Pennsylvania

Active trolls

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

490 responses to ‘Pennsylvania

  1. Another ray of sunshine is breaking through the clouds in the EDPA.

    Troll Fiore has been on a roll as of late getting judges to rubber stamp his applications to take early discovery of Doe info. However this is beginning to change as one Judge takes notice of what is going on outside of PA. In Third Degree Films v. Doe 1-7 (12-cv-3957) Judge Norma Shapiro notices Judge McMahon’s mighty SDNY Order which refers to “harassing and abusive litigation techniques” and prohibits Troll Fiore from getting email addresses and phone numbers. This is good news, expect Troll Fiore to drop this one.http://ia601204.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.paed.465220/gov.uscourts.paed.465220.5.0.pdf

  2. Also notice that Judge Michael Baylson is ordering a hearing on all the MTQs in the 2 cases (can’t see the latest info on rfcexpress for the 3rd case) schedule for 9/18. I think this is good news?

    • I think it’s great because it’s another month that troll Fiore has to wait and I am sure he will have to appear at the hearing and will not be happy about it. I hope Baylson crushes him!

    • I’m also in this case. Must say it’s frustrating because it seems like he’s dropped all of the cases for all of the Does who didn’t file an MTQ (a.k.a. those who didn’t even bother to fight back).

      The last hearing with Baylson still led to Fiore being able to subpoena the ISPs. I’d like to be optimistic, but it still seems like to me that Fiore might be able to tap dance his way through this hearing as well and move on to more aggressive attacks on those of us putting up a fight.

  3. Another ray of hope. On Ausgust 16th, Chief Judge Joyner just consolidated all the Malibu Media cases under Judge Balson for “Monitoring and Coordination”. Perhaps the jurists in the EDPA are waking up to the mess that has become of their docket. Only time will tell — but this is really excellent news for the John Does and not such good news for the trolls.

    I’m thinking I would love to come to the hearing on 9/18 to see things live. My case was dismissed and I notice that Fiore has started dismissing without prejudice as many does as he can from these cases — heaven forbid he should have to answer to the Judge.

    Any Does out there thinking of feeding the trolls should carefully consider that before they hand over hard earned case — my opinion only.

    • My Patrick Collins case was just updated with that “Monitoring and coordination” update under Judge Baylson also. Does this mean they are investigating all the cases together? I’m not sure I understand the update completely and what it means for me exactly. It sounds like good news as you mentioned. I was kind of wondering what was up with the case since my date to file a MTQ expired two weeks ago. Did the troll never get my info because of this recent case update. I haven’t heard from him yet.

  4. Doesn’t Fiore think that it will appear strange that he start dismissing all the Does the day after the hearing is schedule? especially the reason given is the lack of time/effort to properly serve all the does, and yet he filed more claims as late as Aug 6th against more Does.

  5. Is there any type of motion to file in order to oppose his request for extention?

    8/17/2012 24 First MOTION for Extension of Time Within Which to Effectuate Service on Doe Defendants filed by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/17/2012)

  6. Here is an opposition I filed in my case. Note that Fiore missed the deadline for the filing so I argued he should be barred from seeking the motion. Of course the Judge in my case granted the extension but who know how the winds may be shifting in the EDPA. Good luck.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

    )
    Raw Films, Ltd., )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    v. ) Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-07248-MAM
    )
    John Does 1-15, )
    )
    Defendants. )
    )

