Scumbag Attorney tries to Weassel out like other scumbags just like child reps?

July 15, 2014 § Leave a comment

 

← Elf-Man LLC Dismisses Lamberson With Prejudice – # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)
Settlement Demand Letters Sent Out On CLOSED Dallas Buyers Club Case – 1:14-cv-02168 (ILND)
Posted on July 15, 2014 by DieTrollDie
Well at least we can count on the greed of the Trolls to direct their actions. As I previously wrote, an ILND Dallas Buyers Club LLC case against 46 Does, #1:14-cv-02168, was closed by the court on 2 Apr 14. The unusual aspect of the dismissal was that Judge Castillo explicitly allowed the Troll to still obtain the ISP subscriber information. See my previous article – Judge Castillo’s Pure Bill Of Discovery

love_punchCopyright Troll Michael Hierl has started to send out settlement demand letters for this CLOSED case. Now he of course fails to tell the ISP subscriber that the case is closed – implies that they are part of an active case. DBC_SettlementLTR_02168(IL)

I have to say that at least with this settlement demand letter, he didn’t screw up with the amount they are seeking. Here is another Dallas Buyers Club case (Archive Docket 1:14-cv-02163) settlement demand letter in the same district – The Troll cannot determine if they want $3,500 or $3,800 from the ISP subscriber. I do find it interesting that for DBC cases in the ILND, that the amount is different. This indicates to me that the Troll/Plaintiff is doing some sort of analysis to find an amount that an ISP subscriber is willing to pay. I assume this is simply based on the area in which the ISP subscriber resides. DBC Settlement Letter_02163(IL)

money_02163(IL)

As this case was dismissed without prejudice, Troll/Plaintiff could refile cases against single defendants. As they have done nothing in the realm of an actual investigation, this action is reckless in my opinion. Not to mention that it will cost the Troll $400 to file a case. In the Minute Order, it clearly states what a refile of the complaint must encompass.

In the meantime, the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit. {my emphasis}

As the Troll doesn’t have the records to properly join the defendants, the cases will have to be single Defendants. Also, the judge stated they need to be named and not just an IP address. Now the Troll/Plaintiff could actually do this, but they then run the risk of someone fighting back and exposing more of the German BitTorrent apparatus (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio).

Now since there is no longer an open case, there is no longer a time constraint on the Troll. With the exception of the 3-year Statute of Limitation on Copyright Infringement, he can string this out for a while. The biggest thing he has to worry about is over time, any evidence on a Defendant’s computer could be damaged or destroyed in the normal operation of it. But as it will never get that far, that fact is purely academic in nature.

So What To Do?

If this applies to your situation, I suggest the following. *** For those of you who are not clear on this point (Mr. Ross), this means don’t lie or make a false statement. *** Also, I’m NOT “engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.” Don’t be stupid. For all of these Non-Malibu Media Copyright Troll cases, I’m of the opinion that responding to the settlement demand letter with a simple denial is best. Nothing fancy or elaborate, just a letter that states the following:

I didn’t download/share the movie in question.
I didn’t authorize anyone to use my network to download/share the movie in question.
I don’t know who could have downloaded/shared the movie in question.
I will not pay a settlement to make the threat of a law suit go away.
This informs the Troll that you are not afraid to respond to him and probably not the best target for a default judgement (failing to answer a summons/complaint). Then sign & date the letter and make a copy for your records. Mail it to the Troll via certified mail, return receipt requested. That way you will have proof his office received it.

Based on all the trouble the Trolls are having with their association to the German BitTorrent monitoring firms, I really doubt there will be very many Does who are named and served with a complaint. This of course will be on a case-by-case basis, as the Troll will assess the likelihood that serving a Defendant will bring them to the settlement table. Note: If this does happen to a Defendant, I do have a couple of answer templates that you can use. Defendant Answers

DieTrollDie 🙂 “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.’” – a statement like that could cost you $11K!

 

 

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Scumbag Attorney tries to Weassel out like other scumbags just like child reps? at Will County Pro-se.

meta

%d bloggers like this: