Lightspeed password hacking cases


There are a couple of cases filed by Prenda Law on behalf of a pornographer Lightspeed Media Corp.

Florida Miami-Date county court:
  • 12-05673 CA 05

Illinois St Clair countly court

Southern District of Illinois
  • ILSD Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Smith et al 3:12-cv-00889 — state case (11-L-0683) was removed to the Federal level upon defendant’s request. Dismissed 3/19/2013.
  • Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Lukas Shashek 3:12-cv-00860-WDS-DGW — state case (12-L-927) was removed to the Federal level upon defendant’s request. Dismissed 2/15/2013.

Maricopa County Superior Court (State of Arizona)
Superior Court of the State of California
Relevant pages:
Relevant posts:
Media coverage:
  • ZDNet: Hacker hater: Meet the star client of porn’s “most prolific” copyright lawyer by Violet Blue.

    • Please take an effort to document all the interactions with the plaintiff. Copy and file mailings, record conversations, preserve voicemails. This information may really help in a possible counter-action.
      • This request does not cancel the advice not to answer any questions over the phone. Be extra careful.
      • Mind the state wiretapping laws. Illinois, for example, requires consent of both parties to record a phone conversation, so if you are recording a call, start your conversation with a polite warning and suggest that continuing the conversation implies consent to record. If you reside in a “one-party” state and the incoming call is originated in a “one-party” state or the caller ID is masked, no such warning is necessary. Certainly, preserving voicemails does not violate any laws. Further reading.
    • If you have any documents regarding these cases, please send them to me. If these documents contain your personal information, please redact and scan, or you can just trust me: I always double-check and remove everything, including file metadata, and I never publish anything without your consent, but even if you don’t want it to be published, I’m really interested in seeing it.
    • If you are an attorney who defend victims of Lightspeed/Prenda, please think about how I can help you: create separate pages, make announcements, coordinate/facilitate communications etc.
    wordpress counter


    1,059 responses to ‘Lightspeed password hacking cases

    1. so the world timbers case in maricopa county has a hearing scheduled for next month to hear arguments. i am curious can a lawyer tell me if it is considered acceptable for a “non party” to show up at the hearing just to listen in?? is your average joe allowed to show up at a court hearing as an interested non party to chillax and hear the mayhem.

    2. Thanks for your post. I think Ver. gave it up. The letter is posted elsewhere on the site and is a names me in the case of LMC vs john doe(+others, 6600 or so). There seems to have been several LMC cases, and I’m just trying to find out the progress of our case. Any thoughts? I’m not sure the case number is ok to include here or not, but its at the top of the screen , the second case of Il ST CLair county court. Thanks.

      • If you just got that and it has the 683 case number on it, I think it’s most likely the same old BS. The St. Clair case has been removed to federal court, so they should at least bother to put the new federal case number on it to give it credibility/intended level of scariness.

    3. If this is true that’s quite the development. Apparently Steve Jones wants to sell LMC. Perhaps he wants out before people come after his money?

      “Steve Lightspeed

      The time is finally here. After 13 years, with my security company, other interests, and new projects dominating my time, I’m ready to sell Lightspeed Media. Domains, content, trademarks, copyrights, traffic, completely automated custom cms/member/affiliate/traffic management software, and much much more. Seriously interested buyers only… contact me here on FB.

      Steve “

        • Goodwill? Try bargain purchase…heh how ironic. Acquisition Cost < FV = Bargain Purchase.. Since it's a closely-held corporation, it's illiquid and a valuation will have to be performed according to IRS rules. Financials still must be prepared according to GAAP. Tax returns, schedule M-1 at the very least.

          I'd LOVE to rifle through his financials though and perform an asset valuation, I'd even do it for free. He's probably over-inflated a lot of numbers like useful life for intangibles (by intangibles I mean PORN) and his PP&E, resulting in a inflated accumulated depreciation and amortization, undervalued PP&E and overvalued intagibles. That'd be using the balance sheet method, but a valuation could also be performed based on cash flows. He won't report and accrue any contingencies with regard to the lawsuit in SDIL, as there is no suit against him…if he does, that's fraud defined; reasonable and estimable, nope. I'd also love to dig through his contracts, since there's gotta be one with Prenda. That contract is part of the business, so it goes with the sale. If someone found that, it'd either be a standard boilerplate legal agreement (assuming Jones and Duffy/Steele aren't morons…that's a broad reaching assumption) or incriminating as hell.

          Is he dumping Arcadia as well? I don't see the point in him retaining Arcadia if he's dumping LMC. Either way, you'd have to be certifiably insane to buy LMC with all of this shit about ready to hit the fan. If Steve thinks he can slither away from liability by selling LMC, he is sorely mistaken.

          • No. LMC was never Guava. As far as I know and based on the available information, Guava is a shell company that entered into assignment agreements with several pornographers including LMC and HDP. Who incorporated the LLC is the question.

          • Just ask the accountant 😛

            Settlement money, yeah…not sure if it’d be a separate line item on the statement of cash flows. Also reported on the income statement, lumped together probably, as well as on the balance sheet as some account with “legal” in the title.

            As far as contingencies are concerned, under GAAP he’s not permitted to accrue gain contingencies (expected settlements) and he won’t be permitted (as if he wants to anyway) accrue loss contingencies relating to his current legal, uhh, predicament in SDIL since the loss is not yet deemed probable nor is it estimable. He MAY report in notes that he’s got several lawsuits pending, but he won’t be able to disclose the details. “…blah blah numerous lawsuits pending…blah blah…losses are not reasonable and estimable at this time….” If I were him, I’d report everything possible so the buyer doesn’t come back and sue his ass for defrauding him.

    4. lol why would someone want to buy a company that is currently involved in over a dozen state and federal lawsuits?!?!? don’t get me wrong it is an awesome development, but how would that even work?? was this decision spawned by the recent cases that have moved into discovery against him? what does he have to hide?!? would the cases being dismissed be a contingency of the sale? if i was a buyer i would require the cases to be resolved one way or another b4 i took ownership. infact i would think any non moron would do the same. good job steve-o, make your company worthless because of litigation and then still think it’s worth top dollar, no wounder you failed out of college.

    5. This is strictly hypothetical…do not take this as a suggestion 🙂 I can’t do this for reasons I’d rather not disclose (Jones could seriously fuck up my life if I did this). Someone should contact him about purchasing LMC. He’d have to hand over the books before an offer can even be made. Get a CPA firm to perform a valuation analysis, then decide that you don’t want it.

      • Good in theory.

        But, it is a little more complex than that. Any business transaction that I have ever been involved with, mostly purchasing a business, you make an offer first. Of course, your offer is contingent upon a thorough due diligence, along with a myriad of contingency clauses.

        In short. There is no way in hell any intelligent business owner would allow it. Although we are talking about Steve Jones, he’s not stupid.

        • Why sell now? Any prospective purchaser in doing due diligence will find this blog and discover that LMC is exposed to potential claims arising from its blitzkrieg of lawsuits which cannot help the asking price.

          • Due diligence would consist of Googling “Lightspeed Media Corporation.” The first six out of seven results contain references to lawsuits. That’s assuming someone is utterly ignorant as to what has been going on.

        • I realize I was oversimplifying it. Actually, I just finished an engagement regarding an acquisition so I know how much of a nightmare the whole process is. No way in hell any business owner would acquire LMC, even someone who’s not very business savvy.

