John Steele and Prenda Law

This is the place to discuss predatory porn lawsuits by John Steele and his gang (Formerly Steele Hansmeier, now Prenda Law, and soon “Anti-piracy law group”):

PRENDA LAW, INC. 1111 Lincoln Road, #400 (Regus Business Center)
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: 305-748-2102
Fax: 305-748-2103
http://www.wefightpiracy.com

See the Copyright trolls page for the list of scam artists.

Telephone numbers Prenda use to place harassment calls:

305-748-2102
800-380-0840
312-880-9160
305-397-8558
702-445-6064

Supplemental pages

wordpress counter

Discussion

2,788 responses to ‘John Steele and Prenda Law

  1. There is a new omnibus motion filed by Prenda in opposition to movant’s motions in 01741 case.

    Here is one of their arguments “The only possibly relevant exception to this well-established rule is an argument that Plaintiff’s subpoenas require disclosure of “privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii)-(iv); see also Moore’s Federal Practice § 45.50[3]; Thomas, 202 F.R.D. at 434. Movants failed to claim, much less discuss, a personal right of privilege anywhere in their motions. (See generally ECF Nos. 36, 38, 40, 42.)”

    I am not a lawyer but at least two motions by the defendants specifically claim “personal right and privilege of protection of information”. Do these guys even read the motion filed or just bury their head in the sand and file crappy motions?!! I hope the judge sees through this or the does see this and bring this to the judge’s attention.

    It is also interesting that the dropped the “Movant’s motion is not before the proper court” argument made in earlier motions.

    I am sure there are plenty of other holes in Prenda’s arguments and if you find anything else, do post so that appropriate people can be aware and respond to Prenda’s motions effectively in court.

  2. Regarding the new Yuen case against HDP, I want to emphasize one of the key points. This is the complaint Prenda, then Steele | Hansmeier, filed dated March 30, 2011:

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.238912.1.0.pdf

    “The Work is the subject of a copyright registration application and the application is
    currently pending in the United States Copyright Office.”

    But we now know from Yuen’s complaint that the actual date of registration was November 18, 2011. The work does currently appear in the Copyright Office’s online registration database, but according to their FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-what.html):

    “For works that are determined to be copyrightable and that meet all legal and procedural requirements for registration, the effective date of registration is the date the Copyright Office received the completed application, correct payment, and copy(ies) of the work being registered in acceptable form. You do not need to wait for a certificate to proceed with publication.”

    This means that Prenda was never entitled to statutory damages for the alleged infringements in this case, and the statement in Prenda’s complaint claiming an application was pending was a lie. They filed that case and threatened Does using fraud and misrepresentation. I don’t think anyone here will find that surprising but these are the facts to back it up.

    • they are afraid of the last point:

      “For each case, indicate how many Doe Defendants were actually served.”

      The judges are catching up, sadly not in DC, where AF Holdings still has open cases.

    • My guess is that Gibbs realized he’s in trouble jurisdiction-wise and dismissed everyone who resides outside of the Northern District of CA. Kudos to Koh, she finally got Gibbs to show Prenda’s hand (he isn’t too smart, brain cancer or not). How many thousands of people sued and not one single summons. A couple default judgements, but that’s it. I’d love to see this case cited in every single MTQ. “Plaintiff has no intention of serving Does, as evidenced by….”

      • In his response to the order to show cause, Gibbs basically told the judge he dismissed all the Does he had information on and didn’t serve as wells as a few people with pending motions to quash. The remaining does are 5 who filed motions to quash as well as people whose ISPs didn’t comply with the subpoena and have yet to provide the subscriber information.

        • Prenda needs to revise its settlement form letter. Instead of that crap they have now (we’ll serve summons…blah), I think it should say: “We will get your information, Mark Lutz will call you with empty threats over, and over, and over, and over. You will also receive multiple letters where we will kindly extend our settlement deadline. If we do not hear from you, we will dismiss the case after several months of harassment. If you wish to avoid interstate phone and mail harassment, you can pay us the sum of $3,400.”

          • I have one here that Prenda can use – http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/16/new-copyright-troll-smegma-law-inc/.
            Smegma Law Inc. has been retained by Naughtius Maximus Productions LLC to threaten Internet Service Providers (ISP) subscribers who illegally download their copyright content, AKA: Basement Dwelling Pudwackers (BDP). BDP piracy is a very serious problem for smut producers, such as our client, who depends on revenues to purchase expensive residences, fast cars, and of course the young inexperienced models who take one in the face for a meager amount.

            DTD 🙂

  3. ** Interesting – check out the Feb 15 filing **

    Could it be!? Does the court want to see more detail about the troll’s “BitTorrent auditor, forensic information demonstrating infringing activity over the BitTorrent” ?

    Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-98 3:11-cv-02536 (NDCA) Filed 5/25/2011
    http://ia700608.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cand.241138/gov.uscourts.cand.241138.docket.html
    8/25/2011 denied taking discovery, ordered to show cause, improper joinder concern
    10/14/2011 severed all but one doe
    2/15/2012 looks like the court is wanting details from plaintiff :

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.241138.20.0.pdf

    • I’d love to know something about this wonderous piece of software that Steele paid a quarter of a million bucks for. They haven’t even released the name of the program, which isn’t a surprise now that I think about it because Steele wants people to think that HE “caught” them, not a computer program. I’m sure that, in time, everyone will know everything about it. Some day soon I’d love to read (something like): “Disgraced ‘pirate slayer’ attorney John Steele’s proprietary software has been linked to thousands of innocent people being sued for copyright infringement acts that they did not commit and the subsequent extortion of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars from those wrongfully accused.”

      • Hopefully Mr. Yuen will have the opportunity to expose the circus of Steele and his circus friends. Mr. Yuen, at some point is going to be allowed to take discovery on their little operation.

        • When Mr. Yuen takes discovery of Steele’s operation, he’ll have a field day. I see civil RICO cases and possibly criminal RICO cases headed Messrs. Steele, Duffy, Gibbs, and anyone involved…especially Mark Lutz. The term “federally fucked” comes to mind.

  4. I am aware of cases filed by shithead Steele way back in 2010 for works that had a “pending application for copyright registration”. Needless to say, those works never showed up on the Copyright Office’s list. Plus Steele’s evidence is worthless since Hansmeier, the guy who “personally” observes the people allegedly downloading the works, is financially interested in the outcome of the cases aka the success of the extortion scheme. When can we expect class action lawsuits against Steele / Hansmeier, and the other culprits, for fraud and extortion?

  5. Interesting stuff happening in the DC case AF Holdings LLC v Does 1-1058. DTD previously covered how Comcast had refused to comply with Prenda’s subpoena and hired a DC law firm to file an objection:

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/20/comcast-is-starting-to-get-fed-up-with-the-trolls-af-holdings-llc-v-does-1-1058-case-112-cv-00048-bah-dc/

    New documents went into PACER Friday and today. Bright House Networks, Cox, SBC and Verizon have collectively filed an MTQ. The MTQ is only three pages and basically not much substance but refers to about 125 pages of supporting documents which I assume has the good stuff. I’ve done my share of RECAPing recently particularly on the Wong and Abrahams cases so I’m not up to taking the PACER hit on this, but hopefully someone else will download and post the supporting documents.

    MTQ:

    Click to access gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.8.0.pdf

    Docket:
    http://ia700806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.docket.html

    ISPs banding together to file MTQ is definitely an exciting development. Looking forward to John telling us how stupid they are, but he hasn’t been trolling the boards lately for some strange reason.

    • I put some of the “good stuff” up on Recap (particularly the first attachment to docket #8. In brief, the ISPs are saying the subpoena puts and undue burden on them. They raise several points that have been discussed extensively here:
      – personal jurisdiction is lacking
      – improper joinder
      – forum shopping
      – coerced settlements
      – the plaintiff and their council have not served any doe defendant in any case

      • Interesting read! Thank you for sharing.

        It looks like Prenda has the attention of AT&T (SBC), Cox, Comcast, Bright House, and Verizon corporate counsel.

        Johnny Boy… I think the gravy train is about to stop.

  6. ____________________________________
    )
    AF HOLDINGS, LLC, ))
    Plaintiff, ))
    v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1274 (RBW)
    )
    DOES 1 – 1140, ))
    Defendants. )))
    PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF REMAINING DOE DEFENDANTS
    Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby
    dismisses, without prejudice, all causes of action in the complaint against the remaining Doe
    Defendants in this case. The remaining Doe Defendants have filed neither an answer to the
    complaint nor a motion for summary judgment with respect to the same. Dismissal under Rule
    41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate.
    Plaintiff filed its Complaint for this case on July 13, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Twelve days
    later, on July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f)
    Conference (ECF No. 3) which was granted forty-five days later on September 8, 2011. (ECF
    No. 4.) Plaintiff served various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with subpoenas duces tecum
    within one week of the Court’s Order. In compliance with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff also filed a
    Status Report on November 10, 2011. (ECF No. 8.) Additionally, Plaintiff has dismissed with
    prejudice several Doe defendants. (See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10.)
    Soon after the Plaintiff’s issuance of subpoenas to the ISPs, several subscribers filed
    motions to quash, sever, for a protective order and/or to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 11, 12,
    Case 1:11-cv-01274-RBW Document 34 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 3
    -2-
    13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28.) In its January 20, 2012 Order, the Court denied outstanding motions
    to quash. (ECF No. 29.) Within three weeks of the Court’s Order, Plaintiff received substantially
    all of the outstanding identifying discovery in this matter. On February 14, 2012, the Court filed
    a Minute Order ordering the Plaintiff to close its limited discovery on March 2, 2012, and to
    name and serve defendants by March 9, 2012. (Minute Order, February 14, 2012.)
    Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s busy docket; Plaintiff is currently engaged in
    settlement negotiations with a substantial number of putative Doe Defendants. Rather than
    prematurely initiate litigation against individuals who may ultimately wish to resolve Plaintiff’s
    claims via settlement—and thus needlessly burden the Court—Plaintiff believes that dismissing
    the claims against the remaining non-settling Doe Defendants in this action without prejudice in
    lieu of filing actions against non-settling individuals strikes a favorable balance between
    preserving Court resources and safeguarding its intellectual property rights.
    Respectfully submitted,
    AF HOLDINGS, LLC
    DATED: February 29, 2012
    By: /s/ Timothy V. Anderson
    TIMOTHY V. ANDERSON (D.C. Bar # 467166)
    Anderson & Associates, PC
    2492 N. Landing Road, Suite 104
    Virginia Beach, VA 23456
    Telephone: (757) 301 – 3636
    Facsimile: (757) 301 – 3640
    E-mail: timanderson@virginialawoffice.com
    Attorney for Plaintiff

  7. Here’s the case docket

    http://ia700507.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.149188/gov.uscourts.dcd.149188.docket.html

    So, in the above dismissal, this strikes me as quite interesting…

    “… Plaintiff received substantially all of the outstanding identifying discovery in this matter. On February 14, 2012, the Court filed a Minute Order ordering the Plaintiff to close its limited discovery on March 2, 2012, and to name and serve defendants by March 9, 2012.
    Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s busy docket; Plaintiff is currently engaged in settlement negotiations with a substantial number of putative Doe Defendants. Rather than prematurely initiate litigation against individuals who may ultimately wish to [settle] … Plaintiff believes that dismissing the claims against the remaining non-settling Doe Defendants in this action without prejudice … strikes a favorable balance between preserving Court resources and safeguarding its intellectual property rights.”

    Really Tim ??? MUHAHHAHAHAHHAHA 😀

    Essentially, this troll used the court’s authority to get hundreds of Does’ address/phone/email. But when ordered to use that info and name defendants, the troll decided to dismiss them so the court wouldn’t be “burdened.” Wow!!!

    This is yet another example of these trolls cowardly behavior. They don’t dare name anyone in court, lest their scam be exposed. Settlements are just a tax on the ignorant. Does in this case need to ignore these scumbags and live their lives. These guys are just paper tigers. Their bark is much worse than their bite (which is non-existent.)

    Run Troll Run 😀

  8. Shit I’ve got Mark Lutz calling my house (still) after my case has been dismissed, telling me that I’m gonna receive documents, they have more attorneys, I need to get an attorney, and that they’re gonna serve me. I wasn’t aware that you could name someone in a case after you’ve dismissed them and terminated the case, but what the hell would I know, Duffy is the legal expert and I am a peon (ha ha). Jesus, Lutz is a fucking moron and he thinks I’m an even bigger idiot.

    • So, can the trolls continue to send threat letters an make harassment calls after the does have been dismissed without prejudice? I understand that they have that 3 year window to still refile, but that possibility is unlikely at this point. Can anyone confirm?

      • After dismissal, the plaintiff cannot call you and threaten to name you in a case that has been terminated. Duffy could refile, but he won’t. He’s got another ~2 years to refile, which is why I won’t discuss any specifics right now. These dicks are banking on me not checking PACER…well I do and I know what’s going on.

        I’m the OP on the “Lutz calling” post. I was dismissed without prejudice following the judge basically saying “serve or dismiss.” Duffy kept feeding the judge bullshit about how they’re still ID’ing defendants after being granted discovery like 8 months ago, blah blah blah. For the record, I NEVER spoke with Lutz, always let it go to voicemail. I’ve got like 8 recordings of him reading from a script. I’d love to go after Lutz personally, but he’s acting as an agent of a corporation. Then again, I see multiple reasons why a judge would allow “piercing the veil” of Prenda and allowing people to go after Duffy, Lutz, and any of the other lackeys personally.