    JOHN DOE xx’s MOTIOM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
    FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH IT HAS TO
    SERVE JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    Defendant, John Doe No. xx (“Defendant”), files this Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time [Dkt. No. 9] and moves this Court to: (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time within which it has to serve John Doe Defendants, (2) order Plaintiff’s to provide the court with verification and evidence that it has served John Doe Defendants 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-15 with a summons and complaint and (3) in the alternative only allow an extension of time for John Doe Defendants 8, 10 and 12 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
    1. Plaintiff filed its complaint on November 11, 2011.
    2. On March 20, 2012, the 120 days to effect service according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expired.
    3. On March 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed its motion to extend time to effect service seeking an order of this Court Nunc pro Tunc. Plaintiff offers no justifiable reason why it could not have submitted its motion to this Court in a timely manner, which would have allowed the Court to rule on Plaintiff’s motion prior to the expiration of the 120 day time limit.
    4. The docket in this matter does not indicate that any of the John Doe Defendant’s have been served with a complaint.
    5. John Doe xx requests that this Court require the Plaintiff to provide verifications to the Court with respect to the service of a summons and complaint on John Doe Defendant’s 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-15.
    6. Since at least February 10, 2010, when a John Doe filed a Motion to Quash [Dkt. No. 5] in this case, Plaintiff should have known there was a real possibility that it would not obtain the identities of all the John Doe Defendant’s within the 120 day timeline provided by the Federal Rules to effect service. See also Dkt. No. 7 John Doe xx’s Motion to Quash in this matter, filed on February 28, 2012.
    7. Plaintiff could have timely filed a motion for an extension of time at various junctures of this litigation, but failed to do so. Plaintiff cannot show good cause for its failure to timely file a motion for an extension of time to serve complaints on John Doe Defendants 8, 10 and 12 within the time provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied by the Court.
    8. Alternatively, if this Court determines that it will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to extend time, John Doe xx respectfully requests that this Court narrowly tailor the Plaintiff’s Nunc pro Tunc relief to John Does 8, 10 and 12 only, and dismiss the complaint as to any other John Does who have not been properly served with a summons and complaint in this matter, as of March 20, 2012.
    WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully requests that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion to extend time which it may serve John Doe Defendants 8, 10 and 12, (2) enter an order requiring Plaintiff to verify the service of a summons and complaint on John Does 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-15, (3) enter an order dismissing without prejudice the complaint against any John Does 1-7, 9, 11 and 13-15 who have not been properly served as of March 20, 2012, or (4) if it grants Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to serve, only allow an extension of time to effectuate service for John Does 8, 10 and 12.
    Dated: March 22, 2012
    Respectfully submitted,
    ____________________________
    John Doe xx*
    Johndoeedpa1234@yahoo.com
    * In order to preserve my confidentiality I have not provided the court with my name or address. I have provided an anonymous email address and I certify that I will monitor the docket of this case for activity and respond to any order of this court requiring action on my part.  
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, John Doe xx, hereby certify that the foregoing documents were delivered to the following parties as indicated on March 23, 2012:
    1. VIA EMAIL
    Verizon Legal Compliance

    2. VIA US Mail
    Christopher P. Fiore, Esq.
    Fiore & Barber
    425 Main Street, Suite 200
    Harleysville, PA 19438

    3. VIA EMAIL
    John Doe
    Filed Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena
    February 10, 2012
    Docket #5
    Johndoe07248@yahoo.com

    Respectfully submitted,

    ____________________________
    John Doe xx
    Johndoeedpa1234@yahoo.com

  7. I just noticed that Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver has started filing Nu Image cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Any idea what film or films are involved?

    • Only have the complaint for does 1-26 by Nu Image, but appears to be for the Conan the Barbarian remake. Hit dates are from the first week of April 2012 through the first week of July.

      Not sure about the other 4 cases.

    • That’s what I’m curious about. If you happen to be unlucky Doe #1 would you have more to worry about? I assume your information would be given out. Or do they have to refile only naming Doe #1?

  8. In the audio and in response to motions to quash Fiore references an article from PCmag written by John Dvork claiming modern wireless router are only open 1 out 100 times. Therefoer for Fiore even with wireless router, ISP subscriber is presumed infringer and Fiore will proceed to sue frivolously. The article is a joke. Literally it is combination of opinion and ranting… It is Dvork opining as he sits on a hill overlooking his neighborhood, Berkeley, CA which is Venture Capital incubator region where the next Apple/ Facebook will emerge, the future technology for Silicon Valley. Therefore this area is locked down and guarded like Fort Knox. It sure isn’t representative of Eastern PA region.

    In other words the article is ruminations by Dvork about little and with no research. Silicon Valley is to Phila, as a corn field in Kansas is to Phila. Home and business subscribers’ to ISPs rarely have new wireless routers. This leads to what other bold face lying to the Court has Fioire done and should raise questions about the credentials of his mysterious forensic firm that has no address, with no statement of credentials. IPP In’l is Guardaley Ltd of UK subsidiary in Germany perhaps? That the Berlin Court found had unreliable software? Anyone know?

    So my question to my comrades here. Can I write to Baylson anonymously and advise that I am not a Doe in any case before him but one in similar case under another judge in PAED. I just don’t know how to do this properly and I am currently an unrevealed Doe.

