Texas

Active Trolls

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

112 responses to ‘Texas’

  1. To get each of these new posts going and in an effort to encourage the spirit of those that are new to this vile practice of copyright trolling I am going to post a link to a state specific case where the troll case got slammed which could be used in your Motion to Quash/Sever/Issue a Protective Order.

    Here is a very nice, well reasoned Order granting a Does motion to quash the subpoena and sever the Does (with the exception of Doe 1; never good to be Doe 1): http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/order_dismiss_00046tx.pdf

    Reply

  2. Most all the Texas cases have been filed in the Texas Southern District, with few or none in the northern, eastern and western districts so far.

    Many cases were filed by Douglas M. McIntyre, and at least a few by Lionel Martin of Garcia-Martin & Martin PC. They seem to have work as lawyers defending the interests of porn studios and associated businesses.

    I wonder if some or many Does are outside the Texas Southern District ? In California, some within state Does were dismissed for improper jurisdiction based on their district instead of their state. Hope the same for Texas.

    Reply

    • Douglas M. McIntyre is the one that send the order to release my info to Time warner cable. Time warner send a letter and told me that i have until april 23 to provide paper from the court so they can stop this thing. Western connection is the one that will sue me.

      I live in EL Paso Tx. What I can Do

      Pleaseeee help

      Reply

      • Don’t know which case this is. By your report the release date of the info is more than 3 weeks away. Many Does-maybe most- understandably get stressed. The trolls count on this.There is enough time to learn about this case and respond if you need to.

        If you want to consult a lawyer, some will give a first consultation for free.

        If the case was filed in the Texas Southern District, a lawyer in El Paso would be too far away to file in person (without costing alot). Any Texas lawyer might help, such as near the southern district in Houston. An out of state lawyer may also be able to give guidance if they have experience in these cases. Look at the EFF list as one source to ask around

        https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense
        http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/addresses/

        You may mean the case where the plaintiff is West Coast Productions. That case h a as large number of Does. With many Does, it may take time for the court to decide about many motions.

        You can find some of the documents and download them free at this site:

        http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.txsd.953716

        Looking quickly at the accused IP addresses, some of them appear to be out of state or outside the U.S. The trolls appear to claim that all of these are in Texas.

        Lots of people have no experience with the courts and have to learn when these bad businesses accuse them.

        I am not lawyer and don’t give legal advice. This is only for discussion. We only try to be friendly to each other here.

        Reply

  3. Douglas M. McIntyre, Attorney at Law, is a Houston based business lawyer who seems without primary focus on copyright.

    Douglas M. McIntyre filed for a client on Feb 20, 2012 to make complaint of infringement for the useful work “Monster Wet Anal Asses”.

    Attorney Douglas M. McIntyre has filed papers for at least 14 cases involving “adult” video businesses since August 2011, making complaints for Combat Zone, Sunlust Pictures, Pacific Century International, Hard Drive Productions, First Time Videos, West Coast Productions, Bubble Gum Productions, and AF Holdings. The count of Does involved is over 1280.

    Reply

      • I have an idea. We need to tip Monster Cable: they are notorious trademark trolls and have a history of suing anyone who dared to use the word “monster” commercially.

        Reply

  4. Someone already posted the link to the EFF subpoena defense page but I’ll post the info for Texas because you mentioned having difficulty finding an attorney in your area.

    Robert Cashman rzcashman@gmail.com
    Eric Grimm egrimm@whcspc.com
    Max Harger max@hargerlawoffice.com
    William Lovin wlovin@williamlovin.com
    John Chandler Meline john@melinelegal.com
    Charles Mudd cmudd@muddlawoffices.com
    Warren V. Norred wnorred@norredlaw.com
    Dan Tamaroff dan@tamarofflaw.com

    Robert Cashman runs a blog (torrentlawyer.wordpress.com) that you should definitely read. And I mean from beginning to end. Every. Post.

    Reply

  11. In case some were in questioning the quality of the work being completed by Mr McIntyre trolling in TSD i found this gem:

    “ORDER Striking Report. The court ordered First Time Videos to report by 3/07/2012. When it had not reported by 3/15, the court called its counsel to ask on the status of the case. A few hours later, First Time sent an e-mail to the court’s case manager attaching a three week old report. The next day, First Time filed it without a caption or a signature by counsel. The court is not an ex-girlfriend’s Facebook wall. All documents must be filed with the court, captioned, signed by counsel, and with service certified. The report filed by First Time on 3/16/2012, is struck. Internal review set for 4/16/2012. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)”

    http://ia600802.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.txsd.940033/gov.uscourts.txsd.940033.docket.html

    I found the 12 Status report a good read to provide some insight in the trolls selectivity.

    Reply

    • LMAO!!!! I thought YOU might have added that bit about the court not being an ex-girlfriends Facebook Wall! It was the court who posted that on the docket! Way to go Mr. Troll (Douglas M McIntyre).

      DTD 🙂

      Reply

  12. What’s Evan Stone doing back in the Trolls business? It’s not porn (from what I can tell), but still. Maybe $10K in sanctions wasn’t enough to deter him. I cant access Pacer. Anyone have any info, is this a John Doe case?

    New Case:
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/texas-southern-district-court/92979/well-go-usa-inc-v-unknown-participants-in-filesharing-swarm-identified-by-hash-b7fec872874d0cc9b1372ece5ed07ad7420a3bbb/summary/

    For those who need reminding:

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/judge-sanctions-copyright-troll-attorney

    Reply

  13. If anyone has time, it may be interesting to sit in on this:

    http://ia600809.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.txsd.953716/gov.uscourts.txsd.953716.docket.html

    ORDER.all persons or counsel for persons with pending motions in this action must appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference set for May 16, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in this Court. It is furtherORDERED that Plaintiff will file by May 15, 2012 a copy of the subpoena issued to the Internet Service Providers of Doe Defendants ## 3, 93, 123, 328, and 342, as identified in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. # 1-1].If any party seeks to attend the conference by telephone, they must notify the Courts Case Manager Shelia Ashabranner by telephone (713-250-5407) or by email (shelia_ashabranner@txs.uscourts.gov) at least one day before the conference.(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

    Reply

  15. any news on does 1-351 the pretrial was today around 11:00 I checked recap today but nothing

    very appreciate

    Reply

  16. So I happen to be looking through the cases filed by Troll McIntyre. In one Order the Judge orders a thorough status report on the Does to be filed under Seal. The next entry on the docket (after the judges deadline) Is paltry list of a dozen names with few details (not even close the the number of Does). McINtyre didnt file it under seal he filed it with a motion to seal the report. I hate seeing Does possibly getting hurt by this b/c its out there in the open on Pacer. Anything we should do?

    Reply

  19. Is anyone else being persued by Prenda Law / Joseph Perea in Texas – case # 4:12-cv-00701 or First Time Videos v. Does 1-56? I’ve received the “settlement” letter asking for $3400, and 2 phone calls from some troll who refuses to give his name. I want to made these trolls bleed. I’m interested in getting as many Does as possible to share attorney fees and a possible class action suit against Prenda / Joseph Perea. Please contact me at texasdoe11@gmail.com

    Reply

    • Until SJD puts a note on discussion pages, I feel compelled to urge people to be careful when responding to people posting their email addresses. You never know who is on the other end. Could be Perea for all we know.

      Reply

    • Intereting that you say you’re being pursued by Prenda Law/Joseph Perea. The case you mention was filed by Douglas McIntyre. Who, according to court documents, has his own practice and is not listed as being part of Prenda Law (though we know there is a connection). Does your letter mention Mr. McIntyre?

      Reply

      • The letter I received was from Joseph Perea. I’ve not received anything from Douglas McIntyre, but I did see he was the one who filed the subpoena that was served to my Internet provider who released my information to Prenda.

        The funny thing is, on Friday (6/22/12) someone from Prenda (305-397-8558) called, never identified himself and started to try to bully me into settling. I initially made the mistake of getting into a fussing match with him (but it felt so good!). I also informed him that he better get a Texas attorney, since he was not licensed to practice law in Texas. He stated they had an attorney in Texas, when I ask if it was Douglas McIntyre, he got flustered and said they had several attorneys, but wouldn’t give me any names. What an a$$! He shouted they would sue me, I shouted go ahead, and he hung up!

        They seem to hide behind the phone and letterhead. The only name I have so far is Joseph Perea, who I have filed a complaint against with the Florida Bar, I also filed a complaint with the Texas AG Consumer Protection Dept. and if that troll calls my house again, I will be filing a small claims case against him and anyone else he has working for him.

