in this action, the court on June 8, 2012, dismissed all those Defendants who had not yet been served with a summons and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court also directed Plaintiff to file a proof of service for all Defendants who had been served, as well as an amended complaint identifying those Defendants by name, no later than June 22, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file such materials by the specified date, so the court can only conclude that none of the Defendants were properly served in the time allotted by the court. Thus, it seems dismissal of the entire action is appropriate at this time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) due to the failure to timely serve Defendants. s/Robert H. Cleland UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 27, 2012
( http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.264667/gov.uscourts.mied.264667.18.0.pdf )
And then according to RFCExpress : 7/20/2012 – 19 – NOTICE of Appearance by Paul J. Nicoletti on behalf of Raw Films, Ltd.. (Nicoletti, Paul) <——- wtf?
Troll Paul J. Nicoletti filed two mass doe cases in the Michigan Eastern District Court on July 26, one for Patrick Collins and one for Malibu Media.
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/100908/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-33/summary/
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/100913/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-28/summary/
The Western District of Michigan is hostile to trolls!
Judge Jonker rounded up all 6 of Troll Nicoletti’s lawsuits on 8-13 (12-cv-626, 617, 618, 619, 620 and 621) and sua sponte found joinder to be improper “..the Court does not believe it
encompasses the “six degrees of separation” argument on which Plaintiff’s theory relies…” Also a nice discussion of BiTorrent. http://ia600402.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.miwd.70868/gov.uscourts.miwd.70868.9.0.pdf
I believe they’re also hostile to Nicoletti seeing as how every judge in the Western District and especially the Eastern District must know of his long and storied…past. You should see the memorandum he submitted in support of joinder in MM v. Does 1-55 in NDIL…he cited a bunch of Steele’s cases from NDIL last year, that idiotic ruling in the Pacific Century v. Does 1-31 in NDIL, and the AF Holdings case before Howell right now.
Can anyone help shed some light on a current case in Michigan?
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/85765/nucorp-ltd-v-john-does-1-24/summary/
This has been going on for some time and if I am reading everything correctly there were (4) motions addressed on 6/25/12 but no ruling has been made on them?
Also, twice the troll has filed a motion to extend which has been granted. Is this necessary to keep the lawsuit alive? I am assuming the troll still does not have access to subscriber ISP information.
Sorry for what may be basic questions but it isn’t easy for me to follow the trail of docket entries.
Trolling is once again heating up in the MIED with most judges granting Troll Nicoletti expedited discovery but that may change in the near future. In Patrick Collins v.Does 1-21 (12-cv-12596) Judge Tarnow sua sponte severed Does 2-21 and prohibited discovery of Doe 1’s telephone numbers or email addresses:
“The Court does not find the fact that each of the Defendants are potentially related “in the universe of possible transactions” to be sufficient to permit
joinder.” http://ia600709.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.mied.270729/gov.uscourts.mied.270729.8.0.pdf
Docket is here http://ia600709.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.mied.270729/gov.uscourts.mied.270729.docket.html
Troll Nicoletti puts in an appearance for Troll Hone AFTER the judge has dismissed the lawsuit. Funny http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/85768/raw-films-ltd-v-john-does-1-38/summary/
Date # Docket Text
8/23/2012 24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-Beech, Inc. AS TO JOHN DOE #12 ONLY (Nicoletti, Paul) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
7/20/2012 23 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul J. Nicoletti on behalf of K-Beech, Inc.. (Nicoletti, Paul) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
6/27/2012 22 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-Beech, Inc. without prejudice of all remaining John Does (Hone, John) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
6/26/2012 21 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-Beech, Inc. without prejudice of John Does 1, 2, 5, 11, 15, 17 and 18 only (Hone, John) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
6/26/2012 20 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-Beech, Inc. with prejudice of John Doe 8 only (Hone, John) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
I thought this one was done? Hone got the info on all Does, then Dismissed, now Nicoletti puts in a motion?
Welcome back!
I agree it’s weird but Nicoletti appears to be a sloppy hack, hehas put in appearances in a several lawsuits that had previously been dismissed. It looks like this dismissal was a combination of hounding does after the lawsuit was dismissed, his folly and clerical mistake.
Heya Raul, never left to be honest, I check every update posted on here. Just have nothing of value to add. Still counting down the 2 year limit they have to pull us into a case, hoping they either do it soon or go away. The telemarketers are still calling but far less then right after the Trolls got our Info. Hope your all in good spirits and any one new to this ordeal doesnt get overwhelmed and fights back!
Not to be a buzzkill, but I thought it was three years. Can anyone confirm? I thought about making one of those paper chains we did back in kindergarten for my countdown. Two years vs. three years would make a big difference in the amount of construction paper I would need 😉
copyright infringement is 3 years, the cfaa claims from the hacking cases are 2 years.
Hi,
Does anyone have an idea around the settlement amounts for Malibu Media?
No idea on Malibu Media or even the case I’m involved in. Why settle with these slime ball’s?
Malibu is one of the most arrogant, demanding anywhere from $3,400 all the way up to $7,000 – $10,000. Honestly, if you’re thinking of settling, just get a lawyer to act as a screen to troll calls and they give up soon enough. Many Doe defenders offer a flat sub-grand pre-summons rate to handle “negotiations” (aka telling trolls to f-off for you).
Fantalis in CO and Judge Baylson in Eastern District PA is putting a lot of heat on Malibu, and Malibu is finding out that that actually naming defendants and pursuing claims in court is risky business.