    • If John Dvork wrote this article today, he would probably say something like this: “If it’s a legitimate hack, the wi-fi has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

      IPP is Guardaley: I can’t find the screenshot 😦 it was a, IPP job poster in German with email address jobs@guardaley.com

      Many courts are lenient to laymen and file free-form write-ups “Letter to the Court,” but some may throw such letters away.

  9. Oh my you’re a heck of a comedian this am!

    That job application was in my exhibit, that the two are connected but I would love to show they are the same, owner, managers, software. The IPP affidavit has been referring to the same outdated version of IPP tracker for two years now and it is based on 2008 code. The Berlin Court found Guardaley’s software to be unreliable. There were also questions as to whether the software was pirated from a competitor. I also read an article claiming to court found they were using honeypots. But I was unable figure out how to get those court documents? We need more proof.

    Perhaps I can call Judge’s office. I don’t have hesitation revealing my true identity to a Judge in this matter but would refer not to if it is unnecessary.

        • Well I’ve had a little bit of free time after all and decided to use it to translate page 11 to 14 of this doc:

          http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2010cv12043/132951/55/8.pdf
          ___________

          b. Zum Tenor Punkt 1. B) aa) – Unzuverlässige Rechercheleistung

          Plaintiff is, as shown above, by it’s clients only bound and authorized to collect IP data from so-called uploaders, but not from people who download a copyrighted movie or merely make a download request. Accordingly Plaintiff only sends cease-and-desist letters for uploading copyrighted material according to § 19 a UrhG.

          In Januar 2011 Plaintiff was informed by ipoque GmbH, that the information collected by Plaintiff is neither consistent with the agreement it has with copyright holders nor with sent cease-and-desist letters and therefore unreliable.

          ipoque GmbH is an IT company providing services in the field broadband and internet management. The company operates worldwide, i.a. for several German universities.
          A portion of it’s business, under the direction of Dr. Frank Stummer, is the forensic research of IP addresses associated with copyright infringement.

          As a result of following events ipoque GmbH asserted that Plaintiff collected IP addresses of subscribers, who did not publish any cinematographic work by uploading.

          On November 18th 2009 at 1:03:25 CET ipoque GmbH performed an online testscreening for the movie “Antichrist”. On behalf of the copyright holders said movie was at that time monitored by Plaintiff on several file sharing platforms, especially peer-to-peer networks such as “BitTorrent”. Collected IP addresses were identified by Plaintiff according to § 100 Abs. 90 UrhG. According to §§ 97, 19a UrhG cease-and-desist letters for unauthorized publication of said movie were sent to ISP subscribers.

          In the course of this testscreening ipogue GmbH’s software searched the “BitTorrent” network for sources of illegal copies of the aforementioned movie, i.e. for servers offering the file for download (uploader). At no time could a complete or partial copy of the movie “Antichrist” be found on ipoque GmbH’s servers. Therefore ipoque GmbH never made a part of the movie “Antichrist” available online via “BitTorrent”, nor did it create such an impression.

          After the testscreening ipoque GmbH received a cease-and-desist letter from Plaintiff. It was accused of an illegal upload, i.e. publishing the movie “Antichrist” at the time of aforementioned testscreening.

          However, it is well documented that it is technically impossible that ipoque GmbH distributed such a file, complete or in parts, i.e. a so-called “upload” occurred. Furthermore it is also technically impossible that a download of the file took place. At the time of the alleged incident ipoque GmbH was only connect to one single external server, which therefore can be assigned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide parts of the movie either. Instead Plaintiff calibrated the BitTorrent monitoring software “Observer” in such a manner that it created the illusion for other users, i.e. their programs via falsified bit fields, to be in possession of more than 50% of the requested file.

          For a better technical understanding in this matter it has to be explained that as soon as a BitTorrent Client of a user receives such a message from another client it sends a download request for these file parts to the client of the other user. Such a request was also sent from ipoque GmbH’s client to Plaintiff’s server, where the IP address of the user was logged by Plaintiff, i.e the former IP address of ipoque GmbH’s server. This happened albeit ipoque GmbH’s server neither illegally uploaded or downloaded the copyrighted file, because it couldn’t be received on ipoque GmbH’s server for the lack of availability on Plaintiff’s server.
          It can be concluded that the cease-and-desist letter sent to ipoque GmbH was based on false data and therefore unjust.

          Upon receiving the cease-and-desist letter ipoque GmbH’s legal counsel and Dr. Stummer met with Plaintiff. At this meeting aforementioned PowerPoint presentation was shown to Plaintiff.

