Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Alan C. Green (CGA Law Firm, York PA)
- Leonard J. French (Allentown PA)
- Michael R. Mignogna (Cherry Hill NJ)
- Jeffrey Antonelli (Chicago IL)
Relevant posts
- Judge Alsup threatens to bar further Malibu Media cases in his district until the accuracy of the geolocation technology is fully vetted (5/10/2017)
- Because of defendant’s counterclaim, judge disqualifies Malibu Media’s attorney Christopher Fiore (10/30/2016)
- Good Man Productions, Inc.: a zombie troll plaintiff (2/8/2015)
- David v. Goliath: pro se defendant prevails over copyright shakedown cartel (2/3/2015)
- Malibu Media’s “evidence”: not only is the king naked, he doesn’t even wear sunscreen (8/10/2014)
- Copyright troll Lipscomb thinks that if you have a penis, you must be guilty! (7/2/2014)
- Malibu Media foxtrot: five simple moves (5/31/2014)
- Bellwether “trial” transcript is available (12/4/2013)
- Judge Baylson issues Report on Bellwether Trial (6/19/2013)
- Reader’s comment: Shame on you Keith Lipscomb and shame on you X-Art (6/12/2013)
- Bellwether: essentially settled, it will be only a quick bench trial (no jury) (6/6/2013)
- Bellwether trial is looming; Lipscomb’s weaselry continues (6/4/2013)
- Bellwether trial update: How NOT to prepare for trial (5/5/2013)
- Prenda explores a loophole in Pennsylvania’s law, its local counsel Isaac Slepner plagiarizes a memo (1/28/2013)
- Malibu Media/X-Art has settled to avoid discovery (11/15/2012)
- Joinder or no joinder? Can’t have both (11/14/2012)
- Bellwether trial update: Telephone conference, new filings (11/3/2012)
- Bellwether trial update: a delicate art of bullshitting under oath (10/24/2012)
- Bellwether trial update: trolls are trying to sabotage the process (10/17/2012)
- Judge Baylson wants to test copyright trolls’ evidence in a bellwether trial (10/7/2012)
- Liberty Media v. John Does 1-441 lawsuit is dismissed (9/5/2012)
- Copyright troll Christopher Fiore files an opposition… to his own motion, per judge’s order (8/31/2012)
- A new page about a Pennsylvania’s frivolous lawsuit brought by a new troll, Jordan Rushie (8/6/2012)
- (Audio) In order to win, at very least you must pick up the fight – an encouraging story of a fighting Doe (6/25/2012)
Fight © Trolls 
Thanks that is all very helpful and clears up a lot of stuff. My only confusion now is to whether I should file a motion to quash myself. I find that whole concept a bit confusing.
If it passes then I am free and do not have to worry about this? If it does not pass then this Fiore jerk knows who I am and will go after me further. What is the chance of it passing vs. not passing if I write it myself based around templates I’ve seen around here? There are 20 people in my group and from what I understand if one person files and it passes we are all free?
Seems like it might be best to wait it out but it’s hard for my mind to digest just waiting out a legal thing like this. Maybe I just need to sleep on it for a bit. Thanks again for the help. It made a lot more sense seeing everything in one post.
Does anyone know once he has your contact info how long they have till they have to file against you directly. At this point, my perspective is that unless they provide proof of some sort, to go XX themselves. But for my own sanity I wanted to know how long they would have before they’d need to file against me directly.
I think standard is 120 days, but they can request more time (perhaps another 30 days). I see Malibu is dismissing cases w/o prejudice after the judge serves them the defendants’ info. To me this suggests that they are going to apply much harassment for a settlement. It also means they can file again until statute of limitation expires (3 yrs). Unfortunately the Eastern PA justices are pathetic.
I guess I have a slightly different impression. First unless the Judges get Motions to Quash, dismiss and sever then they will take the easy way out and won’t sever or do anything to stop the release of your information. The ISPs will generally release your information once ordered by the court if you dont object – unless they decided to fight and right now it doesn’t look like the ISPs are fighting in the EDPA (they have filed MTQ in other courts.
And just because one Doe files a motion, unless you affirmatively contact the ISP and tell them you are filing a MTQ then they will release your informtion when the deadline expires.
So the question of being targeted — one of the best pieces of advice I got early on was to be an unattractive defendant. What does that mean? Be someone that Fiore doesn’t want to mess with — and yes even if he does try — the truth of the matter is that these guys don’t really want to litigate and they don’t have legitimate cases so if the cases ever really see the light of day they will lose. In the EDPA none of these cases has gone to trial or gotten to the discovery stage.
So you can do something as simple as a “Me To” motion — saying you join in the arguments of another Doe in your case if they have filed a MTQ. And if you have an argument that you are not living in the Eastern DIstrict of PA — that is really the best argument that the Court has no jurisdiction over you — raise that argument.
Only if the Does speak out and start flooding the courts with MTQ will they begin to pay attention. When this becomes something that clogs the dockets and takes up too much of the Judges time in the EDPA then we may start to see some better decisions to stop this travesty. And Fiore doesn’t seem to be slowing down with his filings so the only way to fight is to make sure the voices of the John Does are heard.
Good luck. By the way I fought Fiore and when I filed a motion to ask the Judge to send the case to the Third Circuit for an appeal Fiore dismissed the case against the three remaining does who were fighting the release of their information – so he never did get the information about the three does who filed and fought the release of thier personal information.