I received a letter from my ISP regarding a recent Malibu Media, llc vs John Does case in MI (filed 6/14) and it is still prior to the date that the ISP is to release our info if we don’t file to quash subpoena, etc. I haven’t filed one yet, mostly because I’m not sure if it will help at all, and I also have not retained a lawyer at this point. Looking on the RFC express website I don’t see that anyone else had filed one as of yet either. The most recent updates on that website is from 6/23 (Motion for Leave to File) and subsequently 6/27 (Order on Motion for Leave to File). I haven’t paid to actually look at the documents yet as it appears is possible. What exactly do these motions usually entail? I thought it was so that they could file individual doe cases, but without receiving any doe information yet presumably, is this normal? Is there a better way to follow my case where I can actually see whats going on? I only found this RFC express website because it was the first thing that popped up on Google. Anyone else involved in the recent group of 6/14 Malibu Media cases have any info on whats going on? Looks like Nicoletti is the attorney on all of them….
File a motion, if for no other reason than to be a pain in the troll’s asses. Don’t just roll over for them. My case was filed 11/9/2011. I was the only one that filed a motion. The other 20 defendants settled or are currently being harassed to settle. I’m still waiting for a decision on my motion and not getting the phone calls or emails. If you want to follow the case, register on Pacer, the court filling repository. It’s free to sign up, and only 10 cents a page. If your monthly charge is less than $8.00, you don’t get charged. I’ve never had to pay.
Keep Up the Fight,
Doe 18 of 21
So since they don’t have our information already and I dont have to show that I’ve filed a motion until 10/1 or they will give out everyone’s information I’m just wondering why they would file a Motion for Leave to File? For some reason I figured that was the motion they file when they want to basically stop the current case against multiple Does so they can file against individuals (which they dont have yet). Just out of curiosity: are you in one of these MI cases and did you file via an attorney or by yourself? Thanks
My case is 11-cv-15232. I filed my motion pro se (no attorney). I had an attorney look it over and file it electronically. Their goal is to file against multiple Does together so they only have to pay a single filing fee. They aren’t interested in going to trial. They just want to get your personal information as quickly, easily and cheaply as they can so they can start calling, emailing and threatening you to get you to settle with them.
I am preparing to file a motion to quash now for one of the 6/14 cases.
I do admire your work. Can you help with a few questions to file as pro se?
For the motion, I don’t specify which IP. Am I right?
Do I have to physically sign the motion or do the same thing as the Nicoletti did by typing “/s/ Paul …”?
How did you mail the motion out to court and troll? A few conflicting ideas out there and not sure which one to use. Do I need certified mail?
What did you fax to your ISP? You will receive any confirmation?
BTW, what do you think that it’s going to happen to you? The troll had almost nothing against you even if they sue you individually.
Anyway you are a pioneer and I thank you for that.
Okay I just got a PACER account to follow my case. So I just did a brief search of your case Doe 18 of 21 and it looks like everyone has been dismissed without prejudice except for you? Why is it taking so long? Have you posted a copy of your Motion to Quash anywhere online by any chance or could point me in the direction of the one you modeled yours after? I assume that since they haven’t ruled on yours then they also haven’t gotten your personal information and started contacting you huh?
I’ll let Doe 1 of 18 tell his own story when he wants to but he is one of the first guys to stand up to the trolls, I have tremendous admiration for him.
Just Google “Motion to Quash Copyright Trolls.” I think if you go to the main page of this site you’ll find a template. Just tailor it to your circumstances. You can also look on Pacer for dismissed cases and use those motions to quash. As far as why it’s taking so long, I like to think that Her Honor Judge Denice Hood is giving serious thought to the matter. She very easily could have rubber stamped the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the motion, but she hasn’t. Raul, thanks for your support and kind words. I had no other choice than to act because (a) I’m innocent of the acts I’m accused of, and (b) I refuse to reward the bad behavior of these trolls
My resolve from the begining was to fight, I even told my lawyer I would rather pay him more then their demands just out of spite. Still feel that way and still plan on doing it. If your guilty I cannot give any real advice. If your not then fight. I had my Lawyer file motions we knew would be dismissed simply to waste the Trolls time. It seems it worked on Hone since he isnt filling new cases! The new area Troll doesnt even seem to have a grasp on the existing cases either.
Re: Doe 1of18’s comment “If you’re guilty . . . ” that is something that is never discussed here. Maybe it’s verboten. However, some of the people posting here likely are guilty. Does anyone have any advice about what they should do or who they should talk to? I imagine a lot of people on this site are scared and don’t want to necessarily bury their heads in the sand but don’t have the funds to cough up. Admitting guilt will just put you in the trolls cross-hairs. Just some food for thought.
I’ve been at this trolling trolls thing for over a year now and during the journey have listened to quite a few lawyers who represent Does. While the troll technology is flawed and it coughs up a serious percentage of false positives, there are a lot of offending IP addresses out there. The problem is it is often the child of the person who subscribes to the ISP who, in turn, has to choose between having his kid being tarnished or forking over some of that kid’s college savings for a $9.99 porno. Ugly business.
Yes it is. Also, these trolls aren’t as accommodating as the RIAA or MPAA. At least in those cases if you ‘fessed up you would be protected from future suits as long as you promised to abstain from any future downloading. These trolls are out for blood on every single infringement. Perkins is dealing with Cable who lists 30+ movies with one IP and eludes to it being the same infringer whether it’s true or not.
These trolls should try a carrot approach instead of beating people over the head with a frakking mallet. Personally, when the CEG (or whatever) was offering settlements of $200 an infringement, that is a whole heck of a lot better than $3500. Not sure why these initial settlements have jumped 15 fold in just over a year.
Bankrupt families for a $20 or less DVD. How can they sleep at night? I mean seriously. How can they justify their decisions. I guess every soul has its price.