          I beg to differ, I believe Jones is very stupid if you look at his past actions. He incorporated LMC without an agent, exposing his home address…stupid. He gave an interview with the WSJ talking about where he lives, his family, and details of his business…stupid. He is very likely the first client of Prenda who helped him orchestrate all of these frivolous suits…stupid. He incorporated Arcadia Security without an agent…stupid. Arcadia Security, the company he owns and operates, is also the witness in his lawsuits…stupid, reckless, and should render evidence inadmissible. He filed a frivolous suit against AT&T and Comcast, VERY VERY stupid. Selling LMC, I don’t even know how to describe this. Either he’s got some very sleazy plan which no one can figure out because it’s so far out there, he’s getting bad legal advice, or he’s decided to cut bait. I’m more inclined to believe option two.

          What would compel anyone to file a frivolous suit against AT&T AND Comcast? They’re gonna move for Rule 11 sanctions when the case is dismissed, and they’ll get sanctions against Duffy as well as Jones for frivolous litigation. Not to mention I wouldn’t be surprised if they go after LMC for abuse of process and fraud (among other things) and may send a message to the trolls by going after Prenda itself. Duffy, by filing this suit, opens himself up to disciplinary action by the IARDC. Frivolous litigation is a violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions. The defendants may also recover attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the Copyright Act. This could cost Jones and Prenda A LOT of money.

          Jones is likely in panic mode but if he thinks that his liability disappears if he dumps LMC now, then he’s sorely mistaken. It is no coincidence that he’s dumping LMC when things have started to look very very bad for him. This is a desperate action by a desperate man.

    6. does the sale include his corporate headquarters? it should if the property was also a studio and is (possibly) a company asset…

      • This “Breaking: For sale LightSpeed media!” topic is busy over at My favorite comment so far:

        Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
        “I’ll bet he wouldn’t be selling if that were the case. Running a pay site without working is easy and profitable if you have and get members.

        There will be more announcements like this soon. I know of more.”

        candyflip in response: Especially if you add to that all the folks that were supposedly rolling over and paying him in his extortion racket.

        If it was working, work it until you’ve run it into the ground and maybe then sell.

        Oh wait…

        • Haha, of course, Paul Markham knows everything. He’s an expert on piracy and spotting “cash cows” as well. Here’s a quote from another topic:

          “Today the best route is the one Steve is doing, buy going to a higher level.

          Sue to get the IP’s. Send out letters asking for an admission and advising they get a lawyer or asking for the reason it wasn’t them and then investigating the reason. It it turns out to be BS, see who the IP holder is, is he worth suing and if so hand serving him with a writ and saying if they can check the computer and find nothing, the writ will be torn up.

          If they refuse access, log the refusal, if pirated material is found tell them to get a lawyer. Don’t ask for settlement at any time. That’s blackmail, let them open that door. Different countries doing this is different countries would make it world wide.

          There is another option, sit back and wait for the tide to turn, while it creeps up around your waist.”

          Me I’m retired and have nothing than hatred for parasites.”

          Brilliant, ain’t it? Too bad Paul Markham can’t do any of this because nobody even “pirates” his smut.

          • Heh look at this…
            “wow that fightthetrolls site is crazy. If you have a family or a reason to keep your adult ties private you really have to think twice. Wow”

            I was reading some post by Markham, I can’t remember where I got the link but it was to a GFY thread on here. He was off on some CRAZY shit, stating that we need to allow lawyers to go to Does’ addresses, knock on the door, and say, “Let us into your house to do forensic examinations on your computers. If we don’t find anything, we’ll leave and dismiss you. If we do, we’ll sue you. If you don’t let us in, we’ll sue you.”

            So, essentially, Markham either wants to change the law, allowing lawyers to be considered law enforcement officials, and to chuck the Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments or repeal pretty much every single ethical standard codified by the ABA so attorneys can go terrorize people without any fear of punishment for their actions. Oh, and the Restatements of the Law would need to be changed (by changed I mean tossed in the garbage).

        • Yeah, it’s good to know that there are a few people in the adult industry who know the difference between “Standing up for the rights of the adult industry and adult content providers” (Steve’s words) and running a massive extortion scheme for personal gain.

    7. Looks like Duffy entered an appearance on the Shashek case on 9/6 (see docket link above). Does this mean he’s about to respond to Shashek’s motion to dismiss in the 11th hour??

    8. “completely automated custom cms/member/affiliate/traffic management software”

      why the !@$@#$@ would anyone want to buy his “custom member management software” when he has proven from his multiple lawsuit that it does not work for #$%#$%.

      insert “mckayla is not impressed meme here”

      i am just sayin…

    9. Going to introduce our community’s version of the office betting pool.

      Given that Jones is selling LMC and it will be easier to sell without the pending mountain of litigation but keeping in mind Jones/Prenda’s blind greed; does Duffy fold or fight the ISPs tomorrow (keep in mind that the ISPs motion to dismiss is solid)?

      • Duffy will keep going, even if it’s just after Smith. He (and by he I mean Steele) will likely file a response to the ISPs motions to dismiss, which will be a great laugh for the judge as well as the entire anti-troll community. Prenda doesn’t care about LMC. They’ve likely been feeding Jones loads of shit like “we can still win this” and Jones is none the wiser, relies on Duffy’s advice. MInd you, I believe LMC still has that Florida case, then there’s the Sekora case as well as World Timbers in Maricopa County. Dropping lawsuits so the plaintiff can sell his business? Ehh…is that even legal?

        • Scumbags have LMC state lawsuits all over the place AL, FL, UT, TX, IL and AZ but other than AZ (*snicker*) and IL (*snicker*), they are just gathering dust because it is pure FUD.

        • no i would actually flip that coin and say it is steve jones who is pushing prenda to sue everyone individually. dude is a cocky a-hole who seems to think he is owed all the money these hackers “stole” from him. he may have been a legend at one time but he is rapidly working himself into the “dude’s such a joke” status. he is going to get seriously bent over in his az suits and the IL ones aren’t looking much better. it only takes one person to push all the way through a jury trial and win and his whole setup will crumble.

        • “Neither, Duffy made a motion for an extension of time to answer.”

          Raul, I suppose you’re referring to Smith/Comcast/AT&T?

          Any word on if Duffy got in a response to Shashek’s motion to dismiss in time? The recapped docket last shows Duffy’s appearance late last week, but nothing yet on an answer. I suppose he has another hour since SDIL is central time.

          Finally, if I want a PACER account, will the “Case Search Only” option serve my needs, or do I need to choose something else?

          Basically, I’d like to be able to look at court docs, and then be able to RECAP via the firefox addon. Which PACER option would allow me to do that for the least amount of $$$ ?

          Thanks in advance!

          • If you want to view court documents you need a regular PACER account which is not at all expensive unless you are an obsessive maniac :). You can use rfc express to search for free, obtain the docket numbers you are interested in and then use PACER to view the documents at ten cents a page. If you are using Firefox with RECAP it will let you know, while you are in PACER, whether the docket has been recapped so you can view it for free as well as documents which have been recapped. If your quarterly bill is below $20 I don’t think PACER even bothers to bill you.

    10. he will fold on isp’s but try to keep “smith et all” in the mix, which will end up failing as well and result in more egg on duffo’s face

      • I wonder if he’s also mentioning that his site is permanently damaged by hackers according to Jones’ own declaration in sales talks.