John Doe xx has made excellent comments that are more specific and informed then the answer I was writing. Usual disclaimer: This is for discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
A motion that succeeds for one Doe does not necessarily apply to the group of Does. If things get sticky, the trolls try to dismiss an individual Doe so that the legal point is not applied to the whole suit. As SJD noted in the early days of this website: Any motion, successful or not, raises the profile of these cases in the courts and potentially make the local troll work harder to keep their money machine going.
If discovery is granted (that is, Doe contact information goes to the trolls), they know who you are whether a motion is filed or not.
A better case could probably be made that a troll is LESS likely rather than more likely to go after a Doe in court because the Doe submitted a motion. A Doe who files a motion is active and informed-a bad combination for a troll target. Trolls move on to extort easier marks to keep their money machine going. As others including SJD have pointed out, a fraction of one per cent of the cases even get to the naming an individual and serving a subpoena. There’s no strong evidence of regular troll attempts at vengeance against Does for MTQ’s in 2 years and 300,000 people dragged into this awful stuff.
Ok, thanks again fellows. I am going to file on motion to quash. Is it highly recommended to have a lawyer do it? I know I can write one on my own, but I’m not sure if I should. I do really hate the idea of having to spend a ton of money on a lawyer for this to defend myself against something I didn’t do. I was saving up for a decent vacation this year when I had car problems. Now that I have some cash for a smaller vacation saved now I have this pop up. Very frustrating and could be a big waste of money!!
I looked at it like this:
Filing a MTQ has the immediate effect that your ISP should not release your subscriber info until the Judge rules on your motion. That should happen no matter what.
It also has the possible judicial effect that de-rails the case itself. This is in the hands of the Judge.
But, I weighed the immediate effect heavier…I don’t want my subscriber info in the hands of the Plaintiff either way.
So, while I did my best putting together the Motion, I’m not an expert, and I wasn’t counting on it to be a success legally. Rather, I used it as a way to slow down the ISP releasing my info.
So, my advice is always file your own MTQ, and send one to the court, one to the Plaintiff, and Fax to the ISP legal dept.
Looks like a victory in EDPA (5:12-cv-02086-TJS) . Albiet seems only good for Doe #6?
ORDER THAT JOHN DOE’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS AND/OR QUASH THE SUBPOENA AND/OR ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS HEREBY GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE SUBPOENA SERVED UPON THE ISP LISTED IN EXHIBIT “A” TO THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO JOHN DOE #6 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF 4/25/2012 IS QUASHED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/9/2012.7/9/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, ) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
What is the reason of releasing only one Doe?
Well it looks like he released only that Doe’s entire ISP list.. but not the other 2 ISP’s on the list.
The way I read this is that the subpoena to the ISP involved is quashed ONLY in relation to Doe#6. I wish it was for the entire ISP or all Does.
HOWEVER, all recent Pennsylvania Does (especially in this case) should look over Doe#6’s Motion to Sever/Quash. It makes some well written points about the trolls’s improper joinder and about the troll extortion process. Case references are included. Apparently, this reasoning was accepted by Judge Savage. Here’s the link to Doe #6’s motion:
Click to access gov.uscourts.paed.461475.6.0.pdf
Here are two PAED cases assigned to Judge Timothy J. Savage since the 4/19/12 filing by Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC on behalf on the porn purveyor NuCorp, Ltd.:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-12
Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-03149-TJS File Date: Monday, June 04, 2012
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22
Court Case Number: 5:12-cv-03139-TJS File Date: Monday, June 04, 2012
Confined to rfcexpress.com as the iPad does not support Firefox but it looks as if Doe 6’s motion was granted, in part, because the troll committed malpractice (IMHO) insofar as Doe 6’s motion went in unopposed by the troll?
I read the MTQ above and I don’t see anywhere that Doe indicates he is Doe #6 and this pleads that entire group be quashed and severed. I don’t see how a judge would say this applies to only one Doe. Also is this how one files as a Doe in EDPA? How does the court know one is actually any of the defendants. I am considering filing my own MTQ but don’t know what I have to do to submit it properly. I don’t want Judge to toss my MTQ on a technicality.
I too filed a MTQ that asked for the judge to sever and quash all the subpoena’s — I did not identify myself by doe number or ISP address because it was not required by the order granting discovery (be careful to read the court order that grants the subpoena, some of the judges require that you identify yourself by either Doe number or ISP). (note this isn’t legal advice just recounting a story of what happened in my case) Eventually however because only 3 does fought the subpoena, it became obvious who we were because Fiore got all the other Does private information. One good thing was because there were 3 of us, Fiore does not know which ones wrote what motions or who fought him because our information was never released. After the Judge denied the MTQ I didn’t quit – I filed a Motion for Reconsideration, or in the alternative requested an appeal to the Third Circuit. Fiore then dismissed the case against the three remaining DOes (without prejudice so he could refile) and he does have that choice. But I think he probably is pretty sure that if he refiles against any of the three does in our case that he will have a fight on his hands and so he probably won’t do it. One other point as soon as I filed the MTQ — I Contacted my ISP with a copy of my motion and they agreed that as long as I was fighting the release of my personal information they would not release my personal information. Indeed Fiore tried to do an end run after I filed the Motion for Reconsideration telling the ISP that the judge had denied the MTQ and they should give him the personal information. The ISP informed Fiore and me that they were not going to release my personal information because I had forwarded the Motion for Rceonsideration and until the Judge ruled on that they were not releasing the personal information. One critical thing to do is to stay in contact with your ISP (they will probably have a contact for you) and to forward any motions you file in the case and to advise them of the case status.