        Reply

  20. DJ, that is very sound advice. I’m just so mad, I’m rushing into a burning building before the firemen get there. So let me repost. If after SJD puts a note on the discussion pages and any other Does want to reach out, please email me at texasdoe11@gmail.com.

    Reply

    • If you’re info was subpoenaed by McINtyre and now you’re getting Letter from Perea and then robocalls from Prenda you definately need to file a complain the the texas bar about Mr. McIntyre

      Reply

      • http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/tx/law/c05.html#txc050500

        “Under Texas law a telemarketer may not call consumers at home before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m. on a weekday or Saturday, or before noon or after 9 p.m. on Sundays. The law also requires that a telemarketer provide the consumer with the name, street address, and phone number of the business for whom the telemarketer is calling, as well as the name of the person calling and the names and titles of those in charge of the business.”

        “Texas has very specific guidelines regulating what debt collection agencies can and cannot do when attempting to collect unpaid debts. Most of these regulations are set forth in the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. Under Texas law debt collectors cannot:

        • Falsely accuse the debtor of fraud or other crimes…
        • Harass the debtor or the debtor’s family with frequent communication, by calling anonymously, or making frequent or continuous calls…
        • Mail any documents to the debtor that falsely appear to be from a court or other official agency
        • Misrepresent the amount of the debt or falsely claim that legal action has been taken.”

        http://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/complain.shtml

        Reply

  21. Calling all Texas Does: some of y’all my have seen the article posted on Die Troll Die, asking for Does who wouldn’t mind speaking to a reporter from NBC. I have to admit, initially I was hesitant to speak to a reporter, but after receiving 2 robo calls in one day, I decided I had nothing to lose. The young woman is out of northern CA, and I believe the story will be aired there locally (hope it gets picked up by a major news show).

    I asked her how she got started on this story. Turns out a station in Boston is also running a story, and contacted her to do an interview with a 78 yr old Doe in CA (Grandma Doe doesn’t even own a computer!).

    So Texas Does, if you are comfortable to speaking to a reporter please email doerayme2011@hotmail.com. Doerayme2011 will email you the reporters name and phone number, so YOU can contact her if you choose. I have set up an email, dedicated for Doe stuff, I suggest you do the same, hotmail, gmail or any other free mail should do.

    I know the thought of telling people you are accused of downloading porn is embarrassing and shameful, but that is exactly what the trolls bank on. I choose to speak up, because for us, it was the right thing to do. I’m mad and I want people to know!

    Before you do anything, do your homework, check out Die Troll Die site, read the article posted, and make an informed decision based on what is best for you.

    My interview is at noon today. I believe the more people that speak up, the more light we can shed on the trolls. And we all know trolls don’t like the light!

    Reply

  22. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NON-PARTY COMCAST’S NOTICE OF DECISION IN
    RELATED CASE PENDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Non-party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) submitted a notice to the
    Court regarding the recent decision, Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications
    LLC, No. 12-mc-00150, 2012 WL 2371426 (D.D.C. 2012). (ECF No. 78.) Comcast implies that
    Plaintiff misled the Court by not “advis[ing] this Court of the related proceeding in federal court
    in Washington, D.C.” (ECF No. 78 at 2.) Comcast is mistaken. The Court was apprised of the
    Comcast, and other objections to subpoenas and motions to compel on several occasions.
    As this Court is aware, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court of the District of Columbia
    proceeding in motion filings, as early as in ECF No. 8. Further, as requested, Plaintiff’s counsel
    emailed the Motion to Compel filed by the Prenda Law Firm on March 20, 2012, to the case
    manager. Finally, the pleadings in this case are replete with direct references to the subpoenas
    issued from the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia proceeding. (ECF Nos. 15 at
    3, 17, 18-1, 21 at 2, 22 at 2, 27-1, 31 at 12, 32 at 12, 33-1, 38 at 2, 40 at 2, 41 at 2, 45-1, 46-1,
    Case 4:11-cv-04501 Document 80 Filed in TXSD on 06/29/12 Page 1 of 32
    47-1, 58-1, 77-1.)