          Plaintiff willfully withheld the complete content of this presentation from Defendant. Only in January 2011, when Defendant incidentally contacted ipoque GmbH, it was revealed to Defendant that Plaintiff collects erroneous data. […]

          • Thank you so much! I’ll post the original document and your translation of a bit somewhere on the site. I’m still wondering why this avenue (attacking the “forensic” experts) is not fully explored. Joinder, jurisdiction, standing… And the elephant in the room seemingly has an invisibility cloak.

        • You are welcome! Let me know if you need me to do anything else.

          I guess it’s because attacking the troll’s “forensic experts” may not be the easiest thing to do for the average Doe, especially since it hardly has been done before. They’d probably have to hire independent IT experts to investigate and so on, which most likely is more expensive.

          This case was kind of special because the real experts got involed when the troll investigators went after them.

          I wonder if ipoque would be willing to provide additional information/documents about the this case. For those willing to try this defense in court it certainly would not hurt to contact them and ask nicely.

          Heres a link to their website: http://www.ipoque.com/

        • Thank you very much, that was enlightening, and basically confirms the hunch I had.

          According to some papers published in 2008 (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf), some researchers presented an easy method for injecting any arbitrary IP into a bit torrent swarm and make it look like it was downloading/uploading and participating in the swarm, when really no activity was taking place. I always suspected this would be a prime target for abuse of the kind the german paper presents.

          What wouldn’t surprise me is if website operators log IPs that visit their site but aren’t subscribers, then ask IPP or some other “forensic” company to look for torrents activity matching that IP. An IP can then be injected into the swarm, IPP will record its activity, then the website operator can go to the court and say “See what this person is doing?!” and apparently this is enough evidence for the court to turn over your identity.

          So now we have a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows it’s possible, a court document that shows it’s happened in the past, and this should be brought in front of every court and judge who is currently hearing these cases. IPP needs to be scrutinized and turned inside out before their evidence should ever be considered enough to turn over identities of any internet subscriber.

          What I’m still unclear about is the connection between IPP and this document. This document is with respect to Guardley, which is a predecessor to IPP, is that right? The last piece of the puzzle is connecting the dots with a big bold arrow between Guardley and IPP.

  10. Couple of questions. In case 5:12-cv-02088-MMB a bunch of the Does were dismissed, so I assume he got the info for those Does? As I understand it if you file a MTQ listing all Does (ex. Does 1-22) your ISP will still release info for other customers in the same case. If I am wrong about any or all of this please let me know.

    • Dismissal by the troll lawyer here probably means that the Does in question settled with the troll. Troll Fiore was granted an extension of time to serve, so the case has not been closed by dismissing the remaining Does.

      If the summary says “dismissal with prejudice”, not specified on RFC for this case, then that’s even more suggestive the Does settled.

      I think it’s accurate that generally MTQ’s are granted for individual Does rather than the group. It is possible that a judge would grant for the entire group, or, more likely, make a different ruling which, when in favor of the group, makes the MTQ moot.

      • Settlement dismissals usually read like this: NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC As To Plaintiff’s Notice of Setlement and Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of John Doe 2 Only(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER)

        Any mass dismissals look like reactions by Fiore to Baylson’s ruling. Any does not dismissed by the mass dismissals look like they have motions pending, and therefore could not be dismissed…. which sucks because most of those motions were probably filed with the intent of being dismissed.

  11. Everyone was dismissed except the one who filed a motion..I wonder if this means its over for me?? the trolls havent called for two weeks now…a judge did grant an extension to fiore, im not sure what that really mean though..if he might refile??

  12. Don’t always assume that. When Fiore dismisses with Prejudice it usually means that the Doe settled although in rare instances that may not be the case. When he dismisses without prejudice you don’t know — generally that means there is no settlement. For instance in my case Fiore dismissed me without prejudice when I filed a motion for reconsideration and requested that the Court allow me to file an appeal to the Third Circuit on the merits. Of course as soon as Fiore read this he dismissed my case claiming he had my information. That was a lie and I filed a motion objecting to the dismissal and the lie that he got my information with the Court seeking sanctions, but the Judge ignored my motion and allowed Fiore to dismiss the case without prejudice.

  13. JDX, looking at cv-02088, is the judge going to make a ruling on the MTQ’s we filed? Mine has not been addressed since the cases were consolidated.