In these cases you can’t depend on other people objecting on your behalf. You have to speak up for yourself.
Question: If the troll already has my information and has tried to contact me, we kind of motion can I file? A MTQ is a no-go at this point I guess. Can I file a motion to sever? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
(Usual disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. This is for discussion purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.)
I don’t know the specifics here. If the troll has tried to make contact about a case and it’s a case where you were a Doe, they have obtained discovery. The trolls achieved the goal of their [XXX] vs. Does 1-x case.
If you’re not sure that your information was actually released for a specific case, check with your ISP legal department to find out if and when.
Unless you have been named as an individual in a separate filing, there is no pending legal action against you. There would be no case to file a motion for.
At the stage described, the issue would be how to field the troll calls. Keep yourself composed while trolls make misleading threats. (DON’T SPEAK to them, except in a brief scripted response, like the one DTD composed.)
That’s been covered here (see FAQ & Resources), at DTD, & other places.
Thanks for your reply. I guess they have obtained discovery then. So, it looks like I sit tight for now? What are the odds of Fiore and company filing a separate suit? Considering it costs $350 to file a case and these cases don’t seem to stand up in court, it seems like it would be against troll principal to follow this method.
There is another Doe in my case that lawyered up and filed an extension to get more time and then filed a motion to sever all Does but Doe #1. Still waiting on the order for that motion.
Lacking legal expertise and lacking money for a lawyer, I decided to wait and see how the case unfolded. Probably a mistake in retrospect. Is there anything else I should be doing? Can I file something just to put my hat in the ring? Something in support of the other Doe’s motion to sever?
Not legal advice:
At the very least you could write a letter to the court as a John Doe (indicate your IP address) in which you join in the motion to sever and adopt and incorporate the arguments made by the represented Doe’s attorney as if they were set forth at length herein. Attach a certificate of service as to the troll, mail to court and troll (courtesy copy to judge) and fax to your ISP’s legal department with a cover letter letting them know who you are. Follow up with a call to your ISP to make sure they received the fax.
got a few calls this week from this number does anyone know this is one of the collectors numbers in Pennsylvania (866-381-0648)and can I answer and give them the Richard Pryor response or will they only talk to my wife since she is the subscriber for the isp. or is it best just to not answer and just send back a written letter with their settlement offer stating innocence and welcoming them to take me to court
Google shows its “Alliance One” Debt collection. I’d suggest you pay your bills?
Unless the number has been released and one of the trolls is using it..
thanks for your concern on me paying my bills…but most likely not for me I still get tons collection calls from whoever had my phone number before me,I think they’re still giving this number out. so I’ve stopped answering calls from any number I don’t know
I am a lot more calm now after reading this place, the responses I’ve gotten here and the articles on DieTrollDie. I feel like I’ve learned a lot and understand the situation now. I am going to go about my life and not let this bother me much for now.
One question I still have is that I read the only people that have paid the max fine in this are the ones that defaulted. From my understanding defaulting means they have not showed up for a court date. I have also read that no one has been tried in a court for these cases. So, the two of these statements do not seem to go together. Can anyone clarify?
Thanks again!
Judgements-yes, a few. Real trials (with contested points about the case)-None that I know of.
A default judgement means that the (Doe) defendant did not respond to a summons or did not appear in court. The highest default judgement I recall hearing about is 20K. Mr. Cashman mention a 30K judgement in a posting on his blog (1/09/12). SJD did a post about this:
There have been default judgement that are in the hundreds, such as $750. We don’t know many of the details of the default stories-whether the alleged defendant is overseas, ill, poor, etc. Also, no clear thinking anti-troll host or commenter recommends to not answer a court summons.
I am not aware of any contested trial where trolls have been made to establish the merits or accuracy of their claim, the validity of their technology, their supposed interest in copyright protection, and the details of business operation and finances of troll lawyer, “technologist” and plaintiff.
What’s notable is the lack of sincere troll trials, after hundreds of filings. You’d think after hundreds of cases, that porn purveyor trolls interested in protecting artists would be rubbing Doe defenders faces in a string of slam dunk victories. As SJD, DTD and others have noted, much less than 1% of Does even get to the naming stage of a case against an individual. This is a major point in labeling copyright trolling as extortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgement
(We could debate whether a default judgement is a trial (in common use language). It’s similar to whether you call a victory by forfeit a “game” in sports.)
Anyone know what current extortion rates are from Malibu for single or partial site rip BS allegations?
I have a letter from my ISP. The case itself starts with: DEMAND for Trial by Jury by PATRICK COLLINS, INC. Most of the other cases on RFCExpress start with COMPLAINT against John Does. Is mine more serious or is it just a PA thing that it starts with a DEMAND for Trial?
In an effort to maximize FUD all troll complaints demand a jury trial. It is PURE bluff, I am willing to bet anyone on this blog $100 that Troll Fiore has NEVER taken a case to trial much less to verdict.
But… trolls promised to sue everyone individually, didn’t they? If so, 250,000 * 12 = 3,000,000 people leave their workplaces at the expense of their employers to stand against evil pirates and save the pride of US economy: porn industry!
Inexperienced opportunist probably has no clue how to pick a jury.
Still waiting for it to happen but we will all be ice fishing in Hell before Prenda/IPP surrogates picks its first jury unless it is as a defendant.
That’s standard working to be used in a complaint.
Is it Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-03148-JS ?
If so I am one of the doe. Are you filing an mtq? I think the deadline is July 23 rd
Today I mailed MTQ for the above case. Let’s see what happens
Is there anyone here or are there links to sites, that can refute their claim about IPP being able to record every part of a seeded file going to and from an IP address? Are they as an agent required to seed that same file in order to enter the swarm. If they are then the files(s) are gifts not infringement. It is not an infringement when copyright holder’s agent is handing the work out.
Also has anyone ever addressed that there are hundreds of thousand of these files all over the internet for free and no warning that these are copyrighted. Many of these have been available for over two years and no after the farmer left the gate open, he wants to sue his neighbors for theft.
It would not surprise me if these trolls are seeding these to set the trap. How many people would cancel their IPS if they had a clue of what is happening across America.
Yes, all these issues have been discussed at different times. You could start by either google searching this site & DTD for topics, or paging through the titles of postings.
Here’s some items:
(1) The trolls have never had to explain their technology, beyond claiming it works and gives a snapshot of file sharing at one moment. The fact that they have avoided this suggests weakness. The experts delivering their “testimony” so far have not appeared to have particularly distinguished credentials (Advanced degrees, publications, etc.).
(2) The trolls are probably exploiting the fact that busy judges have no time to become technologists. Some rulings have basically said that the technology and merits of the cases would be evaluated in individual trial, after discovery is granted and Does are served. We’re supposed to bow down to an unknown method, because computers are scientific.
(3) Of course, discovery is only used for leverage to extract settlements from Does. In allegations against 300,000 individuals, trolls have never had to present arguments that would be carefully evaluated. Trolls are smart enough to dodge this.
(4) AFAIK, there has never been a real indication that the troll method even claims to conclude how much of a file is shared. Copyright law protects part of an original work-I imagine trolls would insist on this. Are a few bits really enough ? Could I copyright the word “the” if I writing a book using “the”.
(5) It is potentially a sticky point that the alleged troll forensic technologists are seeding the very file they claim to track, as part of their method. Much worse is the probable (and documented) cases of honeypot scams, where trolls deliberately seed a movie to encourage file-sharing and trap alleged Does.
There are cases where the troll recording of I.P. addresses & times starts within a day or two of copyright registration. Is high volume file sharing coincidentally starting just as copyright is registered?
(6) The trolls have cleverly created confusion between file sharing and infringement. Big difference. Of course, sharing of unrestricted material is legal. Information sharing played a vital role in some of the recent democracy movements around the world.
(7) Most of the troll complaints save that Does “knew or should have known” that material was copyrighted. There’s conceivable grounds for challenging this. However, there are larger flaws in the troll cases: joinder, I.P. address not equivalent to a person, etc.
Was a copyright notice included in the alleged shared file ? Can trolls prove that a Doe got the complete file to have a clue what was really on the file ? What if a file is mislabeled and someone thinks they are downloading unrestricted material ? Would a usual person be expected to know that a file called “Popular demand” is a copyrighted porn work ?
For discovery, plaintiff is required to show good cause, not to prove their case. Some courts have not been aware that the troll aim is only to get discovery for immoral and questionable leverage, rather than as the basis of solving a dispute in court.
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/31/an-excellent-paper-copyright-infringement-in-cyberspace-decoding-strict-liability/
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/09/wps-hack-what-this-means-to-the-does-and-the-trolls/
I recall reading a motion (maybe from a Virginia case?), where the Doe defense lawyer submitted a motion including a statement by an expert witness thoroughly refuting some troll forensic claims. Anyone have this handy? (Could we include it in the resources section ?)
Here is a good one ….Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski called “IP hijacking” of large amounts of Web traffic one of the top three biggest cybersecurity threats facing the Internet. See link http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-08/internet-theft-web/54116488/1.
Troll Fiore is blowin up Eastern PA!
What do you mean?
check rfc express, filed a bunch of new suits
Is it new that the suits say “DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Malibu Media?”
Typical for most cases. It is used to add fear because juries are unpredictable. (I am not a lawyer)
Actually I believe they are required to file for a “Trial by jury” for any potential complaint involving over $10,000.
I have not heard of a requirement for jury trial based on a dollar amount. Is it something specific to Pennsylvania ? I did not see it in the Pennsylvania code, or in searching.
I’ve heard of the right to trial by jury in a civil case in federal court, based on the 7th Amendment of the Constitution.
Since I’ve seen a few trolls leaving out the jury demand in the complaint, I’ve also guessed that jury demand is added troll fear mongering.
In a civil action the Plaintiff can ask for a trial by jury or a bench trial (meaning the trial will be decided by the Judge. Sometimes in complex cases, or cases with an unsympathetic Plaintiff and a likable defendant they will ask for a bench trial because they figure a Judge will be fair while a jury might get really emotional (note – this is for informational purposes and not legal advice) or if they are worried that they could not get an entire jury behind them in a verdict. Since these trolls never intend to bring these matters to trial, have no real case or evidence demanding a jury trial is one way to try to scare unwitting John Doe defendants. Think about it for a minute — do you really think that if one of these actually went to trial, go even get past a summary judgment motion and you had a jury box that you could get a majority of the jurors to rule for the pornographers when the scheme was exposed. That is why they rush to crawl back under the rocks they come from as soon as they might have to prove their cases, and why they dismiss the cases as soon as they get the names or when it looks like it is too much trouble to fight. Not only should we not feed the trolls – but John Doe’s need to speak up and be heard. Flood the courts with MTQ and say no not me — as long as the process is easy for the courts they will let it be. Imagine if every Doe named filed a MTQ and the Judges had to rule on those! Perhaps they would start to appreciate a little more the scope and impact of these suits and not be so generous in granting the early discover. Remember it is an extraornary request to allow a plaintiff to get a third party subpoena served before someone is ever served or an answer is filed.