      • from that article:

        “”We’ll keep going with what we do,” he told AVN. “I think our approach keeps us afloat when a lot of other people won’t be around. I’ve always said honesty is the key to this business and I still stick to that.””

        yea steve is all about the honesty……

    11. Yeah, keep a site alive that probably has not seen new content in years. Actually, I think that is a bigger crime than a few blokes using intentionally leached passwords to view decade old content. What a scammer. I mean seriously…..This guy is just a huge scammer; a fraud. He has been one from day 1 (could not even get a legit college degree), and will be to the end. Just one hustle after another. Yeah, at one point he made a mint hustling dumbass 18 yr olds strung-out and needing another fix; lived the good life for a while; enjoyed the riches most of us will never see; squandered most of it on stupidity as most of them do, and now concocted a grand scam to sue thousands of innocent people so he could climb back into the rich buggy. If I didnt know better, I would say he is a Wall Street Banker. You can bet this “sale” of his website is just another scam. Some dumbshit will come along and buy his site.

    12. Seems like LMC v. Smith; AT&T and Comcast is becoming even more difficult for Prenda. Anthony Smith got himself some pretty good lawyers for this case, I’d say.

      MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Jason Sweet by AttorneyDaniel G. Booth $100 fee paid,receipt number 0754-1779103 by on behalf of Anthony Smith. (Booth, Daniel) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

      • As the 1980,s Koolaid Man would say “Oh, Yeah!” after bursting through a brick wall. Smith is very, very smart to hire Booth & Sweet, they are the creme de la creme.

    13. %##$ yea, i read the motion that they filled for the state version of this case and i know they know their ish well. i just want to jump 6mo’s-1 year into the future to see this all go down, you know when a tv episode is soo good you can’t wait for the next one, yea i have that feeling X10.

    14. so i looked at the miami lsm case and i think i understand what happened with the motion to set asside the voluntary dismissal was all about. because the case was filed against only a single doe, when they put in the notice of dismissal the court said “oh ok since there is only “one” defendant then the dismissal must be for him because you can’t dismiss a non party w/out prej.” so they had to set asside the motion to dismiss or the whole case was going to fall, so they set it asside, but in the court order to set it asside the court still stated that that doe who was “dismissed” was still not to have any liability in the case pursuant to the settlement agreement. so A) no one renigged on payment, B) good job being a retard and dismissing a “non party” to a case joe, and c) it was only forwarded to jo perea and the doe’s atturney.

      this means that perea is still lead counsel on this NOT duffy even though duffy filled to appear pro hac vise.

      the legal system can be sooooo annoying. even more so when you can’t get copies of the doccuments.

      • Shashek’s motion is essentially a repackaging of the Booth-Sweet motion from St. Clair County. Question, if for whatever reason this motion to dismiss is denied, what else, from a legal perspective, could be included in similar motions to dismiss (think Smith in the AT&T and Comcast case) in future cases and hearings to shore them up to ensure dismissal?

        Also, now that Duffy’s response is in, what coms next? A ruling or hearing on the motion? If so, when?

        • Booth & Sweet have seen Duffy’s response and obviously craft their motion to dismiss accordingly.

          Shashek’s attorneys have the option of filing a reply to Duffy’s opposition papers before the judge makes a determination.

          • So objectively (let’s play devils advocate), are there ANY positive merits in Duffy’s response from a plaintiff’s end of things? If so, what are they and how could they be debunked in future defense responses and motions? In particular, I’m curious about the merits of his argument regarding the CFAA amendment where he mentioned damage OR loss vs damage AND loss.

    15. well one of the “lame” parts is where duffy says that the section explaining how an ip address works must be false because defendant used wikipedia as a references. and according to wikipedia’s terms it is not a valid source for reference. though i am 90% sure that one of duffy’s filings somewhere had a reference to wikipedia, or at least some other troll did. there are other standard statements that we seem to see in all the troll “motions against motions to dismiss” the damage vs loss and the “i don’t have to prove he disseminated content until the trial, this is not the proper time to address this issue” nonsense to name a few.

      • Unfortunately some of this is true. And that’s the problem. A trial is the place to argue some of this stuff and the trolls know it. I think it is crucial to see what the trolls turn over as initial evidence that someone downloaded their client’s material. I would like to see more judges ask questions or at least prevent them from initiating demands until they’ve done due diligence to try and identify the actual infringers. This never takes place. They start with a demand letter and finish with a lawsuit with nothing in between. Why these judges allow these shakedowns is beyond me.

    16. How likely is it that Judges Stiehl and Murphy are talking to each other about these cases in SDIL? Is one aware of the other’s case and vice versa?

      Also, how can we ensure that the judges and ALL the defendants’ attorneys (Huffman, Siever, Bozarth, Booth/Sweet, and Laura Gerdes Long) are all aware of Steve Jones’ intent to sell Lightspeed, even in light of all these pending suits? The intent to sell in the midst of these SDIL lawsuits and other state suits across the country just looks fishy on the surface.

      If you truly have something of value (lets assume for a moment that Lightspeed has some value) and intend to sell it, doesn’t one typically try to tie up and finalize all loose ends associated with that thing (ie pending law suits for example) BEFORE selling it?

      I would think this behavior would be of interest to the Judges and defense attorneys involved in Lightspeed cases. I mean, why sell when you have people and large corporations actually named in pending lawsuits with the potential for 6600 more suits (ie alleged co-conspirators)? In reality there won’t be 6600 Lightspeed password law suits (forget about Guava for the moment), but the “potential”{ is there. In other words, the “potential” energy is there but it won’t all be converted to kinetic energy. None the less, the potential energy in this matter is a liability, and the motivations should be explored especially when so many people could be involved (in theory).

    17. This site has been very useful in gaining an understanding of what’s going on in this case, but I’m still not quite sure what the current status is (I’m not at all versed in legal talk). I just received a letter from my internet provider notifying me that there’s a subpoena for my information. I’ve contacted a lawyer and am meeting with them next week to go over the specifics of the case, but I was hoping someone could help me understand what’s currently going on with this case before that meeting. If I don’t live in Illinois, do I have anything to fear? Is it known how much lightspeed is asking in damages at the individual level for people who are actually being targeted?

      Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

      • I’m in the same boat and would love some advice. My biggest concern is being named in court documents. What’s the best course of action on this? Contact a lawyer and have them negotiate a settlement is my current option. Please advise.

      • At this point with Lightspeed having 2 or 3 (if you include Guava) federal,lawsuits and maybe 10-15 state lawsuits it is difficultult to keep track. It sounds as if you have been notified in the LMC v. Smith, Comcast & AT&T lawsuit, or is it something else?

    18. i read what was posted earlier about the miami case and it made me think this: the plaintiff will argue that the people who filed the motions to quash are non parties because this is a doe+conspirators case and as such the extra does are merely material witnesses against the doe, but by dismissing the one “non party” with prejudice they represented that they do consider the extra does as parties. (why would you dismiss a non party like that) and so perhaps the doe defense lawyers can use that dismissal as proof that the +does are viewed as parties and therefore have standing to file motions to quash/dismiss/etc. just a thought, but i am not a lawyer so who knows if this idea even makes sense in the illogical realm of American tort law.

    19. Today I received a subpoena that was served to Frontier Communications in regard to 11-L-683. I noticed Frontier was not listed on any of the motions to quash. What do I do? I never did anything this guy is accusing me of and don’t even live in IL.