        The plaintiff (aka smut producer) “generously extended my settlement deadline” then dismissed the case a few days later. Lutz is still calling, trying to feed me bullshit like I’m some dumbass with an 8th grade education. He’s a complete fucking idiot, plain and simple. “Uh duhh hi (insert name here) this is Mark Lutz calling from uhh Prenda uhh Law uhhh huhuhuhhhhh….”

        • My understanding is that “terminated” basically means the last Doe(s) have been dismissed, therefore the case itself is dismissed since there’s no one left. As far as the copyright registration is concerned, the copyright application was “pending” at the time of the suit. I don’t even know why judges allow this shit, especially expedited discovery to “stop further acts of copyright infringement” (aka “we want to get crackin’ on threatening people ASAP, your honor”). How can you sue someone for statutory damages when the copyright doesn’t exist? Oh yeah, you can’t.

        • Lutz has started calling does again in the NorCal case where all were dismissed W/O PREJUDICE with the exception of a remaining 19 (AF Holdings v 1-135). This is the much discussed case where Prenda actually filed documentation showing the classified number of actually served defendants. I guess they’re still fishing for does to settle.

          My question is, are they required at any point to notify the does that they have now been dismissed/released? And is there any recourse now for those dismissed does to file a group counter suit similar to what Steve Yuen in now doing ? It would be nice to see another group rate filing put together similar to what Richard M. Viscasillas is doing in defense of Does in Florida.

        • I’d have to defer to an attorney on that one. I know that there has to be some sort of recourse. I’d be happy with getting one of those scumbags sanctioned or disbarred, I don’t care about money.

          Although Mark Lutz would argue that he is not a collection agent, he would be dead wrong. He is acting as a collection agent for Prenda so he’s subject to all of the rules and regs of the FDCPA. It’s not like they’re calling to collect on a $4k credit card debt or anything like that. No debt exists, yet Lutz is calling to collect on such a debt. I’d tell the judge if the case is still active, I’m sure he (or she) will be thrilled to hear that a lawyer dismissed people from a class action lawsuit, then is trying to collect money from them and threatening to serve in a lawsuit that they aren’t a party to. AFAIK, since those dismissed aren’t party to the suit, they can’t do what Yuen is doing (I’d do it in a heartbeat if I could). Maybe an FDCPA lawsuit?

      • Oh boy, I just opened a letter from Prenda that’s been sitting around for around a month. It’s dated AFTER the case was voluntarily dismissed by Prenda. So now I’ve got a recording of Lutz trying to get me to settle and a physical letter dated post-dismissal telling me that the “next step” is a summons and that I need a lawyer. I should just say fuck it and get ahold of the judge because this is just ridiculous. Either they’re so incompetent that they can’t keep track of the cases (which goes contrary to their “we have more attorneys” threat) or they’re giving a middle finger to the court system. My guess is a combination of the two but I’m not surprised at all. No federal judge would be happy to find out that a lawyer is trying to turn the thumbscrews on someone who’s been dismissed from a case (by the fucking plaintiff!).

    • perhaps its time to contact Mr Ranallo or Mr Yuen and see if they want to file suit

      against Pretenda/Hansmier/Steele for harrasing does that were dismissed WITH prejudice

      in cases where they STILL to this day dont own copyright to the alleged titles .

  9. Just to recycle a crappy old joke, and the fact that I’m slightly buzzed.
    Does anybody know the difference between an acrobatic troupe and Prenda Law?
    One is a cunning array of stunts….

  10. Could someone check PACER to see if there are any updates in O’Bryans new cases filed in the Eastern District of Virginia for Malibu Media?

    • In case it is not already known, some information about the cases can be found on RFC Express:

      http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp

      Under search criteria, put “Malibu Media” in the party name space. Under case type, select (only) copyright.

      Some documents can be found for free on the Internet Archive. Theonly documents so fare are the lists of IP addresses & dates for two of the eight cases filed.

      http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
      Enter “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does” in the search box.

      • thanks anon. I should have been more specific. Looking for any updates regarding the hearing that was scheduled for the morning of the 9th about the issue of joinder.

    • He filed a memorandum in support of joinder in the Malibu v. Does 1-8 on March 9th. I’m reading it right now and it’s pretty ridiculous. He’s got a diagram (with colors!) of how the protocol works. He also really goes after Judge Gibney (the one who threatened to sanction him).

      “Courts in New Jersey and Florida have also permitted joinder in BitTorrent actions where, as here, all of the defendants were a part of the same swarm.” Well, if they do it there….

      “Indeed, the Northern District of California has since ruled joinder is proper in BitTorrent actions in several different cases.” Yeah, and more judges have ruled joinder is IMPROPER.

      He basically goes state-by-state, ad nauseum. O’Bryan is also citing cases in which joinder was found to be improper…and telling the judge why the other judge made a mistake. This is just 29 pages of bullshit (posted on Recap, take a look).

  11. For interested observers:

    David W. O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm filed 8 cases on 2/17/12 for Malibu Media LLC. 102 total Does are involved for 5 cases, and no listing of numbers in 3 of them.

    The early paperwork for the cases seems going at the same rate. O’Bryan is probably submitting for all 8 cases at once when he can.

    O’Bryan is not a copyright attorney. He may be collecting a commission from a king rat troll lawyer who is behind the scenes, in a different area.

    You might want to check out this posting:

    https://houstonlawyer.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/malibu-media-llc-new-copyright-troll-suing-bittorrent-users/

    David W. O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm filed, among others 4 Virginia cases for Patrick Collins Inc last year. He added another for Patrick Collins on 2/17/12, together with the 8 Malibu Media cases.

    According to RFC, the cases have been referred to Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr., who was the judge in last year’s cases.

  12. Same thing happening here in a Patrick Collins case. Two settlement calls threatening to move forward after dismissal w/o prejudice and case terminated.

    Just shows that the Trolls are using the courts for the sole purpose of gaining access to user information for the purpose of extorting settlements.

    SB

    • In my case, I don’t believe that it has anything to do with gaming the system. I believe it has to do with them being complete morons and not keeping track of what cases are active, with a combination of a big “fuck you” to the legal system. It’s completely improper for a lawyer to be calling to collect after they’ve dismissed the case. At the very least improper, but likely illegal. I’m not an attorney so I’d love to see an attorney’s opinion on this whole “harrassing defendants after dismissing them” thing that seems to have started up again.

      I have a very short temper, especially when it comes to some hack trying to bully me around, and I’m quite proud of myself because the “old me” would’ve picked up the phone and told Lutz to go fuck himself, among other things. This “one size fits all” harassment mentality is gonna bite them in the ass. Oh wait, it already has…twice. I’m either going to get ahold of the judge who presided over the case, file a complaint against Duffy with the IARDC, draft a cease and desist letter, or do any combination of those three things. Hell, maybe I’ll do all of them, who knows 🙂 I’d still love to hear an attorney’s opinion on the matter (i.e. legality, ethical ramifications, remedies, etc).

      • Even better. I just checked the docket, they never even filed the copyright application with the court….because they never filed for a copyright, ever.

  13. The calls have come alternately from Miami FL and Burbank CA. My case was in neither of those states. Is it an attorney (or attorney’s office) making these calls?

    • Which law firm are you dealing with? They always say “this is (insert jackass here) from (insert extortion racket here)….” I am not in Florida or California, but I get calls from Mark Lutz down in Florida almost weekly since Prenda’s office is down in Florida. Burbank, I have no idea what firm that is. It’s definitely a law firm’s “collection agent” calling. The only reason why I call them a collection agent is because guys like Lutz are classified as collection agents by the FDCPA.

  14. I’ve been getting calls from Lutz as well. The Caller ID identifies the caller as ‘Steele Law Firm”, while the phone number shows up as a Los Angeles area code. He refers me to call Prenda back at a Miami area code. There is no record of a Steele Law Firm in California. Something doesn’t smell right here.

    • Wait… Doesn’t the steel law firm web page have a disclaimer admitting they’re ashamed (not affiliated) with the “separate” troll business? These guys are such clowns. Too greedy for a 2nd phone line with “not affiliated” caller ID.

  15. Well this is troubling. Looks like Facciola is going to issue a blanket denial of all MTQs and arguments brought before the court. in 1:11-cv-01471.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.45.1.pdf

    He, however, doesn’t appear to directly address what the EFF or John J. Michels , Jr brought up in their filings. Rather he just glosses over the concerns and denies them all. I wonder if he will issue reasoning or just let the denials stand on their own.

    Not pleased.

  16. I just got a letter from my ISP stating that a Michael O’Malley (from Illinois) was representing LightSpeed Media Corp and are filing for my records on a specific date and time. At the time mentioned, I know for a fact I was asleep. I do have wifi, so I am thinking that someone guessed the password and used my internet to either bittorrent their material or attempted to hack into the sites using debunked passwords or something.

    From the research I have been able to do, those two things seem to be the common things these companies are suing for.

    What I would like to know is a more or less detailed list of steps one needs to take to get my name and information not shown and to get myself taken off this subpoena. Any help would be appreciated. The state this lawyer has filed his subpoena is in Florida and there is no way I can get there for any trial date if that was what is needed in the end. Any help would be appreciated.

    • 1. File a MTQ or do not file a MTQ.
      If you file one with or without an attorney and it succeeds they wont get your name (at least
      for now). If it does not succeed they will get your name and threaten to sue you unless
      you settle (bullshit 1% chance of suing you).
      2. Settle or do not Settle
      If they do get your info from your ISP they will be threatening you with a lawsuit
      3. They will either sue or dismiss “without prejudice” unless you settle (pay the troll).
      If they do actually sue you and you receive a summons from the courts you should get an
      attorney and answer the summons. If you settle do it with an attorney. If the case is
      eventually dismissed “without prejudice” they can still sue you and can still try to get you to
      settle.

      Everything you need to know is on this blog and on dietrolldie.wordpress.com. Just need to do a lot of reading to get an understanding of the entire process and what to expect. There is plenty of info on filing a MTQ. I am no expert on this stuff just my opinion on this and trying to help others like I was helped when I came here.

      • St. Clair county is rated as one of the top “Judicial Hellholes” in the country. It’s where all of the lawyers go to venue shop for lawsuits with absolutely no merit, but they win multi-million dollar judgments.

  17. Interesting case. Troll alleges use of hacked passwords to access porn sites, not P2P download. This would rely on protocol logs and intrusion detection software rather than tracker software.

    • Not sure I’d call this trolling. This is different as its actually an unauthorized intrusion on the company’s server, not people sharing files on p2p. It just happens to be filed by a company who does p2p trolling. Unless something fishy is up like them setting up a honeypot account, I’m not as offended by this lawsuit.

      • What about a tiny bit of information… That the software “company” that developed this “intrusion software” is founded and owned by the very same guy who owns the porn portal (Lightspeed), and he does not advertize his fact. Conflict of interests? Who cares.

        How about that it is the very same guy with whom Steele discusses (on a porn board) how to set settlements lower than defense and how to attach porn stigma to defendants in order to coerce settlements?

        And what is your definition of “trolling”?

  18. Thanks…i will take the info from this page and speak with my local AF base’s legal people to see their suggestions on how to best handle this. Maybe they will aide me in drafting a MQT so that mine and my wife’s info is not given.

  19. Can anyone tell me what to expect if I do pay them off? I got the Prenda letter today and I need to make it go away. This could really screw up my life. Will they just stop if I pay the blood money? I envy those of you who can fight, but that’s just not an option for me.

    • If you’re gonna pay them off (and I strongly suggest that you do not), get an attorney to negotiate a settlement with them. DO NOT just fill in the forms in their extortion letter because, although I have not gone over it with the proverbial fine toothed comb, I’d venture to say that there are loopholes in the agreement that will allow them to sue you again in the future. For the record, fighting doesn’t necessarily involve retaining counsel. I “fought” by just ignoring them. As long as you don’t correspond with them (anything you say can and WILL be used against you), it’s practically certain that your case will be dismissed. Unfortunately, it’ll take 8-9 months.

        • Mine took 9 months, 4 letters, and I don’t know how many phone calls but it was way more than 2. More like 4-5. Lutz kept calling to tell me that the plaintiff “generously extended their settelement deadline.” He’d call, I’d ignore and let him leave voicemails. I’d have flipped on him if I had talked to him. The man is an idiot.

  20. DO NOT pay them. They have absolutely no case unless you talk to them and accidentally say something incriminating. In fact, if they brought 99% of these cases to court, they’d likely be laughed at, ripped apart and disbarred. These parasites only prey on people who are scared and want it to go away, many of whom are completely innocent to begin with.

    If you accidentally say something incriminating, you have probably a 1% chance of being named in a lawsuit.

    If you ignore them, you have a 0.00001% chance.

  21. Can anyone tell me what to expect if I do pay them? Sorry, I wish I could fight, but my wife got a phone call from them today. This could end my already shaky marriage. I know this is against the spirit of this site, but this is the only forum that seems knowledgeable/active enough to give me real info rather than just speculation. Is anyone here who payed up and can tell me what to expect? God, these people are bastards.

    • Please read the comment directly above yours.