There was a MTQ filed on case: 2:12-cv-02095-LDD
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94434/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-18/summary/
My question is the MTQ sems to be for Just doe #3 but the filings all say on behalf of does 1-18, does this mean that if comcast recieved this from the layer they would not have released the names. The 16th was the date taht I was given in the letter from comcast.
Please any one in the patrick collins case
2:12-cv-03148-JS, please file MTQ, we are nearring the deadline. So far only 2 have filed MTQs
The filing/refiling must be within three years from the date of the alleged infringement. Unfortunately, they can continue to try to harrass you after that if they want, but once the three years is up they can no longer take any court action against you. The 120 day time-frame is that a plaintiff has to serve you within 120 days of filing the complaint against you, unless the court grants an extension. Remember, don’t feed the trolls.
Troll Fiore loses track of a lawsuit-again
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-25 (PAED 12-cv-2094) Doe 6 files a motion to dismiss on 6-19 http://ia600406.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.paed.461511/gov.uscourts.paed.461511.6.0.pdf and Fiore mistakenly neglects to oppose it so on 7-6 Judge Robreno grants the motion http://ia600406.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.paed.461511/gov.uscourts.paed.461511.9.0.pdf In a feeble effort to conceal what looks like legal malpractice, Fiore files a notice of dismissal regarding Doe 6 on 7-20 http://ia700406.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.paed.461511/gov.uscourts.paed.461511.docket.html
If memory serves correctly this is either the second or third time Fiore has screwed up in this manner. Master Troll is seething in Miami.
Looks like Fiore named 4 defendants today–two for Nucorp, one for Malibu, one for Patrick Collins.
It looks like it happened again, in Malibu Media vs John Does 1-22 (5:12-cv-03139-TJS)…the case against Doe #9 was dismsissed because there was no opposition from the plaintiff.
Does anyone know what to make of Judge Savage’s response to Fiore’s Response in Opposition to the MTQ? The judge ordered:
ORDERED THAT NO LATER THEN 8/8/2012 THE PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN WHICH IT SHALL CITE EACH CASE WITHIN THE 3RD CIRCUIT HOLDING CONTRARY TO THE CASES CITED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM.
Does this mean that Judge Savage is questioning the cases that Fiore cited in the 3rd Circuit, and that the judge wants a listing of cases that Fiore didn’t cite (because they were contrary to the plaintiff’s claims) as well?
Here’s the expert testimony included in one of the cases. I removed the defendant’s personal information and only included the text of his sworn affidavit.
————————-
DECLARATION OF TOBIAS FIESER
I, TOBIAS FIESER, HEREBY DECLARE:
1. My name is Tobias Fieser.
2. I am over the age of 18 and am otherwise competent to make this declaration.
3. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge and, if called upon to do so,
I will testify that the facts stated herein are true and accurate.
4. I am employed by JPP, Limited (“IPP”), a company organized and existing under
the laws of Germany, in its litigation support department.
5. Among other things, IPP is in the business of providing forensic investigation
services to copyright owners.
6. As part of my duties for IPP. I routinely identify the Internet Protocol (“IP”)
addresses that are being used by those people that are using the BitTorrent protocol to
reproduce, distribute, display or perform copyrighted Works.
7. An [p address is a unique numerical identifier that is automatically assigned to an
internet user by the user’s Lntemet Service Provider (“ISP”).
8. ISPs keep track of the IP addresses assigned to their subscribers.
9. Only the ISP to whom a particular IP address has been assigned for use by its
subscriber can correlate the IP address to a real person, the subscriber of the internet service.
10. From time to time, a subscriber of internet services may be assigned different IP
addresses from their ISP. Accordingly, to correlate a person with an IP address the ISP also
needs to know when the IP address was being used.
II. Many ISPs only retain the information sufficient to correlate an IP address to a
person at a given time for a very limited amount of time.
12. Plaintiff retained IPP to identify the lP addresses that are being used by those
people that are using the BitTorrent protocol and the internet to reproduce, distribute, display or
perform Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
13. IPP tasked me with implementing, monitoring, analyzing, reviewing and attesting
to the results of the investigation.
14. During the performance of my duties, I used forensic software named
INTERNATIONAL IPTRACKER v 1.2.1 and related technology enabling the scanning of peerto-
peer networks for the presence of infringing transactions.
15. rNTERNA TIONAL IPTRACKER v 1.2.1 was correctly installed and initiated on
a computer server.
16. 1 personally extracted the resulting data emanating from the investigation.
17. After reviewing the evidence logs, I isolated the transactions and the IP addresses
being used on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network to reproduce, distribute, display or perform
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works associated with the Unique Hash number.
18. The information set forth on Exhibits A and B to the Complaint accurately states
the results of IPP’s investigation of the infringement committed by the Defendant in this case.
19. On each “hit date” listed on Exhibits A and B a computer using the IP address
assigned to Defendant connected to fPP ‘s investigative server and transmitted a full copy, or
portion thereof, of a digital media mile identified by the Unique Hash Numbers that correlate to
the Works covered by the Copyrights-In-Suit which are set forth on Exhibit C to the Complaint.
20. IPP’s software analyzed each BitTorrent “piece” distributed by Defendant’s lP
address and verified that reassembling the piece(s) using a specialized BitTorrent Client results
in fully playable digital motion pictures.
21. I was provided with control copies of the Works covered by the Copyrights-In-
Suit. I viewed the Works side-by-side with the digital media files identified by those Unique
Hash Numbers which correlate to the copies of the works covered by the Copyrights-In-Suit and
detennined that each of the digital media files contained a movie that is identical, striking
similar or substantially similar to the Works covered by the Copyrights-In-Suit..
22. Once provided with Defendant’s lP address, plus the date and time of the
detected and documented infringing activity, Defendant’s ISP can use its subscriber log to
identify the name, address, billing address, email address and phone number of the Defendant.
Typos/formatting errors are all me.
This same tired declaration has been recycled by members of the Lipscomb/Eisenberg/Baker/Jason A. Kotzker/Leemore L Kushner / Jon A. Hoppe /Christopher P. Fiore/David Wayne O’Bryan group on supposed behalf of porn purveyor plaintiffs.
The weak points of the “declaration” don’t get discussed much, because of other improprieties.
Among other things:
(1) The declaration is-conveniently-made by a person outside of U.S. jurisdiction
(2) There is no professional background information about this person. Isn’t it likely a highly credentialed background would be listed?
(3) There’s no major information about the validity of this so-called International I.P. tracker
(4) There’s no disclosure of the financial relationships between this so called forensic group and the lawyer/plaintiff groups.
(5) If there was really solid evidence for this software, there would be more than one measly testimony that says essentially “Believe me because I said so-it involves computers so it must be true.”
http://dietrolldie.com/2011/09/14/draft-motion-to-quash-or-modify-subpoena-k-beech-v-john-does-1-78-case-no-511cv-05060-bms/
Thanks for the solid reply!
I hadn’t seen this before, thought it could have been something new.
Troll Fiore filed four named suits in Pennsylvania; 1 for Patrick Collins, 2 for Nucorp Ltd, and 1 for Malibu Media LLC.
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/100690/patrick-collins-inc-v-patricia-butler/summary/
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/100689/nucorp-ltd-v-timothy-legower/summary/
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/100691/malibu-media-llc-v-matthew-johnston/summary/
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/100694/nucorp-ltd-v-robert-seindenberger/summary/
If a troll names you in a case, and you counter-sue for attorney fee’s, mental anguish, possibly libel or what have you, and the troll dismisses the case, can you keep your counter-suit going?
The troll and you would have to stipulate to a discontinuance which you would not do if you wanted to pursue your counterclaims.
Does ISP release our names if an opposition is filed in court by fiore?
Or does ISP wait until judge grants or dismisses the opposition?
The ISP waits until the judge decides the motion.
By quick count, Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC has filed 33 new cases, apparently on behalf of porn purveyors, in two months. (16 in July, 17 in June.)
That more than one case every two days, including weekends and holidays.
How can he even pretend that he could follow through on many or most of these ? His own description gives no indication of major copyright law experience. The majority of these cases have at least one to two dozen defendants.
The arithmetic by itself reveals no sincere consideration of a dispute through the courts. Mr. Fiore belongs to a two person group with no indication that the other lawyer has worked on these cases. And there are previous cases, including a dozen in April. Christopher P. Fiore and lawyers in others states linked to the same plaintiffs are distorting the court system to feed greed.
So far this year, Fiore has filed 52 cases for his purveyor of porn clients. Suing 908 Does for less than $20 each instead of statutory $ 350 fees. $ 18,200 instead of $ 318,150. EDPA judges must love the guy or love their porn. It is a world turned upside down where the pimp and predator is King.
In letter from ISP (Comcast) it state it wants copy of motion and proof of filing. What is proof of filing, if one sends in motion via 1st class mail?
Sounds like they want to see a stamped “filed” motion but you should call for clarification.
Just make sure you send your motion by certified mail to the court house and send a copy of the certified receipt to the Comcast legal department with a their copy of your motion.
If I send via certified, doesn’t that reveal who I am? Defeating my motion to quash? I think they need return address on certified mailing. Thanks!
The only recipient that you should not include a return address is the Troll. I put a fake return address in another state for my copy I sent to the troll. You shouldn’t have to worry about putting your return info on the copy to the courthouse.
Much appreciated.
No problem mate.
I just mentioned John doe, and sone address in nj as return address without apt nr.
It was accepted by court. And attached a page which says certificate of service, which gives the address for whom the motion was served.
The above one applies for ISP too I guess. Did the same for ISP
How does a discovery happen? Do we have to take our system to a certain place and give it to forensic people?
I would suspect that your attorney would decide on a third party of his choice. Like Plaintiff get to chose investigator. I would not trust Plaintiff’s choice as they will probably install the files they accused you of stealing. Are you at that stage now or are you just wondering?
Troll Fiore has never conducted a forensic examination of a Doe’s computer so try not to worry. Of the approximate 300,000 individuals targeted by trolls I am only aware of 2 who have had their computers forensically examined by a troll agent and one of them stupidly volunteered the examination
Is it possible to run out the clock? File motion, extension, appeals, etc. such that an ISP’s data (Comcast) of IP address / subscriber would no longer be available?
No, the ISP legal department retains the info in a folder while a Doe motion is pending. I know because I asked.
There should be a class action against the ISPs and wireless router mfgs. They are the ones who sold the safety of their service/products. Just ain’t true.
ISP’s don’t sell their clients IP information, it is easily attainable by the trolls through other ways. Your ISP is actually doing you a favor by alerting you of the subpoena and giving you time to react.
So should I ask or file a motion for a discovery in the second or third circuit court to prove my innocence.
Interesting question. I was thinking along same line, that I should turn over my computer to an independent forensic lab to prove stolen copyright not on same. But there is a question of who does this and how much does it cost?
Great information on this site, so thank you! Just received info from my ISP that I’m a doe in a case filed by Liberty Media in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. I’ve only seen info on the EDPA courts here (not sure if it’s the same – I don’t live in PA), so was just curious if anyone (or other does seeing this) had more info on this. I have until 8/16 to file the MTQ.
Just file an mtq and mention that you are not within the juristriction of PA, and you didn’t download
First I’ve seen of them filing in a county court, pretty unusual.
Is Liberty Media associated with the Lipscomb crowd? Fiore has been filing on their behalf in the EDPA.
No, Liberty media is Randazza, who thinks of himself as someone above the other troll crowd (but it is only he and his “bros” who thinks so). And, regrettably, he is more dangerous than every other troll: he can actually go after a person in principle, unlike other crooks.
Does not mean that he is undefeatable or his evidence” is somehow better: same German unlicensed wannabe “experts”. The thread about Liberty media is here. He is just better as a bully lawyer and sounds very convincing when he bluffs. If a potential victim is easily manipulated/scared, than hiring a lawyer is a must.
By court order, they notified me. They have done little to stop the trolls. I just talked to one ISP about what we need to do to secure a Law Firm. Their position is that we are absolutely safe, with our 4 year old wireless router that has WPS vulnerability. And what about CISCO. I have a wireless router that can be cracked by an idiot in 3 to 5 hrs even with password. They have done nothing to fix it. Being connected to the internet isn’t worth it, when criminals can get judges to fork over identity for what come to less than a happy meal ($20).
So what’s the deal with Jordan Rushie? Is he filing in state court?
I looked at his website, and he lists “BitTorrent Litigation” as a practice area. It looks like he is trying to play both sides because he lists “Prosecution and Defense.”
I think a lot of two-bit ambulance chasers like this guy are hoping to make a quick buck off this stuff. The “evidence” is provided to them, as are the complaints. The key is going to be how many people settle and continue to feed these shysters.
He appears to be the prosecuting attorney in the case I mentioned above. What stands out to me is that there’s no hash number or movie referenced in the documents I received, unlike some of the other cases I’ve seen on this site. Just my alleged IP address, which doesn’t even match my IP address shown on whatsmyip.com, and a time when I’m absolutely positive my computer wasn’t even on. I understand there’s a difference between static and dynamic addresses, but thought it was interesting to note.
So I just received the notice from my isp per Fiore/Malibu. What should I do now? I don’t want to just give in, but i don’t really have the time/knowledge to be fighting this either as I have enough stress and other stuff going on right now.
You can play the odds which are in your favor and do nothing. Fiore will get your info and you will receive threatening phone calls, emails and letters but in the end the likelihood that you will be named let alone served is miniscule. Just do not speak to the troll or his agent! Never!
If you are not willing to fight, then just send them a blank check and let them take whatever they think is fair. This is war, they want your money.
If you just want to settle, try this guy
http://minnesotaattorney.com/copyright-infringement-tips-for-illegal-movie-music-download-cases/
Anyone been through this yet, how long do they keep calling for?
Loads of people have, listen to this https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/06/25/audio-in-order-to-win-at-very-least-you-must-pick-up-the-fight-an-encouraging-story-of-a-fighting-doe/
In addition to your standard MTQ – you should add a section asking that the complaint against you be dismissed based on “lack of jurisdiction” (You don’t live in PA) and “improper venue”. And you should argue that the state courts are the improper court to hear a claim based on Federal copyright claims.
Hallo campers!
If your here about the recent paperwork landing on your doorstep from Comcast involving a case for Liberty Media Holdings (LMH) I’ve mentioned it over on the LMH/Randazza page.
We are still working on docs and tearing the filing apart, but this seems to be a Judge who is accepting arguments that were thrown out of federal courts. Silly things like the IP = the person who infringed. There is no movie listed in the filing and 441 IP addresses.
IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT LMH BASED CASE please point out which ISP and how many people (as long as the number is relatively large).
Getting docs for these state cases is harder than the Federal cases, and details help us locate them. This case might be more bogus than the typical Federal case, and it is more about getting your name so they can scare a settlement out of you than taking you to court.
If you don’t live in the state, it definitely would be worth contacting the court to point this simple fact out.
Hey TAC,
On behalf of the future 265 Does, Thanks!
When you say contact the court is it just a phone call, MTQ, etc.? I don’t live in PA and if there is anything I can do by myself (can’t really afford an attorney) to avoid embarrasment I will try. Time is short though on this one (8/16).
I received my paperwork on Tuesday about being a doe in the Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. John Does 1-441 – No.1874. Is there any way to file a MTQ by myself and still remain anonymous? Also, I saw a MTQ template here but how would I word it for this case? I don’t live in PA. I’m not sure what I should do but I have less then two weeks to decide.