    20. how the #$%#$ are people still getting subpoenas from a case that does not exist anymore?? that is effectively a dead case # is it not? are the still sending out subpoenas for a dead state case? is that even legal? if you got a subpoena re: that case number then i would suggest you call frontier and explain that that case number is not valid and as such they should not give up your info and/or file a bar complaint with IL because they are sending out subpoenas for a dead case.

      unless i am mistaken and the whole case didn’t transfer to the federal level, and only smith, at&t and comcast xfered to the feds.

      • I don’t believe that’s true. From what was 11-L-683 in St Clair County, there was “John Doe” – the named but unknown defendant – and his 6600+ alleged “co-conspirators”

        John Doe was ID’d as Anthony Smith and was always a party to the suit as John Doe and later when his identity was discovered.

        The alleged co-conspirators are still and have always been non-parties to this mess and are associated with Doe/Smith. Therefore, when the case was removed from St Clair to SDIL (Fed Southern District of Illinois) all the remaining “co conspirators” who have not settled nor were dismissed then named elsewhere (the 10-15 to which Raul refers to) moved with the named party (ie Smith) to SDIL.. Therefore the federal judge must rule on any outstanding motions filed by “co-conspirator” Does that were never ruled on in the St Clair court and if they should remain or be severed in part or whole.

        Therefore, unless I’m mistaken, the vast majority of Smith’s alleged co-conspirators are now the responsibility of the SDIL Federal Court to deal with. Unless the SDIL case is somehow remanded (sent back) to St Clair, then the case in St Clair is closed and dead, but completely alive (for now) in the SDIL for Smith + co-conspirators, AT&T and Comcast. By this logic there should be no further subpoenas coming from 11-L-683 (St. Clair).

        This is confusing, but please, ANYONE, correct me if anything I said above is wrong OR chime in if everything said is spot on.

        Hope this helps.

    21. I also got a letter from Frontier stating they had been served a subpoena for my records, with the Dec of 2011 case 11L683 listed.

    22. so then the question is: was the subpoena issued to frontier before or AFTER the switch to sdil. if it was issued after then it shows bad faith litigation of the likes that evan stone got sanctioned for i would think. you should have a lawyer look into this as i have no way of knowing.

      • It shouldnt be that hard. Look at the date the subpoena was issed (assuming that’s accurate). If it’s after 8/9/12, it’s after the case was removed, at which point they shouldn’t be issuing state court subpoenas.

        • And if it is after 8/9, then anyone who gets a new subpoena with 11-L-863 probably has a case against Prenda. Also, if these are coming out AFTER 8/9, the current defense parties to these lawsuits (Shashek, Smith/Comcast/AT&T) and their attorneys might want to know. If they have some arguments alleging bad faith, then this could help bolster those arguments.

          I can see Booth/Sweet really having a field day with this if subpoenas for and listing 11-L-683 have been issued/reissued after 8/9.If so, could this be potential class-action substrate against Prenda and Lightspeed??

        • The attached subpoena I received is dated December 2011, but I only got the notice now. It is for 11-L-683, but it sounds like that case is closed? If so, then is this a case of my ISP not being aware of this? Or, since it’s dated from before the case was removed, is it still a valid subpoena?

    23. Sounds like Prenda is still trying to get Doe information from other ISP’s(other than Comcast & AT&T) from the closed 11-L-863 Case. Don’t forget that there is the possibility that alot of the 6600 Doe’s, along with some of the ISP’S may not be familiar with this forum & hence do not know the current status of the case. I would suggest that if you received a subpoena from an ISP other than Comcast or ATT&T that you contact your ISP immediately directly or thru your attorney before that turn over your info!! Prenda only goal is to get your contact info regardless if the case is closed!!

    24. Date filed on my “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to take Early Discovery Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 201 (d)” is Dec. 16, 2011. I was sent the Subpoena on Sept 6th 2012. I received it Sept. 11. I called Frontier to verify that I was not sent this in error. They confirmed I was not.

      I am talking to a lawyer on Friday morning regarding this. But from what I am understanding, this case is no longer valid? Where do I need to direct my lawyer?

      • This lawsuit is, I believe, the federal lawsuit LMC v. Smith, Comcast and AT&T which is hot linked above. I imagine your lawyer will need to contact the state court to find out why they have not directed Prenda to recall the subpoenas and notify the ISPs as to the removal.

      • It’s unfortunate that Frontier’s lawyers weren’t aware. One quick google search reveals the status on this case. You may want to consider a different ISP.

    25. I would if the alternative wasn’t Comcast or Dish :). FIOS is, hands down, faster in this area. 25 up 25 down. (No Flame Wars Please) 🙂

      • So case 11-L-863 is for sure closed?

        And as for their new case, it’s LM vs AT&T, Comcast, etc. But Frontier is not named in that, correct?

        I got a letter saying Frontier was issued a subpoena for my information, and I’m confused (probably exactly what Prenda wants).

        • LMC v. Smith et al, with “et al” standing for AT&T, Comcast, “AT&T Corporate Representative 1” and “Comcast Corporate Representative 1” or something like that. Not Does 1-6600. You got a letter from Frontier? Was it dated before this case was removed to federal court? You should’ve also received a copy of the subpoena. Unless Prenda sent you a letter saying they subpoenaed Fronter which would be really fucked up.

          • The letter I got from Frontier was dated September 6, but the subpoena attached in it was from December 2011 (so before the case was removed to federal court). I have no idea what that actually means for the validity of the subpoena, though, so any advice would be appreciated.

          • I’m no attorney but since there’s no pending action against you, the subpoena is invalid. It was valid when it was issued, but not anymore. Now it’s just Smith, the ISPs, and their representatives. No John Does. If the whole case gets dismissed, it’s gone…no John Does left. Call your ISP and tell them what’s going on, since I’m 100% sure Prenda hasn’t. They don’t even notify people when they’re required to by court order.

        • I stand corrected 11-L-863 still has some life in it. At the beginning of the lawsuit there were “moving ISPs” who moved to quash the subpoenas and “non-moving ISPs” who did not. My changed understanding is that 11-L-863 is still active as to the “non-moving ISPs” which is why notices are being sent.

    26. There appears to be two recent orders on the 3:12-cv-00889 docket: #34 for extension to file, and #35 for pro hac vice appearance. Unfortunately, there are no attachments to be seen and nothing in the ‘long description’ section of the table.

      Is this something that someone with a pacer/recap account can “push” to make visible for all or is there simply nothing additional to see with these orders?

      • Booth & Sweet are appearing for Smith and as they are from MA had to move to appear pro hac vice. They also moved for an extension of time to answer or move to dismiss the complaint which was granted to 9-20.

        • I’m sure it won’t take them long to formulate the response. We know they already have the motion to dismiss basically ready if the choose to go that route 🙂

          • Duffy still hasn’t responded to Huffman or Seiver’s motions. Maybe because he doesn’t know how. Two very experience IP litigators vs. an environmental lawyer, a divorce attorney, an attorney who does God knows what (Hansmeier), and an asbestos ambulance chaser (Hoerner). Gee, I wonder who’s gonna prevail.

            Another thing, I just went on the State of Minnesota website and tried to find 6881 Forensics, LLC (Peter Hansmeier’s company) and it does not exist. Neither does MCG. So…perjury.

          • He’s got another 14 days to respond to Huffman’s motion according to the docket. I’m sure he’ll take it down to the last second of the 11th hour like he did with responding to Shashek’s motion.

            BTW, good luck Lucas!

          • He’s gonna take it to the 11th hour, then submit some moronic response which is the legal equivalent of “nuh uh!” This case is like watching a shitload of lions maul an elephant…no, when I see that stuff on Animal Planet I feel bad for the elephant. Coyotes mauling my neighbor’s cat, yeah, much better.

          • “Coyotes mauling my neighbor’s cat, yeah, much better.”

            especially if it’s the type of cat that shits in your sandbox instead of its own litterbox!

          • There’s quite a few coyotes by my house and my neighbor’s cat roams around, pissing in my bushes and in the rocks in front of my house. Kinda like Duffy…slinking around at night, pissing and shitting on peoples’ property while a group of predators much higher up the food chain (Huffman, Seiver, any attorney with a moral compass) stalk it.

    27. Man, it just hit me. This is really a Copyright and Internet Law dream team on the defense side of what used to be 11-L-683. We thought the trolls had it rough in having to deal with Huffman and Siever. Now they officially have Dan Booth/Jason Sweet to contend with! Even though they all represent different defendants, I sure hope all of the above engage in some form of (dream)teamwork when it fits their respective clients’ needs.

      Wow! I don’t know what’s worse for Prenda/Lightspeed. This pile of shit they stepped in within SDIL or Sekora and Co in Az??? At any rate, I was almost crying over all this at one point and now I’m smilin’

      • This is like a nightmare within a nightmare for Paul Duffy. Just when he thought it couldn’t get any worse…Booth/Sweet, hah. I cannot see this turning out well for him or his firm, definitely not for Jones. I still can’t figure out why Jones is jumping ship with this pending lawsuit. Either he’s smarter than all of us or he’s a complete fucking idiot. He’d have to disclose it otherwise he’d be in more legal trouble and no one would wanna buy a company that’s been shamed into the ground and will soon be bankrupt.

    28. It is not that he is smarter, because single brain-celled life forms generally are not, but rather that he is as slippery as an eel. He has operated most of his life on the thin line between legal and illegal. He has become quite good in riding that line. They say not to box a boxer and not to out-bank a wall street banker. Well Jones is a street hustler. To pin him down you have to be one as well. I am totally certain that when this crap is done, and that may be forever, he will slip away once again. He may get a few lumps in the process but he will slip away with more than a few dollars in his pockets. He has very little to lose and more wealth to gain. And besides, what he ever does lose he will simply regain in his next hustle. That Leopard will never change his spots. He may be a prick, but at least he is a total prick and not some half-assed one.

      Ya gots to know what yer dealin with if yer gonna confront it.

      • I gotta agree, the guy’s a fucking hustling scumbag. However, I disagree with your assertion that he’ll just find some other racket (to paraphrase) after this is said and done and that he’ll slither away after this. First off, he’s managed to become the laughing stock of the porn community all while raising his profile to astronomical levels within the legal community. Federal judges are aware of his exploits. He has much to lose…like his freedom if a federal prosecutor or the AZ AG decides to file charges against him. It’s very likely that the Arizona AG will go after someone for this crap. The government will use a warrant or subpoena under the SCA to get Jones’ emails which will be very very bad for him since his emails will likely show some sort of contract between Prenda and LMC along with “various other things.” If he destroys emails, they’ll nail him for evidence tampering and obstruction.

        Second of all, AT&T and Comcast have his ass nailed to a wall in ILSD. They WILL move for Rule 11 sanctions and the judge would have to be out of his mind not to sanction Duffy and Jones for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Also, if he believes that dumping LMC will absolve him of all liability, he’s dead wrong. A good attorney will have to be brought in to go after Jones personally for LMC’s actions, since it’s a corporation and officers cannot be held personally responsible unless….well, read about piercing the corporate veil. It’s much easier to do for a closely-held corporation than for a large MNC like GE. It shouldn’t be much of a problem for an attorney to convince a judge to pierce LMC’s veil, since I can count about half a dozen violations, notably alter ego theory (corporation used as a facade for controlling shareholders’ personal dealings), fraud, commingling of assets, yada yada.

        If the two ISPs don’t get him, Sekora will. He’s stepped into a giant pile of shit by fucking with a computer genius whose brother Michael began a BS in physics at UMich at age 15, was recruited by the CIA. Liased with the ONI as a CIA agent, went on to work for the DIA. Headed of Project Socrates as a DIA employee and met with Reagan himself and is regarded as “the father of technology strategy.” Someone like that still has a laundry list of contacts within the intelligence community as well as the federal government as a whole so if he chooses to help his brother, Paul Duffy and Steve Jones will be, for lack of a better term, boned. I truly cringe when I think of how easily Sekora’s brother could turn Duffy’s life into a living hell.

        • Like I always say: If you are gonna fuck someone you don’t like, then fuck them dry. I really hope your right. Because in the end, I want nothing more than to be able to wince in horror at what they do to Steve’s hind quarters, dry.

    29. Two (well really 5) questions regarding the Lightspeed cases in SDIL:

      1a. Duffy responded to Shashek’s motion to dismiss last week. What happens next and when? Specifically, will there be a hearing on whether or not the judge will dismiss If so, when/how soon?

      1b. If the judge dismisses Shashek, will this be considered an effective strategy for other jurisdictions? That is, in the slim chance that you’re named in your own jurisdiction in state court, get a lawyer, remove to federal court, then file motion to dismiss.

      1c. If Shashek’s motion isn’t successful, what implications, if any, does that have for other (currently and potentially) named Lightspeed Does in other jurisdictions?

      According to AJ Yolofsky, this type of case shouldn’t be able to survive a decent motion to dismiss, but we’ll have to wait and see (hopefully not much longer)

      2a. There were MANY motions to quash that were filed by alleged “co-conspirators” in 11-L-683 (via pro se Does, Celestine Dotson, Yasha Heidari, etc) in St. Clair County that Judge LeChien was supposed to hear and rule on July 20, BUT that hearing never happened. So, will Judge Murphy eventually rule on these, and if so, when/how soon?

      2b. If Booth/Sweet get Anthony Smith dismissed, will all outstanding supboenas for alleged co-conspirators also be voided given that they are joined as non-parties to Smith? Refer to 2a. If Smith is dismissed, then are the motions to quash referred to in question 2a moot, and those Does would also be dismissed/severed by default?


      • 1a. Shashek’s attorney may file a response to Duffy’s response. She/they may also do nothing and wait for the judge to rule on her initial motion to dismiss. There’s no status hearing listed so who knows when Stiehl will rule.

        1b. In a word, yes. It’s the best defense against these farcial CFAA claims. If you are tied up in one of these CFAA/civil conspiracy/unjust enrichment/blah blah cases, as long as you’re not joined, have it removed immediately since you only have 30 days to file notice.

        1c. If it isn’t successful, Duffy will exploit the hell out of it in other jurisdictions the same way he cites Howell’s decision in DCD (conveniently omitting the fact that her decision is in front of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District). It won’t be bad, but it won’t be good. These decisions are not binding by any means. Other judges will use them to make decisions but they’re not bound to use them as precedent. So, a troll-friendly judge could just say “oh this decision supports my opinion, I’ll cite it” and an anti-troll judge could say “I don’t give a shit what that judge says.”

        2a. I defer that to Raul or someone else who knows more about Illinois procedural crap. I do know the non-moving ISPs are still bound by the Illinois court orders. The state case is frozen as per the notice of removal and LeChien cannot do a damn thing right now. However, anything filed pre-removal and has been ruled on is binding such as the issuance of subpoenas to non-moving ISPs. He cannot rule on anything he did not touch before the notice of removal such as MTQs or other motions.