    For Comcast to claim that the Court was ignorant of the District of Columbia
    proceeding is incorrect.It bears mentioning that the order attached by Comcast compels Comcast to produce information, namely the city and state associated with each infringing IP address. Millennium TGA, 2012 WL 2371426 at *8. Further, the order permits Plaintiff to simply reissue its
    “subpoena[s] upon Comcast to obtain the identifying information for any subscriber in each of
    the judicial districts where the subscribers reside . . . .” Id. *7. Once Plaintiff receives the
    information from Comcast related to the location of the unknown infringers, Plaintiff can
    continue to seek the identifying information it requires to proceed in this case.

    Respectfully submitted,
    MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.
    DATED: June 29, 2012
    By: DOUGLAS M. MCINTYRE & ASSOCIATES
    /s/ Douglas M. McIntyre
    DOUGLAS M. MCINTYRE (TX# 13681800)
    720 North Post Oak Road, Suite 610
    Houston, Texas 77024
    (713) 681-2611
    (713) 461-3697– facsimile
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

    Reply

    • The lies that this Texas Troll spins! I cannot wait to see how exactly plaintif is going to “proceed in this case” against the out of jurisdiction Does with two strikes and the lawsuit adjudicated in those Does favor?!

      Reply

    • The crook should have said: “For Comcast to claim that the Court was ignorant of the District of Columbia proceeding is incorrect. The judge shopping issue was widely discussed on Fightcopyrighttrolls.com and Dietrolldie.com.”

      Reply

    • From my understanding the notice from Comcast was to alert the court of Judge Wilkins’ most recent ruling, as McIntyre failed to mention it or update Gilmore in his most recent filings.

      It makes no claim of the Texas court being ignorant of the existence of Millenium TGA III.

      Can copy/paste it here if anyone wants, having issues with the formatting and am too lazy to fix it.

      Reply

      • Fixed most of them formatting problems:

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

        MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.,
        Plaintiff,

        vs.

        JOHN DOE,
        Defendant.
        §
        §
        § Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-4501
        §
        § [related to Miscellaneous Action pending in
        § the U.S. District Court for the District of
        § Columbia, No. 1:12-mc-00150-RLW]

        NON-PARTY COMCAST’S NOTICE OF DECISION IN RELATED CASE PENDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Non-Party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) respectfully su bmits this

        Notice to advise the Court of a Memorandum Opinion and corresponding Order in a related proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia–Millennium TGA v. Comcast, No. 1:12-mc-00150-RLW, 2012 WL 2371426 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Millennium TGA III”). True and correct copies of the Memorandum Opinion and Order are attached as Exhibit A to this Notice.

        1. In Millennium TGA III the federal court in Washington, D.C., quashed the subpoena served by Plaintiff Milletmium TGA, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Millennium TGA”) on Comcast that sought the identities of Comcast subscribers who are listed in Exhibits A and B to the Complaint in the case before this Court **(Footnote 1)**. Judge Wilkins did order Comcast to provide Plaintiff the city and state of residence of its subscribers whose identities were sought in the subpoena. Millennium TGA III, 2012 WL 2371426, *8.

        **(Footnote 1) Although Plaintiff obtained an ex parte order granting expedited discovery from this Court (Dkt. 6), Plaintiff issued the subpoena to Comcast out of the District of Columbia. After Comcast objected to the Subpoena, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Comcast to comply with that subpoena (DC Dkt. I) which was denied in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order (DC Dkt. 27 and 28). However, a number of subscribers moved to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena, moved for a protective order, and/or requested similar relief in this Court. See, e.g., Dkt. 10, 12, 14, 15, 1 7, 20, 22, 27, 31, 33, 35, 36,
        38, 40, 41, 51, and 57 (these may not all be Comcast subscribers). See Millennium TGA III, 2012 WL *4-5. This Court has denied many of the subscribers’ motions without prejudice to re-urging in the proper forum (Dkt. 64-70, 72-75). Some subscribers served motions in D.C. that Judge Wilkins recently allowed to be filed. (DC Dkt. 29-36). Judge Wilkins denied those motions as moot and directed the Clerk to mail the Orders, to the extent possible, to the parties who filed the motions. (D.C. Dkt. 37).***

        2. Judge Wilkins, after reassignment, recounted the history of Millennium TGA’s filings, tactics, and non-compliance with Rule 45, when denying its motion to compel. However, it appears Plaintiff has not advised this Court of the related proceeding in federal court in Washington, D.C. See Millennium TGA III, 2012 WL 2371426, *5. Indeed, in as recent a filing as June 25 in this Court, Plaintiff made no mention of the related proceeding in federal court in Washington, D.C. See Dkt. 77 at 3.
        3. Accordingly, Comcast respectfully brings the decision by Judge Wilkins in the related Millennium TGA Ill case to this Court’s attention.