    • No lawyer here but, isn’t there procedure that requires serving within 90 days of initial filing of complaint? If so this means the request for extension is being filed over 30 days late. Also Fore did not oppose MTQ. Perhaps he lost track of this case?

    • Perhaps the judges are starting to catch on to his scheme. How many cases has he filed involving how many Does? It has to be perceived as unusual, and the judges do talk to one another. If I were a judge and he asked for an extension, my first response would be to ask him why he continues to file cases with dozens of defendants every week if he is too overwhelmed to do his job with the cases he has already filed. I really hope that when this whole thing shakes out, shysters like Fiore are sanctioned by their state bars.

        • That is a tremendous caseload for a firm that lists only two attorneys, neither of whom has a technical or scientific background or even lists IP law as an area of practice. We all know they have no intention of actually litigating these cases, but the courts are just starting to catch on to this fact.

        • “We all know they have no intention of actually litigating these cases, but the courts are just starting to catch on to this fact.”

          I know, we especially know Fiore is completely technology ignorant, since he thinks bit torrent is running in on a server in a shack somewhere in eastern europe or asia by some cyber terrorist name Rah-úl. I mean, seriously?

  14. Has anyone considered that these work(s) of Malibu are obscene (possibly even child porn) and therefore Court should not assist it in getting profits or payment? I searched for owner of Malibu and found a discussion group. A person stating performers of sex are recruited from Eastern Europe. This is done as it will be impossible to verify age and these girls are smaller and thinner than Americans, making them appear younger. So there is in the least the appearance of this being child porn. However I have not be a teen for so long, I don’t know what teens looks like anymore. Even a 20 yr old probably looks like a child to me. Anyway, this is really hardcore. In PA very likely obscene…. anal sex, teenage lesbians, no plot, no dialog, no sound. I only saw partial clip from url of one video clip ….very disturbing stuff. Also isn’t this porn really just prostitution with a camera on? I think all states outlaw making of adult films accept CA because only CA considers anything video taped acting. If you’re Pee Wee Herman and plan on masturbation in public, take a video cam and call it acting. I don’t get it. Rob a bank and claim it is just acting right?

  15. I don’t know if the person being individually sued is reading this blog — but EIGHT OF THE ALLEDGED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS OCCURRED BEFORE THE WORK WAS REGISTERED. That means there is no infringement lawsuit before about half of the EDPA judges )the district is split on application verses having to have a copyright registered before you can bring a suit). The other three downloads look like they happened 5 days after the film’s copyright was registered. Don’t know why but (1) this is an example of Fiore’s sloppy and unprofessional work product and continued misstatements to the court and misrepresentations and (2) is anyone shaking their heads about the timing of the alleged observation of the alleged infringement and the supposed registration of the copyright. Seems these film makers are more concerned about tracking alleged infringers than distributing and selling the movies. Really adds ammunition to the concept of honey pots, and deliberate distributions on the internet. So if they are putting this stuff out for free can they really then try to sue you for looking at what they post to the web? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there are so many false positives, individuals who never did download anything at all yet the ISP address is identified. I’m not a tech person so I don’t know how the stuff works but for sure these trolls make me sick and Baylson hopefully won’t be fooled by this and can see what I saw when I looked at the exhibit.

    • Not only that, but Malibu only subpoenaed the ISP for his IP for a single infringement, and then correlate that IP to other hits they have internally. But that doesn’t mean the IP he had for that one day was the IP he had for other days. These downloads span a 5 month period.

      Fiore knows that IP can change on a day to day basis, or people can move, or people can cancel their service. To claim that he is the infringer for 11 events over 5 months without the proper evidence (statements from the ISP that he was the subscriber at EACH date and time) seems negligent.

  16. Yesterday, Judge Joyner issued the same monitoring order as on 8/16 to the new round of EDPA lawsuits filed by Fiore. Looks like they’re staying on top of this one.

    2:12-cv-04819-PD
    2:12-cv-04821-NS
    5:12-cv-04818-GP
    5:12-cv-04822-LS
    5:12-cv-04820-CMR

  17. After looking at some of the progress in these EDPA cases, it looks like Malibu Media is voluntary dismissing Does that have not filed Motions to Quash. The language doesn’t seem to indicate that they are settlements. Maybe I am missing something with regards to the process of dismissing Does in these cases?

  18. Here’s an interesting case I’ve been following in PA: http://ia601208.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.paed.463525/gov.uscourts.paed.463525.docket.html

    The Judge’s order (http://ia601208.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.paed.463525/gov.uscourts.paed.463525.17.0.pdf) was posted the other day, which severed all Does except one from the case, ordering Fiore to refile separately. That’s great news, but what was even more interesting about this case was how that came about. I haven’t seen it talked about much yet so here’s the overview:

    Troll Fiore submitted an opposition re 7 MOTION to Dismiss on 7/20, which triggered Judge Savage to issue the following order:

    “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.

    ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR CLARIFICATION IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ORDER OF 7/24/2012 REFERS TO ALL BITTORRENT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES AND SIMILAR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS.”

    (I like how the judges orders are in all caps, because then I read it as if they’re bellowing mighty decrees at the trolls from atop a mountain)

    So essentially, Judge Savage asked Troll Fiore to argue against himself. Fiore submitted his memorandum on 8/8 (just recapped it) and cites at least a dozen cases where joinder was held improper, but he does his best to try and make it seem like really the issue is up in the air and it should fall on his side.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.463525/gov.uscourts.paed.463525.15.0.pdf

    This is probably the funniest document I’ve ever read. You can just feel the cognitive dissonance on the pages. He’s very quick to point out why the cases he cites are wrong, but maybe he made the mistake of citing one of Savage’s own decisions that found joinder improper. Either way, Savage was not swayed, as we have seen, and Fiore failed. But this document will be very interesting for future motions to sever, where we can use the trolls own words against him.

    • Yes, “Closed for Statistical Puroposes” & “Civil Suspense File.” Sounds like the EDPA is trying to figure out what to do with this mess Troll Fiore has pushed on them.

      DTD 🙂

      8/31/2012 6 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND PLACE THE MATTER IN THE CIVIL SUSPENSE FILE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/30/2012. 8/31/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

  19. One aspect that I should like to draw attention to is the curious wording of said student’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion: the sudden use of the passive voice on page 2, § 15.

    “INTERNATIONAL IPTRACKER v1.2.1 *was* correctly installed and initiated on a server located in the United States of America” – instead of “I installed …”

    That statement begs the question of just who installed that software and who actually harvested those IP-addresses in the US, if they were indeed harvested from within the US. I very much doubt that they would fly a student halfway around the world in order to install a modified Shareaza client. Besides, he has classes to attend. Thus, there are lots of open questions: who installed that software, who operated it, who checked that it was operating correctly, how were the harvested IP data transmitted to Germany for analysis?

    As a German, I don’t know anything about US law, but if there is any way of forcing plaintiffs to reveal how, where and by whom those US IP-addresses were *really* harvested, that is an avenue that I would explore. (I should not be at all surprised to learn that those data were actually harvested by some hapless secretary in Malibu’s law firm and emailed back to Germany nightly for analysis by IPP’s youthful tech expert.)

  20. Here’s an interesting development in this case: Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-16

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94470/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-16/summary/

    Typical complaint against 16 does. Only John Doe 16 filed a motion to dismiss, and a hearing was set for 9/18/2012 (next week).

    “NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 9 First MOTION to Dismiss and/or Sever Complaint Against Defendant, John Doe 16, only and in the Alternative Motion to Quash Subpoena against John Doe 16 only : MOTION HEARING SET FOR 9/18/2012 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM 3A BEFORE HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON.”

    After Baylson consolidated the cases for monitoring on 8/16, Fiore dismissed all does from this case except 16. Just yesterday, none other than M. Keith Lipscomb himself filed to appear pro hac vice, probably for the purpose of the afforementioned hearing.

    “APPLICATION BY PLFF MALIBU MEDIA, LLC FOR PRO HAC VICE OF MICHAEL KEITH LIPSCOMB, ESQ., STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.”

    Very interesting… it seems maybe Lipscomb feels that Fiore is on the verge of losing PAED, and the dark lord doesn’t trust his disciple at the hearing on his own (especially after the disaster performance he put on at the last hearing: http://dietrolldie.com/2012/05/23/hearing-audio-file-for-malibu-media-v-john-does-1-14-212-cv-02084-eastern-district-pa-troll-christopher-fiore-14-may-12/). Can’t wait to hear the audio recording, or at least read a transcript.

  21. Interesting development. One question about the hearing next week, since all the cases are now consolidated under Judge Baylson, does that mean all the defendant lawyers from different cases will be appearing at the same time facing Fiore (and Lipscomb), or each cases will be argued independent of each other? In that case Lipscomb can only appear in case 02078?