      If you think this will ruin your marriage from the letters and phone calls, all of that can be avoided by hiring an attorney. All contact from the troll would go through them, thus saving you the hassle of screening your calls and slapping the phone out of your wives hand every time the phone rings. Whichever case you’re involved with could very well be dismissed in 6 months and all you’ll be out is ~ $500. Even if you decide to settle with these clowns, hire an attorney to negotiate the price.

      and FYI, another Doe posted the other day that after paying the first settlement, they received ANOTHER letter from their ISP from another company. I wouldn’t put it past Prenda to reuse IP addresses of people they know won’t put up a fight.

      Please think carefully about this. They have no evidence. Assuming you or your wife didn’t say anything incriminating, all you have to do is wait it out.

      • Hell, even if you ignore them and the case is dismissed by Prenda, they’ll still try to collect from you because they think that you’re a complete idiot and you don’t know how to check a docket. They’ll call you incessantly, threatening you, basically walking that fine line between what is legal and what is interstate phone harassment. Right now I’ve got assholes in California and Illinois calling, telling me that I’ve been ignoring them (yeah, that’s fucking right morons, I ignored you), and that they’re gonna go ahead and name me (in a case that was dismissed). If they plan on filing an individual suit, good fucking luck on that because the first thing a judge will ask is “why did you dismiss this defendant from the first lawsuit?” and Duffy won’t have a very good answer.

        If you do settle, get a lawyer because they’ve backdoored the settlement paperwork that they send out to victim…errr, defendants. A competent attorney will make sure that you don’t get sued again…for that case at least. I’m 99% certain that Prenda recycles IPs.

  22. The general demand reported is in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars.

    http://dietrolldie.com/settlement-letters-other-troll-correspondence/

    This varies from one troll porn studio and their troll lawyer to another. The trolls have made a calculation guess about how much people are willing to pay to avoid the higher cost of fighting things in court.

    There are reports of individual people or their defense lawyers negotiating the figure down somewhat. As stated many places on the blog, it’s not recommended to speak to the trolls. They will try to use anything you say against you, regardless of fairness or justice.

    As DJ says, you can hire an attorney who can inform the troll agents that they must communicate directly with your lawyer. This would immediately shield the household from any other troll letters, calls or emails.

    A lawyer could be hired just to shield you. The trolls will continue threats and demands, adding deadlines of their own invention.

    Once you are shielded, you can wait things out or instruct the lawyer to settle. Reports are that the troll price demand may drop with attorney representation. If the price drops this may partially or more offset the attorney fee.

    DJ’s take gives a reminder that the troll’s leverage is mainly fear. They settle with a percentage of Does while not pursuing others, then go to a new batch. As DJ points out, waiting could save money while starving the trolls.

    See Raul’s post under MTQ. Even the troll lawyer is estimating a large percent of Does are not infringers, not even accounting for other errors in the honeypot scam.

    Making more work for the trolls through waiting, motions, or defense attorney responses slows the nasty stuff trolls do.

    This is for discussion only and is not legal advice.

  23. OK guys thanks for the advice. I didn’t know you could force them to contact you only through a lawyer. Next question: How do I find a lawyer? I’ve never hired one before. I know it’s the kind of thing everyone says is best done through word of mouth, but if I start asking around about lawyers I’m totally screwed.

    • Start here:

      https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense

      Talk to a few about your situation, maybe even call out of state attorneys who offer free or cheap consultations over the phone. If the first thing they say is you SHOULD settle, on to the next one. Settling is definitely an option, but anyone familiar with Copyright trolls will know they don’t have any evidence. Keep checking back to this site as well as DieTrollDie.com

    • Keep in mind, as DJ says, that for the stage of just fending off a troll (or advising or negotiating), you do not need a local lawyer. The trolls would be limited to speaking to any U.S. lawyer you retain.

      For filing motions by lawyer, and especially for responding to being served (a very low probability event in experience so far), a local attorney would be necessary, aside from responding yourself (pro se).

  24. Lutz just called me AGAIN today (finally left a voicemail) from a California number. More empty threats. “We’re gonna go forward with ‘that process’ (naming me),” “we have more attorneys….” blah blah blah empty threats. I think he’s out there because Prenda is having major problems. He called 3 other times and didn’t leave a voicemail, but I don’t answer calls if I don’t recognize the number. Heads up, here’s the number he’s calling from 213-344-5661. This ass is trying to settle on a case that’s been dismissed…STILL. Is this shit even legal? Trying to extract money from someone AFTER a case has been dismissed (w/o prejudice…by Duffy). If it’s not illegal, it should be.

    • Prenda has a hard-on for me. I got a call about 3 hours later from “Joe” (I assume Joe means Joe Perea…”Uh this is Joe from Prenda Law”) reading from the same script that Lutz read from. This call was from a Florida number. He was kind enough to inform me that I’ll be named in an individual suit, that I’ll be receiving “time sensitive materials,” and that I should visit their website (right, I’m gonna do that without a proxy). I feel like I’m dealing with people who have sub-75 IQs. I’d love to see what a judge thinks of them suing someone individually who they dismissed from one of their mass lawsuits, if that’s even their plan. My best guess is that they think I’m too stupid to check the docket and realize my case has been dismissed.

  25. Thanks for the advice, guys. I just realized the horrible fact that the Prenda papers list my wife as the offender. Apparently our ISP gave them her name because she signed up for the internet account like 12 years ago. Damn. Now even if I get a lawyer, Prenda can just demand to deal with the person on their records, right? Keeping my wife out of this is worth more to me than $3400. What sucks is I know this whole scam is going to fall apart, but probably not soon enough to help me.

    • Prenda can demand all they want, all contact goes through your attorney. The only way your wife gets dragged into this is if they decide to name you individually. And even then, they’re still offering to settle. I can understand you don’t want your wives name in public record, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. If you’re willing to dish out that kind of money, hire an attorney. At least make them work a little! But pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top, hire an attorney even if you decide to settle. Please. I can’t say please enough. Pllleeeeeaaasseeee.

    • Many lawyers will file a cease and desist letter for a much smaller chunk of change than settling. This will essentially force them to go through your lawyer.

  26. I see Timothy V. Anderson filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sunlust Pictures, LLC in Colorado on the 15th. I thought he primarily trolled the DC/MD/VA area?

    • Good question. He is not listed on the Colorado Bar site. He is in Virginia. His licenses are VA, DC, and MO. His main practice focus does not seem to be intellectual property. As in other places, he may be filing for a behind the scenes lawyer running things.

      He attended Regent University law school, on a campus founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson. The main campus website says “Christian leadership to change the world. Would alumni be concerned that a graduate was aiding porn studios in a demand scheme?

  27. Noted on SJD’s twitter:

    Prenda/Steele Illinois case dismissed with Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions not able to provide copyright registration that supports statutory claims.