        Dated and Filed: June 27,2012

        Thomas M. Gregor
        State Bar No. 24032245
        Federal Bar No. 32190

        Of counsel:
        Attorney-in-chargefor Non-Party Coma1st Cable
        Communications Management, LLC

        OGDEN, GIBSON, BROOCKS, LONGORIA & HALL, LLP
        1900 Pennzoil South Tower
        711 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 (713) 844-3010

        John D. Seiver Leslie G. Moylan Lisa B. Zycherman
        DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
        1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
        Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973-4200

        3

        Reply

    • I don’t think I looked over this Memorandum and Order before. On quick review, there seems a distressing selectivity for citing decisions favor trolling, when the “preponderance” of decisions have gone against trolling.

      unicorntugboat has noted one of the most glaring passages. For a 14 page memorandum, some major understandings seem omitted.

      A case for a porn video (that creative masterpiece “Monster Wet Anal Asses”) with 351 Does is a mass case, with most Does outside the court jurisdiction.

      The order states: “Analysis of personal jurisdiction is premature when Plaintiff has not identified and named the Defendants against whom claims in fact will be asserted.”

      But if I.P. addressrd could not give location, they would not be valid at all. A few minutes of geolocation could show that many Does received allegation with improper jurisdiction. An hour of geolocation could show how few Does could even plausibly have proper jurisdiction. With due respect one has to wonder about the background baseline in assessment, if basic knowledge, quickly obtainable on a Google search, is not available.

      “Plaintiff is directed, however, that it must have a good faith factual basis for this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over each Defendant Plaintiff pursues in this suit on the merits.”

      If Plaintiff & counsel do not already understand that most Does are already outside the Court jurisdiction, then their ignorance surpasses even their prevarication-not an easy thing to do.

      Reply

  24. In the latest letter I recieved from Prenda, I noticed that they dropped the Florida address from the letterhead. Strangely enough though, Joseph Perea still signed the letter. Umm, he is not licensed to practice law in Ill., so why is he signing the letter? I thought the Florida Bar could sort this out for me. : ). My advise to any other Does would be to file a complaint with the Florida Bar if you received a letter signed by Joseph Perea on behalf of Prenda. He is not supposed be working with Prenda as of June 1st, but continues to do so. The more people who contact the Florida Bar, the more they have to pay attention to this troll. Maybe, we can make a difference together!

    Reply

    • From what I’ve been reading, Perea is already in deep shit with the Florida Bar. At least one state bar association is doing its job (*cough*fuck you IARDC*cough*). Methinks that Perea disassociated with Prenda to shield Prenda from any liability. Not so fast Joe.. Anyone who has an hour or two could find that he’s still doing Prenda’s bidding. Steele will no doubt throw him under the bus, which will result in a disgruntled Perea and a huge shitstorm to follow. I’m just gonna sit back and watch 🙂

      Reply

    • He filed those back in March of this year, the latest filing was for an extension of time. Isn’t the Southern District the one that slapped Evan Stone?

      Reply

  26. No, these appear to be new cases. The one’s back in March were:
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/texas-southern-district-court/91818/combat-zone-corp-v-does-1-158/summary/
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/texas-southern-district-court/91819/combat-zone-corp-v-does-1-192/summary/

    Also missed another new one filed on July 26.
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/texas-southern-district-court/100889/combat-zone-corp-v-does-1-26/summary/

    Reply

  27. This comment is in reference to case 4:11-cv-04501 Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Doe
    Vanessa D Gilmore, presiding, Southern Texas District. I noticed that Prenda Law has started sending settlement letters to Does in this case. It was my understanding that Judge Wilkins has ordered that Comcast turn over to Prenda Law Inc. ONLY the CITY AND STATE which is linked to your accused IP address. Would this be crossing a line if they are sending letters to Comcast customers in this case or non-Comcast customers?

    Reply

    • The recipients of threats should contact the chambers of the judge immediately, just a free-form “letter to court” will suffice. Even if it is a gray area and troll may argue that only Comcast customers were barred from contacting, judge must know about these developments. If such a letter is sent to me, I can try to make a noise (post), though I can’t promise: nest week will be tough for me at work.