    If I remember correctly, I believe the hearing time is the same across the 3 cases under Baylson.

    • Just noticed that ALL of Fiore’s lawsuits have been consolidated under Baylson per his orders of 8-16 and 8-29. My understanding is that attorneys from all the lawsuits can appear but they will probably appoint one or two to make the arguments.

  22. Troll Fiore has been granted a motion to effectuate service… by publication.

    “ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL 10/5/2012 TO SERVE DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 9/17/2012.”

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94465/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-15/summary/

    Huh?? Anyone want to RECAP this? I can’t do so until tomorrow.

    • Fiore doesn’t want to pay to have papers served properly. After 3 attempts to serve at address, he told service to stop trying. Then he asked for extension and judge said he had more time and could serve by mail and at place of work. Fiore attempted certified mail only. Then Fiore asked for judge to allow him to serve by placing notice in local Newspaper. Surprisingly the requirement of due diligence is low as judge allowed this.

  23. The hearing minutes are up:

    Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON: Motion Hearing held on 9/18/12 re 9 First MOTION to Dismiss and/or Sever Complaint Against Defendant, John Doe 16, only and in the Alternative Motion to Quash Subpoena against John Doe 16 only filed by JOHN DOES 1-16

    I won’t be able to RECAP for a couple of hours… if anyone wants to dive in before me go ahead.

    • Heard there was three hours of oral argument with Baylson asking pointed questions of both sides which the judge took under advisement. No determination yet.

  24. Saw the entry in Pacer too, but no clickable link available yet at the moment. Wonder if it take a while to upload the file to the court server?

  25. I received a voicemail today, from an attorney named either Biggs, or Briggs, I think, saying “… we’ve been trying to reach you for months, we haven’t been able to get ahold of you, so we are going to file a lawsuit against you tomorrow. You can call us at X number in the early morning to settle, but otherwise, we are going to file this suit.” What should I be doing at this point?

  26. A weird case just showed up on RFC Express. Trademark violation?

    RFC Case Number: C-A12-1893N
    Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-01893-SHR
    File Date: Friday, September 21, 2012
    Plaintiff: AF Holdings, LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel G. Ruggiero of Law Offices of Daniel G. Ruggiero
    Defendant: Neer Reibenbach
    Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark
    Court: Pennsylvania Middle District Court
    Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

    • Might be human error but CEG scumbags (not to be confused with Prenda scumbags) have brought these lawsuits previously only to see them dismissed involuntarily and voluntarily https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/04/22/new-copyright-troll-tactic-trademark-infringement/ Just like Prenda to institute a lawsuit based on a long discredited legal theory in a district getting ready to shut down the extortion scam. It bears further investigation, but getting ready for bed after heated political exchange with Nazi, I mean Republican, wife.

        • Good gravy! This alleged infringement is from April 2011. Do you think he was part of another mass Doe suit originally? They’re claiming he profited by having access to a larger library of videos (some AF and some others). I don’t understand how “you” can profit from just downloading videos. You’re no richer than you were before the downloading.

        • Raul, this guy filed the case in the Central District, which is based out of Scranton. Fiore seems to limit his trolling to the Eastern District, which is based out of Philly.

          The attorney seems sketchy. His bare-bones website had a New York address, but the filing uses a PO Box in Massachusetts. I checked the PA Attorney Discpiline website, and he just became licensed in Pennsylvania.

          As for the alleged infringement occurring in April 2011, my guess is they got the defendant’s info from one of those mass Doe lawsuits filed back in 2011. The weird thing is why this shyster is dipping his toes in the water in Northeast PA and not New York or Massachusetts. Perhaps it is because he figures a more rural district that hasn’t been exposed to these shenanigans will be more troll friendly?

        • For what it is worth, Ruggiero went to the New England School of Law, which has a reputation in legal circles for being one of the worst accredited law schools in the country.

  27. Just sent a welcome note to Mr. Ruggiero on his contact page.
    ————————————————————————-
    Mr. Ruggiero,

    I see that you have recently joined the ranks of “Copyright Trolls,” with the filing of Millenium TGA, Inc. v. Jeffrey Danouski (3:12-cv-01894-UN4), & AF Holding LLC. v. Neer Reibenbach (1:12-cv-01893-SHR) in the Middle District of PA.

    I bet you were hired by John Steele, Prenda Law, to file these cases. I understand that working as a contract lawyer for firms such as Prenda Law can appear to be an easy way to make some money. I would ask you to take a moment to research Prenda Law, as well as the whole Copyright Troll business model. By joining with Prenda Law, your name and reputation will forever be tarnished. Prenda Law and its many associated lawyers have questionable ethics and their efforts border on extortion.

    Please take the time to look at my Web site (www.dietrolldie.com), as well as http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com, http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense, and http://houstonlawyer.wordpress.com/

    I would also recommend you talk with Mitch Stoltz, (www.eff.org/about/staff/mitch-stoltz) concerning Prenda Law.

    Myself and other John Doe defendants hope you will reconsider your decision. Please feel free to contact me via doerayme2011@hotmail.com or by posting on my Web site.

    John Doe, AKA: DieTrollDie
    http://dietrolldie.com/what-is-your-story/

  28. Looks like Judge Baylson is making Fiore argue against himself again. In response to whatever happened at the hearing last week, Fiore was required to file the following “Supplemental Authority ” with PAED:

    Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5,000, Case No. 1:10-cv-00873-BAH: http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/10000-john-doe-defendants-quietly-dismissed/

    Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_v._Grokster

    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-21, Case No. 12-cv-12596-AJT-RSW: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/michigan-eastern-district-court/97958/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-21/summary/

    MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_v._Grokster

    The two troll cases in particular are ones where the Does have been severed. The two supreme court decisions seem to concern the use of technology in infringing against copyright. Without knowing exactly what happened at this hearing, it really seems to me Judge Baylson knows what’s going on and is trying to inform his course of action as much as possible. If these cases are any indication as to which way he’s leaning, the Trolls should be very worried as PAED battleground might soon be lost.

  29. It looks like Daniel G. Ruggiero is filing a bunch of cases in the Eastern District of PA. I googled one of the defendants, and the poor guy is getting married in a couple weeks. Getting sued by a pornographer is quite a wedding gift!

  30. Any new developments in the PAED with respect to the Does who have filed Motions to Quash and are than being targeted? Fiore seems to be dismissing all the Does who have not “lawyered up”. Is this some really bad luck for me as I filed a motion?

    • I suspect a decent Judge will see arbitrarily dismissing most defendants as a sign something is seriously screwed up with these cases. They could file new claim against those dismissed Does, hoping to get a different Judge assigned to the case.

    • I am the only one to fight so far in my case with MTQ and sever. Being innocent, I have no option but to fight them. I will not pay them a single cent. If I am singled out and they come after me, I plan to counter sue for damages plus emotional and economic harm. Everything they have and haven’t done suggests to me that, they have absolutely no intent in taking any of these cases to trial. If my motion is denied, next move may be to ask for a review of my motion with additional info or appeal to higher court. I am the last person these mothers want to “f” with. They have zero chance of winning. because I am totally innocent and forensics will affirm this.

      • Ditto Anon. However I am not sure I can proceed with a lawyer financially. It kind of comes down to whow is going to get paid…the good guys or the bad guys.

  31. I took a look at one of the recent AF Holdings named single-doe lawsuits

    http://ia601208.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.paed.468176/gov.uscourts.paed.468176.docket.html

    and noticed the infringement date was back in April 2011. The IP address and time match one in a dismissed AF Holdings case v. Does 1-1,140 in DC.

    http://ia600507.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.149188/gov.uscourts.dcd.149188.docket.html

    Not sure how many other named AF Holdings suits are coming from there, but it looks like Cashman was indeed correct that this case was dismissed according to Plaintiff’s plan.

    http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/af-holdings-prenda-bittorrent-case-dismisseed/

    • Steele plays with fire IMO. The last thing he wants is to hit someone like Fantalis with an AF Holdings lawsuits. An inevitable discovery would reveal what AF Holdings is, and it would be ugly.

    • Yeah, I checked one of the other cases, and Ruggiero seems to be suing people roughly in alphabetical order from the AF Holdings v. Does 1-1,140 case. I still think it is odd that a Massachusetts attorney is suing in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It also will be extremely difficult to prove anything forensically 18 months after the alleged infringement, so I guess they are hoping people will either settle quickly or somehow implicate themselves.

    • What action do you recommend for the Does who were denied MTQ’s and are bow being effectuated service? This means that Troll Firoe will be servicing his scare tactics at this point?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s