        2b. Again, I defer…mostly. This is a procedural nightmare. Defendant Smith has not even been properly served for the complaint. He wasn’t even served summons pre-removal, then he was served summons and a copy of the complaint, for which the summons was issued out of St. Clair County, not ILSD. So, technically, he’s not even a party. I have no idea what the hell happens to the motions pending in front of LeChien if Judge Murphy boots this entire case, which is looking to practically be a certainty.

        Anyone please feel free to correct me as IANAL.

    30. I just spoke a (very clueless) lady with Frontier. I told her that the 11L683 case was closed.She said that since she has received so many calls regarding LMC vs Frontier, she called Prenda’s firm herself. They told her that while it is closed in St. Clair, it has moved to Federal. I told her that I looked through all of the documents regarding the federal case and Frontier is not mentioned in the case at all. She told me just to get an attorney and file a MTQ. I asked her for any documents or details regarding the new federal case. She told me to call Prenda’s firm if I want anymore details. What do I do now?

      • This is very confusing as it was my new understanding that the St. Claire case was still alive with only those ISPs who did not move to quash still in it? When I get a chance will go back and re-read the ISPs motion to dismiss in the Smith case as that lays out the history in some detail

        • I really don’t know what to do now. I don’t have any extra cash to hire an attorney. How much does it cost to file a MTQ? Is it possible to do it myself? The way it sounds, all I have to do is file that so Frontier doesn’t release my information (which they shouldn’t do anyway, since they aren’t named in the federal case), and then I’m off the hook. I don’t think Frontier really knows what they’re doing, and they will listen to whatever Prenda tells them. Of course the LMC goons are will make it sound like they are still part of the case – anything to squeeze cash out of the 0.6% of total Does with Frontier.

          • File an MTQ for what? The case is gone from Illinois, removed to federal court and your ISP is not involved. Call your ISP and tell them to call Judge Murphy’s clerk or even the damn courthouse because the subpoenas are invalid.

    31. the whole case (not just part of it) was moved to federal, you cannot as far as i know just pull half a case to fed and leave the other half in state. the whole case moved wether movements or not

      • Re co-conspirators, the WHOLE PREMISE of the case is that they (all 6600+ of them) are joined (improperly IMO) as non-parties to “John Doe” who has since been named and served as Anthony Smith. His case is in now in SDIL and as a result, all alleged co-conspirators from the original complaint who have not been explicitly dismissed have been moved along with him.

        If this is wrong in any way, then please correct me.

        • Duffy’s motion for discovery was denied by Judge Murphy so those subpoenas are null and void. Duffy should have notified the ISPs that the subpoenas are invalid as the case was removed. ISPs should not be complying with those subpoenas and if they are, they may be opening themselves to some legal liability. The case in St. Clair is not dead, per se, it’s stayed pending the outcome of the removal. Murphy still could remand the case back to Illinois…although I highly doubt that. The case is dead once the federal case is dead. I may be wrong about the subpoenas being invalid, but if I am, at the very least LeChien should’ve issued an order to recall the subpoenas. I’d be pissed as hell with my ISP if this happened to me.

          • It’s VERY disturbing just that an ISP legal department representative is getting their information about case status and compliance from Prenda.

            There is only one state court and only one potential Federal district court. The ISP representative could have inquired directly to the clerks of courts. It the court’s directive they should confirm or comply with, not the plaintiff lawyer’s.

            Otherwise, it’s as messed up as getting ethics lessons from Steve Lightspeed.

          • I’d be calling the legal department and telling them to call the legal department as of yesterday and informing them of the consequences of violating subscriber privacy by (possibly) complying with invalid subpoenas without making any (real) effort to determine if the subpoenas are valid. Calling Duffy doesn’t count, of course he’s gonna say “yup they’re still valid!” If they don’t seem bothered they either don’t care if they get sued for A LOT of money and have the FCC crawl up their ass or they’re staffed by complete morons who don’t get paid enough to care. If the legal department still isn’t motivated by the possibility of multiple Constitutional violations, violating federal statute, and pissing off the FCC, among other things, then someone higher up the food chain will be.

          • Errr, telling them to call the court I mean. I get scatter brained when I’m pissed off. I’d also give them the phone number for Murphy’s clerk since they don’t seem to wanna do any work (“We called the firm because we didn’t feel like looking for the Court’s phone number”). If this was me I’d be SCREAMING at someone on the phone from the minute she said “we checked with the firm….” Yes, I know, yelling at your ISP on the phone doesn’t help. Unfortunately, I’m Irish and I have a small anger problem.

      • Thanks to attorney Erin Russell as she always has helpful advice and insight. What do you suggest Does tell Frontier in this situation? It sounds like they’re out of the loop and could possibly get sued for releasing Doe information incorrectly. Maybe that would convince them to do a little more due diligence in this matter.

    32. so i read booth/sweet’s motion to dismiss for smith, here is my favorit part, at the end when he points out that smith uses charter and so he could not possibly have conspired with at&t or comcast for them to sheild him in exchange for his subscription fees.

      good GOD prenda is full of retards to include their main doe with isp that he isn’t even associated with….

      so really the conspuiracy is that at&t and comcast are all non party conspirators together and have nothing to do with smith, the main doe of the case.

      does prenda ever do research or do dilligence before they spew out their retarded lawsuits

      also it is talk like a pirate day so……….yyyaaarrrggghhhhhhh!!

      • Due diligence isn’t Duffy’s strong suit. He probably spends 10 hours/day on CM/ECF filing lawsuits, then going to court to lie to judges about his shady shit. No time to actually determine if he has a case, not that he cares anyway. Just look at the settlement letter he sent to one Doe in the Guava case. The settlement contract is unenforceable. It states that the action is in NDIL…wrong. It’s a mass mailing, dunno what program he used to generate it but it reads data from a file…well, the contract is filled with variables rather than the data.

          • Especially twice. Conlon threatened to dismiss for want of prosecution and Duffy basically dared her, so she did heh. Once without explanation and the second because he was going to be “out of state on legal business” and “I tried to get someone else to appear for me” like that shit flies with a federal judge who’s familiar with Duffy’s practice. Steele would’ve appeared for Duffy.

          • Just saw it…and the judge has “concerns” about the case. I sure as shit hope he has concerns. What’s the opposite of “too big to fail” heh. “Too big, will fail miserably.” Here’s to Duffy missing the next hearing too and Tailor chucks the case. “But, Judge! I was out of town!”

          • ” Here’s to Duffy missing the next hearing too and Tailor chucks the case. “But, Judge! I was out of town!”

            TAD: Just my $0.02 but I wouldn’t be all too sad either if this also ended poorly for Adam Urbanczyk and “Skyler Case”

            BTW why do you (or anyone out there) think Urbanczyk is still on the list of EFF Doe defenders??? It seems like SJD had it briefly pulled, but it’s back up.

          • There’s been a ton of info about the IL Lightspeed cases but does anyone have any updates about the Miami-Dade cases? It seems like it hasn’t moved an inch and all the motion conferences keep getting cancelled.

          • He’s been re-listed in Illinois? They pulled his name before but he was still listed somewhere else…MA I think? Lawyers aren’t vetted, they just email the EFF and tell them they wanna be listed. Apparently whoever controls that list doesn’t check a damn thing like the fact that his name was pulled.