    The case started 4/27/11(Illinois Northern, #1:11-cv-02798. That’s ten months of time to make settlement demands to Does.

    Prenda has started dozens of cases. Would some courts view this as bad faith or bad practice by Prenda-with lawyers with experience in these cases? Would some judges see this as misrepresentation.

    • Well the movie that he sued me for isn’t copyrighted. They never bothered to file an application, period. As far as HDP v. Does 1-55 goes, that movie is registered under just plain old “Erin” whereas Steele filed suit for infringement on “Amateur Allure-Erin.” I’m not sure where the hell Duffy got that exhibit, since I just looked up the work under the number Duffy provided and came up with something completely different from what’s in the screenshot.

      http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0001757280&Search_Code=REGS&PID=JvSb-NU3VnyQmfgRHc9AfdXKrRM2j&SEQ=20120320214955&CNT=25&HIST=1

        • My case (not HDP) is really interesting since Steele filed a letter in response to the judge’s request for copyright registration…it says “Copyright Application Pending” and then includes a reference number. Yet no copyright appears on the US Copyright Office’s webpage. It’s been damn near a year, so I’m guessing that they never filed for a copyright and defrauded the court by submitted that letter. In fact, there are NO copyrights on file for the Plaintiff.

          I don’t know about you, I can tell you that, in my case, I dare Prenda to refile (they’ve been calling me non-stop…Lutz and Perea, aka the guy who fucked up the Prenda cases in Florida). Duffy dismissed my case a while back, so if he does refile, the judge will wanna know why they’re suing me again. I’d love to see that explanation. Then I’d love to see them ask for statutory damages. Then it’d be time to find myself an attack dog attorney and get the ball rolling on declaratory relief actions in Illinois (funny thing is, I don’t even live near ILND).

    • My case was dismissed without prejudice, however the complaint didn’t even include a pending registration number and the producer has never filed for a single copyright. So of course Mark Lutz thinks I’m retarded and is now calling me again.

  28. Yeah he’s counting on people not actually bothering to do some simple research and discovering that he’s helping perpetrate a scam of massive proportions. He’s one arrogant son of a bitch. Seeing as how they can’t sue me for statutory damages (assuming I even did do what they alledge, and I didn’t), I’m considering drafting a cease and desist letter or having a lawyer do it for me, which would include the threat of an FDCPA suit if they don’t leave me the hell alone.

    Lutz is in my top 5 “biggest morons I’ve ever had the displeasure of dealing with” list. He thinks he’s smarter than everybody, which doesn’t say a lot about Arizona State University’s business school (where he got his degree in finance back in 2004). The dumbass can’t even read from a script…whenever I listen to one of his voice mails with him saying “ummmm” every other word I can’t help but scream “SPIT IT OUT ELMER!”

  29. In Seth Abrahams vs. Hard Drive Productions, Inc. and Does 1-50, Yuen has updated the complaint to go after Hard Drive Productions, Inc. and Prenda’s conspicuous lack of effort to protect their copyrights via DMCA takedowns or suits against BitTorrent trackers. He also cites Hard Drive Production’s share of the Prenda lawsuits where no defendants were served, via Gibbs’ declaration in one of their California cases. That is turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving, so much so that in Florida Prenda’s puppet Joseph Parea requested sanctions against a Doe and his lawyer simply for filing the Gibbs declaration as a way of illuminating Prenda’s behavior pattern.

    I didn’t think to check the docket for Wong vs. HDP before posting this, but it is fair to assume that the complaint for that case either has or will be amended in a similar manner.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.251860.14.0.pdf

    New parts appear to be all in this block, but everyone should have a look for new stuff:


    37. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the website http://www.chillingeffects.com and found no exemplars of any Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“D.M.C.A.”) takedown notices issued by Hard Drive.

    38. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.

    39. Plaintiff, through his counsel, requested Hard Drive to provide any evidence that it has issued D.M.C.A. takedown notices to any BitTorrent tracker owner, or that it has sued any BitTorrent tracker owner for D.M.C.A. liability yet Hard Drive refused to provide such information.

    40. Based on Hard Drive’s previously stated refusal and the previously stated allegations, plaintiff can only conclude that Hard Drive has no such evidence as a reasonable person would have provided such information in lieu of attempting to move for sanctions under rule 11.

    41. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.

    42. Based on the previously stated allegations, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive never issued any D.M.C.A. takedown notices to the owners and/or operators of the BitTorrent trackers that were being used to distribute the work.

    43. On or about March 6, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 59 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.

    44. On or about March 2, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 54 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.

    45. Hard Drive’s agent’s custodian of records has declared under penalty of perjury that it has filed at least 37 lawsuits naming 3,480 Doe defendants yet has served no defendants.

    46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive continues to track and log IP addresses, and continues to sue Doe defendants corresponding to these logged IP addresses for infringement of its purported copyright since March 2011 yet at the same time has never named the owners of these BitTorrent trackers as defendants for D.M.C.A. liability in these lawsuits.

    • That is form AO-121 “a Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright.”

      They are filed as a notice along with copyright cases.

      Here are all of Hard Drive Productions registrations
      http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Hard%20Drive%20Productions%2C%20Inc%2E&PID=Kf4G9YyMR23xpZ8gvvkFZEy2bmX&BROWSE=1&HC=20&SID=3

      I could not find “Natalia” in the list. It is possible that it is a different name.

      • I agree that it looks suspicious.

        As the other post says, Hard Drive Productions only has about 20 registered copyrights, with about 11 for the Amateur Allure series. It’s possible they’ll claim Natalia is part of a full registered work, Amateur Allure 1 or 2. If that’s the claim, they should have been clear.

        It’s possible that their action was registered close enough to the claimed release of the film or their “knowledge” (maybe honeypot scam) of infringement to try for statutory damages.

        If infringement is such a concern, why didn’t they register this work?

        They’ve had at least FIFTY troll cases according to RFC Express. Are they trying to get the government’s assistance without paying government fees ?

        Fifty cases is major trolling. It may be hard to claim that their knowledge of infringement has been recent.

        • The US Copyright database is not the most user-friendly, so it is possible to miss a registration based on name changes. Make sure to really search it good. I wouldn’t doubt many of HDP’s earlier works had a copyright mark on them, but no actual registration with the US Copyright Office. I was looking up some of First Time Videos (FTV) registrations for a Doe and noted that not all of their earlier works are registered. Of course that doesn’t stop them from threatening Does with possible judgments of $150K.

          DTD 🙂

        • The Search Hints on the Copyright website for Registration Number is as follows:
          – Omit spaces and hyphens
          – Registration numbers must be 12 characters long. Type 2 letters followed by 10 digits, or 3 letters followed by 9 digits; add zeroes before the number:
          VAu-598-764 is typed VAU000598764,
          SR-320-918 is typed SR0000320918

          The registration number on the AO-121 form is not remotely resemble the above.