      Reply

  29. I would assume letters should be sent to the Southern Texas district? Also, are there sample letters to reference? Thanks!

    Reply

  30. Calling all Texas Does… Douglas McIntyre is now claiming he no longer works with Prenda. I have this in writing (a response he filed to my complaint with the Texas Bar) and he also communicated that info to my attorney. I’m not sure what this means for Prenda. D. McIntyre claims he is finishing up the cases he filed on behalf of Prenda, then he will sever his ties with Prenda Law.

    A direct quote from Mr. McIntyre that I personally recieved is ” Incidentally, being concerned about some things I began to hear about Prenda, I severed my relationship with Prenda right after this case. This case was the last one I filed for Prenda. However, to be professional about it, I am finishing up existing cases.” Really, Doug are you that slow witted that you just figured this out?

    Umm, not quite sure what happens next for all my fellow Texans, but just maybe Prenda will get the hell out of our great state! Hey, John Steele, kiss my ass and bring it on, my attorney and I are dying to get a hold of you!

    Reply

    • Call me skeptical, he filed new cases 2 weeks ago. I’m assuming your case TxJen was before these and when he says “I severed my relationship with Prenda right after this case. This case was the last one I filed for Prenda” he is referring to your case. Why 3 new cases on 7/26? Still trolling, just leaving Prenda? Or ?? I’m just saying, proof is in the pudding, I’d like to hear it from the horses mouth. (read the letter)

      Nothing to say you arent being truthful, but these trolls talk (and write) out of both sides of their mouths.

      Reply

    • With out without prejudice? It makes a difference. If they dismissed without prejudice, they can (and probably will) continue to harass Does involved or refile in another court. Remember, trolls have many sneaky tricks, don’t let the dismissal fool you into letting your guard down.

      Reply

  32. Just a quick update on case # 4:12-cv-00701. Troll McIntyre (with a little help from Troll Duffy) has successfully requested an extension to 12/6/12. Apparently Comcast won’t play ball and release the names of their subscribers to Troll Duffy. (Yay Comcast!) I wish I could say the same for my ISP. By the way, Troll McIntyre – how does it feel to be free of Prenda? Oh wait, you still seem to be working for them, despite what you said to the Texas State Bar and my attorney. And that’s why we call them trolls, folks!

    Reply

    • The summons and complaint would be hand delivered to you or someone in your household by a process server. Looking at the docket it looks like summonses have been issued for certain individuals which could or could not be a scare tactic. However seeing how this is a Evan Stone lawsuit and there are 1,427 potential defendants, my bet would be that it is a scare tactic. Are you one of those individuals? If not, do not worry as there is safety in that many defendants.

      Reply

      • I don’t understand how a summons could be a scare tactic. If the docket says summons sent isn’t the summons already out and it is no longer an idle threat?

        Reply

  36. If you have been personally named in a case the troll has to serve you with a court summons. This means you are no longer a John Doe and you SHOULD get an attorney. However, if you haven’t personally been named, the best action is to sit tight, don’t answer the phone when they call (and they will call), and don’t respond to the demand letters. Hang in there, do your research, and take a deep breath. Your not alone and this is a great place to get advice and support.

    One more thing, if you are able to hire an attorney, I would highly advise you do so. At the very least, it stops the harrassment and at best shows the trolls you plan on fighting. But ultimately you have to decide what works best for you. Good luck and hang in there.

    Reply

  39. To settle or fight is a personal decision only you can make. In my case, I decided to fight, but that isn’t for everyone and it could get very expensive depending our your attorney. But whatever you decide, you need to act quickly. If you decide to fight, make sure you find an attorney who specializes in copyright law. One more thing, go to the copyright site and double check to see if the film in question has a copyright registration. In my case, the film isn’t even copyrighted (dumbass Prenda Law trolls). In my case they have not named any Does personally yet.

    I would love to tell all Does to fight and not to settle with these scumbags, but the reality is you have to weigh your options, what is best for you, your family and personal finances. I would strongly suggest if you decide to settle, hire an attorney to represent YOUR interest and to negotiate on YOUR behalf. Remember, trolls work for the other guy the only goal they have is to squeeze as much money out of you as they can, they don’t care about you and your interests.

    Good luck and if you need help finding an attorney, this might be a good resource for Texas Does to recommend attorneys who work for the righteous.