          • It was the way Duffy went about it that pissed off Conlon. He just went to Florida after she denied his continuance, twice. Like filing a motion was just a formality and he can do whatever the hell he wants. What’s funny is that he’s got a case in front of Judge Shadur (the 78 year old Carter appointee who tore John Steele a new one in open court last year). Whenever Duffy drew Shadur in the lottery, he’d automatically dismiss the case but he didn’t for this AF Holdings case which is further proof of his carelessness, negligence, ridiculous caseload, hubris, or any/all of the aforementioned.

            I have no idea about the Florida cases. Well, except for what I’ve read that they get filed then sit on the docket forever with no action. Why doesn’t the judge or an attorney file for a dismissal under Florida’s version of the FRCP? To my recollection, it’s practically identical to FRCP or at least FRCP Rule 4(m). On a side note, I wish all states had systems like PACER. I’d be willing to pay a nominal fee like I do on PACER to see state court documents.

          • Regarding AU, SJD had both barrels loaded but I begged her off. The reason being is that no one knows the particulars of Case’s situation. We all harbor dark suspicions but we do not know the facts, he might have made some horrible admissions. Although very angry and suspicious, I am reserving judgment for now.

        • SJD uploaded the motion to dismiss to Here’s the link:

          • Wow! If cost or money were no object, would anybody here honestly want any outfit other than Booth/Sweet to represent them as defense attorney in this or any similar matter? If you were impressed by their previous motion to dismiss an unidentified “co-conspirator” in St. Clair County, then this one blows their previous work out of the water.

            To be honest, I enjoyed this one even more than I enjoyed either Siever’s or Huffman’s.

            To Anthony Smith: Given your current situation, you could not have made a better choice for your personal defense!

            Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of other attorneys who specialize in defense of these sorts of things that I would feel privileged very confident to have in my corner, and I mean no disrespect to them. I’m just saying that Booth/Sweet would be at the top of my list.

            Again, WOW!

          • That’s the memorandum in support of the motion. I recapped the motion, the memorandum, and the exhibit that shows Smith downloaded 4 pictures and a video. Shit my PACER bill is gonna be ridiculous heh oh well.

    33. Unless I didn’t read Booth and Sweet’s motion carefully enough they managed to make this motion better than their previous one without even needing to use Raul’s now famous and still fabulous “Steve Jones retained Steve Jones to detect hacking on Steve Jones’ websites” quote.

      These guys make awesome and original arguments for the situation at hand. If they were comedians, they’d be the type that has new and original jokes EVERY NIGHT, vs the type that uses the same routine (even if it’s very funny) night after night. In other words, these guys move on from the past, learn from it, and constantly get better, which makes it even tougher for their adversaries to combat! It’s this trait that would make them great at any sub-type of law that they’d ever choose to research and subsequently practice.

      This is exactly why I’d want these guys if the need arose and I had the resources to afford them!

      • My favorites…

        “One video file and four photographs are the only specific content LMC alleges were wrongfully downloaded.”

        “Specifically, LMC claims:
        To lawfully access Plaintiff’s websites, users must state that they agree with the
        following statement: ‘I have come to this website knowing it’s [sic] contents and
        agree to view sexually explicit material for my personal use. Viewing such
        material does not knowingly violate the community standards of the area in which
        I live.’

        But throughout the FAC, LMC alleges that Smith did not engage in ‘lawful access.’”

        “Count VII…. Even overlooking its implausibility…. He has no agreement with Defendant ISPs to provide Internet service, so he cannot be a party to some convoluted agreement with them to ‘allow and/or shelter the continued hacking and theft … in exchange for subscriber fees.'”

        • It seems glaring obvious when Booth and Sweet point this shit out so eloquently, but these are very relevant things that even Siever and Huffman (two A game all stars) seemed to miss out on in their respective motions. I just think Booth and Sweet are not just sharp, not even just Ginsu sharp, but Hattori Hanzo sharp! Booth and Sweet are just cutting through this shit with Black Mamba’s/The Bride’s Hanzo sword. They have the talent of making the shit look dead obvious in retrospect. Dooffy should just give up. This shit ain’t even fair anymore. Poor dumb troll.

          Finally TAD, thank you for kindly providing the recent docket RECAP 🙂

    34. Got a letter from Frontier yesterday that they would not be releasing information at this time. Hopefully this case falls apart before LSM sends more subpoenas!

      • I got the same letter. Does this mean it’s over for Frontier subscribers, or should I anticipate something in the future?

    35. For LSM vs Smith, Comcast and AT&T, there’s a new docket entry (#38) that just says “CJRA Track.” What does this mean? Also, Duffy’s responses to Huffman and Siever are due today.

      • It’s a formality. This was issued pursuant to the CJRA which stands for “Criminal Justice Reform Act” and the…well, “and in compliance with the Civil Justice Expenses and Delay Reduction Plan” (irony?). Basically, judges are expected to push cases so Murphy is presuming that a jury trial will commence in October of 2013 (yeah, that won’t happen) to avoid more costly back and forth motions, responses, blah blah. I’m REALLY interested to see what Duffy et al vomit out in response to Huffman and Seiver.

        They’re actually getting off easy. Cablevision retained Ken Dreifach up in EDNY (or was it SDNY?) to go after Kotzker in a Malibu Media case. This guy is like Huffman on steroids. Former Chief of the Attorney General of New York’s Internet Division, current partner at ZwillGen PLLC which exclusively deals with internet-based litigation. DMCA, EDCPA, CDA expert. La dee da, Kotzker should be crapping himself over this.

        • Well, he’s not. He filed four more Malibu cases today in CO. Trying to figure out if he’s really not worried or if he knows he’s in trouble and and is trying to get all the settlements he can before it caves in on him. Between Fantalis and this maybe he’s trying to get while the getting’s good.

    36. Docket updated for the LMC v. Smith et al case (thank me later :P)
      Duffy’s opposition to Comcast’s (Seiver’s) MTD here…

      Click to access gov.uscourts.ilsd.58824.39.0.pdf

      and Duffy’s memorandum response to AT&T’s (Huffman’s) MTD here…

      Click to access gov.uscourts.ilsd.58824.40.0.pdf

      This is the introduction to Duffy’s opposition to Comcast’s motion to dismiss. Pardon me while I vomit. Duffy definitely wrote this. “each of counts… well pled” is well pled? Seriously? “Shot-gun” approach? Oh the irony when he’s suing upwards of 10,000 people in one single shit case. And stating Seiver (and Huffman in the memorandum opposing AT&T) don’t understand Federal laws governing cable communications and Duffy does, well I should just fucking frame that one because that’s just…a big heaping, steaming pile of horse manure. Huffman and Seiver are gonna come back and do God knows what but I’m gonna LOVE IT.

      “The Motion by Comcast and its Representative pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and L.R. 7.1 fails to identify a single valid ground to dismiss any claim in the Complaint, and the Court should deny it in its entirety. While Comcast takes a shot-gun approach and seeks dismissal for everything claimed against it and/or its Representative, each of Counts I, IV, VII, VIII and X is well-pled. The arguments that Comcast makes in its Motion include astonishingly incorrect statements of governing law, particularly Federal laws governing cable communications companies, that Comcast – one of the largest cable providers – should know are incorrect. The Court should deny the Motion in its entirety.”

      Copy and pasted to the memorandum in opposition to AT&T’s motion to dismiss, changed the name from Comcast to AT&T. This is rich…seriously, I literally keeled over when I began reading the introduction. Off to bed, I have actual work to do in the morning but I did get my chuckles in for the night 🙂

      • Thanks TAD. Those were pretty lame, but I really can’t wait to see how he responds to Booth/Sweet. I thought Booth/Sweet’s motion was better than either Huffman’s or Siever’s!