  30. Judge rejects copyright trolls’ BitTorrent conspiracy theory
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/judge-rejects-copyright-trolls-bittorrent-conspiracy-theory.ars

    Oh Johnny Boy, Remember this?

    John steele says:
    October 29, 2011 at 7:42 am

    6. Sites like this skew what is happening in the courts and do a disservice to people looking for information. Its true that some judges have severed cases. In IL there have been 3 (Shadur, Manning, Conlon). But its also true that many more judges has denied any efforts by pirates to stop us and made it clear they think what my firm is doing is fine (Chief Judge Holderman, Castillo, Pallmeyer, Coleman, Grady, Lefkow, Kennelly, Bucklo, Denlow, Gettleman, Gottchall, Guzman, Kendall, Lindberg, St. Eve, Zagel, many others).

    https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/18/trolls-in-panic-steele-hansmeier-files-an-amicus-brief-trying-to-prevent-the-inevitable-downfall-of-the-us-trolls/

    You smug fool…

  31. Hello John,

    Like you my roots are in street law. I cut my teeth in nasty divorce work and worked my way down from there until I was defending bent cops post Rodney King. Now retired but with some Federal and countless State trials under my belt, I am gunning for you and your ilk who are an embarrassment to the legal profession. My mission is to make you and your fellow scum history by this time next year. Thank you for making this mission a simple one so far.

  32. As SJD and DTD have been saying and doing on the behalf of all Does, just keep the microscope on these trolls and they will eventually wither under the scrutiny. Every lie, trick, screw up, tactical change and judicial spanking gets reported and assessed which adds to everyone’s knowledge which grows exponentially every week. This knowledge is a powerful weapon which is why Steele and other trolls try to belittle these sites and their noble efforts; less and less Does are settling and their business model is beginning to gasp and shake.

    • Indeed, we together do make a difference. I hope it’s not a wishful thinking, but reading numerous dockets I have an impression that there are much less dismissals with prejudice (read: settlements) than were a year ago.

      Keep noticing everything, don’t be afraid to share news because you think it is old news – no harm in repetition. Moreover: when many people report the same event, it translates to its importance.

      No bit of information is lost – it adds up to a powerful weapon of collective knowledge. I just looked at this site stats: every new top-level post is seen by 5,000-10,000 people! Among them are dozes of lawyers, other bloggers and press, and I hope that one day a judge or AG visits this site.

      Trolls are losing, and our collective effort plays a significant role in their impeding downfall.

  33. The latest I heard from my isp, Comcast – they did receive a subpeona and sent out notifications to all parties identified. Unfortunately, for me, the IP address used in the download belonged to someone in another state with my name. Evidently the law firm did a search of names and found me and sent me a letter too. I asked Comcast for a copy of the notification to me sent to another address and they refused. They said they would release it if I filed a Police Report as my identity had been stolen. I filed the report with the police department and they still refuse to give me a copy of the notification sent to me in another state. They now say that they can only release the document to the law enforcement agency that filed the report. Soooo – I asked them to put in writing that my IP where I live is not the IP used to down load Sexual Obsession the movie. We’ll see what they say on that one. I have a friend, who happens to be an attorney familiar with this type of suit, advised to pay the dirt bags $200.00 if they release me fromo the suit. ARGHHHHHHH.

    For the mean time I will do nothing based on the apparently sage advise from a bunch of my fellow does

    • This is a different kind of collateral damage. Trolls knowingly harassing the innocent are practicing extortion. With hundreds of thousands of Does, this name mistake may be happen alot. They can claim anything about anyone and try using embarrassment and inequality of arms to swindle defendants.

      Your lawyer friend may underestimate the size of the troll demand unless the trolls quoted that figure. If they were reasonable, they wouldn’t be trolls.

      Not to defend Comcast too much, it’s decent that they’re protecting the privacy of another Doe even though your reason for asking was legitimate. Comcast should be easily able to write a letter saying your account has never been associated with that IP address.

      Sounds like the trolls have wrong jurisdiction on top of wrong accusation on top of the usual garbage. Keep records or recordings if contact trolls make more contact.

  34. Why would the trolls subpoena ISP’s? I’m not computer literate, but are they hoping that the ISP will provide more specific information?

  35. I understand that the trolls subpoena the isps to get the specific name and address associated with the web address that downloaded the copyrighted materials. I could be wrong but the isps must comply with the court order.

    In my case it appears that the ISP responded to the subpeona, the trolls got the name of someone in MA that is the same as mine and they added me to the waw suit hoping that I would settle to avoid embarrasment.

    I am awaiting Comcasts response to my last request – Writing a letter that the IP in question belongs to someone owith the same name but with a different IP address.

    That still doesn’t mean that I would be released from the law suit.

    In the meantime I am wathcing and listening to you folks and am not inclined to give them any dough.

  36. I was sent a letter asking for my name, address, & phone. BUt I feel as if I’m being taken in on this scam. The IP address in question is not my own, and in fact mine was issued before the date in question. So what I’m wondering is do I wait it out, or risk my name by asking why my IP address was included when it does not even match the one in question?

    • This is for discussion and does not constitute legal advice.

      Be clear about your IP address if you are not already. Do you have a static IP address, sticky dynamic IP address or dynamic IP address ? Check with your ISP.

      If the letter was sent by the ISP, how was your name selected ? Contact your ISP’s legal department and asked them. They are separate from the trolls.

      If the letter includes an IP address that the ISP will verify was not assigned to your account, that may be good grounds to make a motion, such as to quash or to sever. The advantage to a pro se or lawyer assisted motion is that the troll would not get your name at all. The troll would not know who to address. A motion would also help other Does by making more work for the troll, slowing their extortion while the courts catch on.

  37. A fun read, Howard Lloyd denying expedited discovery.

    “The court realizes that this decision may frustrate plaintiff and other copyright holders who, quite understandably, wish to curtail online infringement of their works. Unfortunately, it would appear that the technology that enables copyright infringement has outpaced technology that prevents it. The court recognizes that plaintiff is aggrieved by the apparent infringement and is sympathetic toward its argument that lawsuits like this one are the only way for it to find and stop infringers. However, the court will not assist a plaintiff who seems to have no desire to actually litigate but instead seems to be using the courts to pursue an extrajudicial business plan against possible infringers (and innocent others caught up in the ISP net). Plaintiff seeks to enlist the aid of the court to obtain information through the litigation discovery process so that it can pursue a non-judicial remedy that focuses on extracting “settlement” payments from persons who may or may not be infringers. This the court is not willing to do.”

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.243765.18.0.pdf

  38. Another harsh toke for Prenda to puff on, I think DTD will like this one in part because the judge’s order is dripping with contempt and barely concealed outrage. Another great precedent for the NDCA. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention!