Also, (my post if from today at 7:29 AM) does anyone know if you do settle, do they grant you amnesty for anything that may have happened after your supposed infringment date on the PA suit? Mine was in February for example. That means they may have another five months of potential lawsuits. I’m one of the ones that wouldn’t want someone to find out but if I have to keep fighting what’s the difference?
My guess is that you get a lawyer because you don’t want to make a mistake. File Motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. Your lawyer can keep you anonymous which I expect you might not be able to do (at least not easily) if you file yourself. This is a two page standard boiler plate form. So attorney fee might be $ 300 ? Then you sit back and wait things out. Most likely you’ll never here from anyone again on the matter.
Thanks for the reply. Since this is from February what’s to stop them from filing another suit with my IP on a sperate matter? I’ve had the same IP since at least the time of this suit. I can’t afford $300 every time this happens. Maybe I should gamble $300 (or whatever it is) once?
They tie IP address into an infringement. So once you’re out of the group, they probably are not going to pay a lawyer to go after one person. Try Googling Aaron Hall Twin Cities Law Firm. ISP do not keep IP address subscriber very long (6 months.. I guess). There is only a short period of time that they can subpenas for the info they need.
Why should they abandon a cow that can produce milk? Remember, they are bullies who are out there for money. When a bully sees a weakness, what does he do? “Ok, give me you nice iPhone and I won’t bother you again.” Hah, never works this way — they will be back at the nearest opportunity. The only way to fence off a bully is to show him a middle finger.
Yeah, I thought about that. But I’m trying to spare someone from finding out. I’m the perfect person they’re looking for. Someone who wants to pay them to go away as quickly as possible. Liberty Media was offering amnesty for all future suits at one point if you ‘fessed up. I’m not sure they’re offering that anymore and I’m wondering what the demand letters have looked like after they get the info from the ISP.
I don’t think they’ve never offered amnesty for FUTURE infractions. From what I’ve heard when you settle with LMH you have to agree never to download/share copyrighted material from LMH or any other company (!) or they’ll sue you again. I don’t think it’s a good idea to settle because you’re just feeding the beast, but then I’m not being targeted…knock on wood. If I were settling i think I’d want a lawyer to look at it to reduce any future liability.
They never offered amnesty for future events, there was an agreement as part of the amnesty that if they ever caught you doing something bad ever again (with their content or anyone elses) they would be entitled to a huge amount of cash from you.
And some people signed these agreements, it was the most horrible thing that they could have done. You merely had to be accused to trigger it, not found guilty.
Well, regarding Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. John Does 1-441 – No.1874 I contacted Chris Sandberg listed on the eff.org page. Aaron Hall was out of the office today. If I’m going to file a MTQ, I need to move quickly as I already wasted three days.
I’m one of the 441 too, and I plan on filing an MTQ next week. May file it myself, but I am working with an attorney friend to make sure everything is straightforward. Will provide details as they come… also, I was able to download the latest document from the court…plenty of info in there, but this stands out:
As plaintiff tacitly admits, this includes challenges to jurisdiction, 7 encompassing not only subject matter jurisdiction, but also personal jurisdiction and venue, as well as other procedural issues, such as improper joinder, etc. This is especially likely in the present case as plaintiff’s acknowledges not all the Does are Pennsylvania residents, and in fact many may not be. 8
Can you tell me where on the court’s site you found it? I’ve tried searching by docket number and I’m not having any luck.
http://fjdefile.phila.gov/efsfjd/zk_fjd_public_qry_00.zp_disclaimer
You can search by plaintiff name and that should pull back 1 result. I’m happy to email you the doc I downloaded to save you a few bucks. It’s the interlocutory appeal doc, but it has 59 pages of info. Pretty helpful.
You might try Ethan R O’Shea in Lansdale. If you are anon from above, living outside of PA, you only need simple paralegal work of filling Motion to Dismiss saving Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over you.
imajohndoe, thanks for the link. My printer isn’t working anyway so no need to send me the document.
imajohndoe, you don’t need to say what it actually was but did the doc you downloaded give any information about the file all 441 “does” supposedly downloaded? HASH, Name, etc.?
Zero information, which is very odd. No hash, no name. Nothing. Since they seem to be taking the angle of conversion and unjust enrichment, maybe that’s why there’s no name, HASH or anything, since they’re technically not going for copyright infringement.
I apologize but filings are not my strong suit.
If you do not live in PA, that is grounds to be dismissed from the state case and one would need to include asking that your contact information be kept from the plaintiff.
You might be able to get the court to accept the filing as Doe (insert an IP address).
You would need to make sure that you submit it to the court as well as a copy to the ISP.
Staying in touch with the ISP is important!!!!!
The ISP information goes to the plaintiff not the court then the plaintiff.
Do not assume that because someone else files something similar it will be applied to you as well if you wait.
I wonder if the claim is for multiple “movies”, and what sort of damages they are seeking. The filing hurt my head so much I might have just missed it. If they aren’t asking for anything, that supports that this is a fishing trip.
With luck one of the lawyers already contacted would offer a letter writing special for Does that are out of state. While you can do it yourself, sometimes if the price is right it is better to have a pro do the work. And the lawyer just has to cut and paste IP addresses into the same filings over and over 🙂
Oh and incase you wondered… a helpful ninja ran the list of IPs and looked them up.
http://pastebin.com/8sBMiw3A
Now the OCR failed and only 408 addresses were checked….
28 of them came back to PA.
This Judge needs to be slapped.