      • Thanks TAD! Interesting read for sure. Looks like they can’t even keep the defendants straight.
        “Plaintiff instead has alleged that Defendant Jones, and his coconspirators including Comcast, caused or allowed unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s website through the use of hacked passwords.”

        Who is Defendant Jones in the case against Defendant Smith?

        Good chuckles.

          • That was my thinking as well, he’s got Steve Jones on the brain since Lightspeed consumes all of his time. The back and forth on this is taking forever, but I can’t wait to see the responses form Huffman and Seiver. Not to mention what Booth/Sweet is going to do.

        • Duffy makes this contorted, convoluted argument that some sort of relationship was created between Smith and BOTH ISPs as well as their officers. How does a Charter customer make a “deal” with Comcast, AT&T, and a corporate officer from each of the two firms? The response to the Booth/Sweet motion will be even better because it’s impossible for Duffy to prove that Smith conspired with AT&T and Comcast, much less prove that a relationship was established. Duffy’s main argument seems to be centered around the 6600 IPs he couldn’t get. That has nothing to do with Smith. These responses are like the “Chewbacca Defense” heh.

          This case is gonna go down in flames, Prenda is just prolonging the inevitable. I imagine Huffman and Seiver will file for Rule 11 sanctions post-dismissal because they’ve been racking up billable hours on this case like nobody’s business and Huffman and Seiver’s services do not come cheap. I can’t wait to see Duffy, Jones, et al sanctioned…about time.

    37. so piez makes some really great points about the cfaa claim mainly about the lack of any damage and lack of any loss. but here is my favorite lil gem

      “how can the defendant know what it is that he supposedly reproduced and distributed without authorization absent without a descriptionh beyond “content?” Was it computer code, customer lists…Coke’s secret formula?”

      so there you have it, lightspeed has been the keeper of coke’s formula all this time, that’s why so many people keep (successfully) trying to penetrate his security. it all makes sense now.

    38. In Lightspeed vs Smith et al, does the fact that a discovery conference was set for Oct 25 mean that the case will move forward, implying that all the defendants’ motions to dismiss were, or will be, denied? My thought is, why schedule this conference if the motions to dismiss are likely to succeed and result in dismissal? See docket document #41.

      Denial of those motions from Huffman, Siever and Booth/Sweet would be awfully surprising.

      • “The purposes of this conference are:
        (1) To discuss the Joint Report of the Parties as to the proposed discovery plan;
        (2) To discuss the possibility of settlement;
        (3) To discuss the possibility of using a voluntary alternative dispute resolution device
        (e.g., mediation, arbitration, summary jury trial, mini-trial) to resolve the dispute;
        (5) To confirm the presumptive date for the trial”

        Assuming Murphy doesn’t chuck the complaint altogether, I’d venture to say that AT&T and Comcast won’t settle with Prenda or use ADR/mediation etc and would rather go to trial and destroy Prenda and LMC. Prenda’s playing chicken with two Fortune 50 companies and lawyers WAY WAY above their pay grade.

    39. What is going on with the miami case? The last docket was in august. If the information was handed over via subpoena for people in the miami case are they refiling in state courts?

    40. the discovery conference is SOP for a court case and even if there are pending motions it will still happen. look at the fantalis case they both have motions to dismiss pending, but yet there are motions for sanctions for not providing discovery info. it does not mean that the motions will be denied just that they need to prepare their cases.

      the miami case is basically dead. i don’t think LSM is going to go after anymore individuals because they realized it could really bite them in the ass. people are more likely to fight that type of case because it seems more defensible, and because the stakes are not as high as far as damages go. they have people fighting back on the individual cases in multiple different states and that is just no bueno so they are probably taking a wait and see approach. if they win a state case then expect to see a recurring flood of lightspeed cases.

      • i wish i could post on that forum and let that know that he did in fact sue specific individuals, and the counter claims are currently putting the business is serious financial jeopardy. the cases are still ongoing and that discovery has started in at least 1 case. seriously if they were curious all they would have do do is google lightspeed lawsuit and their curiosity would be quelled. man these xbiz guys really are sharp as marbles….:-) geniuses everyone.

        • “Is he still suing downloaders?” Yeah, use Google lazy ass…shit. If those people don’t know what’s going on then they shouldn’t be operating a business. A GOOD businessman (or woman) knows EVERYTHING about their industry, especially litigation. These people obviously have no fucking idea what’s going on, thus they shouldn’t even be operating a lemonade stand, much less a porn site.

          • most of them just like to look at b00bi3s…hehe booooobies…..i digress, also most of them stopped mentally maturing at about 13 when they first noticed t&a. basic porn is not all that hard to run, and most of them have business advisers or they just mooch their profits from advert rev’s and affiliate programs. people like porn so it is not that hard to market. the term “shrewd businessman is not something very many of them have earned. a few yes, but not many. their product is stagnating due to over abundance and cheap production costs. if anyone could craft a car in 10 mins at a cost of 2 dollars then the auto industry would be faltering too, that’s why so many have taken to straight up intimidation tactics to make profits.

          • Good point. Then their business advisers/managers/whoever the hell is in charge of running shit are idiots for not knowing what’s going on unless they too know dick about business, read “Online Porn Sites for Morons,” and/or have a business degree from one of those shitty unaccredited schools you see advertised on TV late at night…or in the case of University of Phoenix, during the day but still unaccredited.

      • The timing of the sale makes me wonder what is going on in Steve’s head regarding these lawsuits. If the company was doing OK, and especially if the trolling business was raking it in, why sell?

        On the other hand, I believe I read in one of the other threads that Sekora’s case is making its way to the discovery phase; now this conference in the Lightspeed v. AT&T and Comcast case suggests it may be heading the same way. What do you think the odds are that Steve is anywhere near prepared, both mentally and actually, to produce the discovery required to move on with this case?

        Maybe Steve knows that any discovery regarding LMC’s finances is going to put something in the public record that makes the company worth $0 to buyers. As it is the potential liabilities, as well as the mere hassles, from all these lawsuits should scare the hell out of any prospective buyer. For one thing, since Steve started all these suits while he was running the show, if someone else buys the company, and then Steve is required to testify and is nowhere to be found, that will put a new owner in quite an awkward position…

        I was about to say nobody is stupid enough to sell a company in LMC’s position without disclosing all the ongoing legal activity, but then Steve was already stupid enough to commit fraud, extortion and blackmail on a nationwide scale and then join AT&T and Comcast as defendants in one of his lawsuits, so I believe he’s capable of pretty much any bad decision imaginable.

        I’m guessing he’s on the run because he has some concerns about what’s going to go down, and he’s hoping to get a few bucks for LMC if he can and then make for another country.

        • Spam filter does not like you for whatever reason. But don’t worry, I check spam folder for false positives twice a day (~100-200, yet it is very easy to tell spam fro legitimate comments, thus the check itself takes ~3 minutes).

    41. In the latest document on the Lightspeed vs ATT/Comcast case it states they are having a conference call on October 25th and lists the phone number and an access code and security code for the call. Can I listen in?

      • Yeah but I wouldn’t use it. I have no idea why that was even released because it’s meant for counsel only, not anyone who has access to ILSD’s CM/ECF.

    Leave a Reply

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

    You are commenting using your 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