    • Yes, that one is a nice read. LMAO!

      “Thus, plaintiff will only consider naming and serving a defendant after it has (1) contacted the ISP subscriber one or more times, (2) researched that subscriber and anyone else who might have used the ISP subscription, (3) met and conferred with the subscriber; (4) attempted to settle with the subscriber, (5) elicited evidence of a defense from the subscriber, (6) evaluated the credibility of that evidence, and (7) found it wanting. In addition, plaintiff also admits that in the event that a subscriber refuses to “participate” in the above process, plaintiff may need to request further discovery. It is abundantly clear that plaintiff’s requested discovery is not “very likely” to reveal the identities of the Doe defendants. Indeed, plaintiff admitted at the hearing that neither it nor any other plaintiff it is aware of has ever served a single defendant in one of these cases where early discovery has been granted.”

      DTD 🙂

    • I just logged into PACER and RECAP is correct, nothing since March 9th. This case has had long periods of quiet before, but not quite this long…odd.

    • Funny how Steele is “retired” but he signs a document as lead counsel for “Steele Hansmeier PLLC” on 27 Mar 12. I guess you could say he just viloated Title 18, Section 1001 (False Statements) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) as Steele Hansmeier PLLC is not an active LLC in MN. According to the MN Business and Lein System (http://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/), Steele Hansmeier PLLC was terminated on 13 Jan 12. Screenshot – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mn_llc_sh_term_6apr12.jpg The only thing worse was having to read the following bit of drible from his Notice of Dismissal –

      “Plaintiff, through counsel, has concluded that the information needed to proceed in this litigation—namely the ISP subscriber logs for the IP addresses identified on Exhibit A to the Complaint—is almost certain to have been destroyed due to the passage of time. Accordingly, Plaintiff has directed its counsel to dismiss this action without prejudice in favor of pursuing alternative avenues for attempting to curb the rampant Internet-based infringement that is destroying the livelihoods of creative professionals across the world.”

      Destroying the lives? I’m sorry, how rich are your Plaintiffs John? How many luxury cars and homes do they have? Lets talk about how little your Plaintiffs pay these young inexpeienced “models” to take it up the @#$ and then take a shot to the face. Creative professionals? More like creative writing on your part.

      DTD 🙂

      • You hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph. I don’t have the guts of the financials for these “firms” (and I wish like hell that I did) but I’m gonna guess that their profit margin (after cost) is somewhere around 90%, even with people downloading their crap. I’d LOVE to see a disclosure of financial position so I could break it down in my spare time. I’d also love to get ahold of Prenda’s financials. In hindsight, I wish I would’ve taken the job offer with the IRS so I could flag them for an audit. I actually would not be surprised if they’re flagged due to the MAJOR change in cash inflows due to you know why.

        “Curb the rampant…” oh God I’m gonna vomit. Google Earth the houses of the producers and agents of these firms, they’re sure as hell not living in cardboard boxes. Hell, they’re better off financially than I am, and I actually contribute to society rather than making material to spank it with.

        This asshat needs to be taken to the mat by the Secretaries of State in the various states where he “practices,” have Rule 11 sanctions bitchslapped on him and the rest of his attorney buddies, and be disbarred in every single state where he holds a license. That would be a start. I’d love to see him in a blaze orange Federal prison jumpsuit 🙂

      • Yea he really comes across as a arrogant prick with that dismissal. I imagine you will see other cases get dismissed that fell under his old “Steele Hansmeier PLLC” name in the near future as he closes them out since he shouldn’t be practicing under that name.

        • He would still be practicing under Steele Hansmeier PLLC if DTD hadn’t made that public (and I’m sure called several Secretaries of State) 🙂 Like I said, I’d love to see a state government string him up by his jewels and publicly flog him for defrauding the government. Well, I didn’t word it that way, but still.

  39. Comcast sent me a letter stating that the IP address supeoned is not mine. I am inclined to sent them a copy of the letter asking them to release me from the suit. Thoughts?

    • I would be more inclined to wait it out. You’re holding a trump card with the potential to make Prenda look like morons (well, more than they already do) so I wouldn’t be surprised if they just tossed your real IP into a spreadsheet and slapped a lawsuit on that list of IPs. I’m fairly certain that they recycle IPs, as I’ve heard stories of people paying them, then ending up on the wrong end of a different lawsuit. If they try to monkey around with you, you could always go to Wong route 🙂

    • The Recap docket is here. Hope someone will upload documents soon. I added this page to the WatchThatPage, so I’ll receive an email for each update. Will keep an eye on it. Looks like the Doe mounts a massive defense…

  40. I don’t know about Yuen getting yelled at, but looks like he did his job in the Wong case. Where the judge has denied Gibbs’ Motion to Dismiss.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.251599.22.0.pdf

    “Hard Drive’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Hard Drive is directed to file and serve its
    answer to the First Amended Complaint no later than April 30, 2012.”

    I can’t wait to see Gibbs tackle that the Answer to complaint.

    • Hah I love this judge already. In addressing the “no case or controversy argument” she, well, it’s a fun read 🙂

      “Here, counsel for Hard Drive: (1) filed its original action alleging that several Doe
      defendants illegally downloaded its copyrighted video; (2) threatened to name Wong in that prior
      action; (3) demanded a settlement from Wong in order to release her from liability on those claims; (4) dismissed the multi-party action and immediately filed a new, nearly identical action against a single Doe, specifically identifying Wong’s IP address as the address used to download the video;” and (5) again demanded a settlement amount from Wong.”

      Then she shoots down the improper venue argument with: “it is plain that the actions that gave rise to the complaint demonstrate that Hard Drive purposefully directed activity within the forum, that the claim here arises out of that activity, and that venue in the Northern District of California will comport with fair play and substantial justice.”

      • Hello Pirate Hunter a/k/a Buffy,

        I called it months ago. I think I will start calling you Loser Troll as opposed to that pathetic idiot in the Eastern district of VA but, come to think of it, I like Buffy better insofar as that is what your fellow Trolls and former clients call you behing your back. As if you didn’t know.

        • I’m not Steele. I’m the guy who is sending Yolofsky the “Perea Letters” (post-dismissal extortion) so he can use them against Perea.

          • We know who you are 🙂 I appreciate your contribution to this site very much by the way.

            Raul just confused “reply” buttons, I’m sure he did not mean to reply to you.

        • Ahh haha I was thinking “what the hell!?” when I read that. Raul, go over to the Lightspeed page. He made a comment over there 🙂

  41. Anytime something bizarre comes out of SJD’s site assume it is me. I still type with 2 fingers and am not someone you would describe as tech savvy. I truly apologize for any offense I may have occasioned as all offfense was directed to Buffy.

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