    Reply

    • Well, I haven’t been personally name (yet), so at this point all my attorney has done is send a letter of representation (telling the trolls I now have attorney and they can longer contact me directly) and also asked for their “evidence”, which they refused to hand over to my attorney. At this point it has cost me about $400. BUT, my attorney is a friend of a friend of mine, who I believe did this as a HUGE favor. Some attorneys require a retainer which could be much more, but you may be able to negotiate a more reasonable fee. It really depends on how much work they have to do on your behalf. In my very unqualified, amateur, non-lawyer opinion, I would rather pay my attorney a couple of thousand dollars to work on my behalf, then give the trolls one thin dime. But, everyone has their own special circumstances.

      If I were you, I would call a few attorneys in your area and see what they have to say. Most attorneys will give you a free consult, so it only cost you time. If you are in Central Texas, I might be able to give you a few names.

      Reply

  41. My experience with Cashman was similar. His first suggestion was that he could negotiate a lower settlement and an ironclad release on my behalf. Good guy, but that was not what worked for me personally. He is a great source of information, and I believe an honest, work hard for you, attorney, but he just wasn’t the best fit for me. I know he has helped a lot of Does, and would highly suggest giving him a call.

    Reply

    • Legit but sometimes not very up to date, you are much better off using PACER. If you use PACER be sure to browse it using Firefox with the RECAP add on so we can all share anything you decide to look at @ 10 cents a page, all the old timers here use it.

      Reply

  43. well if im interpreting what im reading right there has been 13 summons out of 1427 and my name being one of them on that site. This was supposedly on the 17th of august and no papers have come to my house and why the hell would it only be 13 out of 1427?

    Reply

    • My guess is it is a scare tactic in a last ditch attempt to coerce a few more settlements before dismissing the lawsuit. Have you spoken to them? If so, get some free consultations from some EFF attorneys like Cashman and, if not, just sit tight.

      Reply

  44. In Combat Zone v. Does 1-11 (TXSD 12-cv-2910) the judge (name cannot be discerned) authizes expedited discovery AND written interrogatories and depositions prior to service of process and with any procedural safeguards. In other words the order authorizes the troll to invade the privacy of 11 citizens so as to threaten, intimidate, harass and take undue advantage. http://ia601504.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.txsd.1015473/gov.uscourts.txsd.1015473.7.0.pdf

    Reply

    • WTF?! I thought I heard in an audio transcript of another lawsuit (where the Doe’s attorney attended the hearing) that plaintiffs couldn’t serve interogatories or depositions on a Doe unless they were specifically named in a suit.

      Reply

  46. New Troll Assigned to CASE NO. 4:11-cv-04501

    MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL

    Pursuant to LR83.2, Local Rules of the United District Court for the Southern District of
    Texas, Plaintiff Millennium TGA, Inc. requests that Douglas M. McIntyre of the firm Douglas
    M. McIntyre & Associates, 720 North Post Oak Road, Suite 610, Houston, TX 77024, be
    allowed to withdraw as counsel of record for Millennium TGA, Inc. in the above-captioned case,
    that he be removed from the electronic service list in this case, and that Doug Clemons of the
    firm Manfred Sternberg & Associates, P.C., 2425 Fountainview, Suite 160, Houston, TX 77057
    be substituted as lead counsel for Millennium TGA, Inc. Mr. Clemons will be entering
    appearance for Millennium TGA, Inc. in this case.

    Douglas M. McIntyre, Doug Clemons, and Plaintiff Millennium TGA, Inc. are all in
    agreement that this substitution is necessary to allow this case to proceed, and all agree that this
    motion is not sought for purposes of delay.

    Reply

  49. CASE 4:11-cv-04501: ORDER OF DISMISSAL granting [122] Notice of Dismissal. Case terminated on 12/14/2012.(Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified.(bthomas, )

    Reply

    • Fair Estimate Of The Value Of The Attorneys Fees
      Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C), this Court may decide the issue of
      liability for attorneys fees before receiving submissions on the value of the
      services. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B), Defendant submits that a fair
      estimate of the reasonable attorneys fee incurred through this date is $ 11,752.50.
      Costs incurred through this date are $ 240.00.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
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 )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Pingbacks & Trackbacks

  1. Prenda is hiring! Apply here! Positions fill quickly! « Fight Copyright Trolls