Copyright Troll Elf-Man Responds to Motion For Fees/Costs & Sanctions X2 – Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA) Posted on August 5, 2014 by DieTrollDie On 4 Aug 14, Elf-Man LLC (via Troll Lowe) filed its response to Defendant Lamberson’s Motion for attorney fees/costs and sanction IAW Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927. It will take me some time to wade through all the bull$h!T and pull out some Troll gems to highlight. Previous Elf-Man article. Make sure you also look at the various attached exhibits to these documents (below). piss2I will not try to break down all the documents, as it would be exceedingly long. Attorney Lynch is going to have a field-day replying to Troll/Plaintiff, as well as pointing out the aspects they did not even bother to respond to. I don’t know much about the judge, but it does seem he opened the door for fees/costs and can clearly see how Troll/Plaintiff gamed the system. Lets hope he decides to assign a “cost” to these Troll actions. Attorney Lynch has until 11 Aug 14, to reply. So what is Troll/Plaintiff claiming in all this digital dribble??? Defendant’s has not met the burden of proof to justify any sanctions IAW FRCP 11 and 28 USC §1927. Defendant should not be granted attorney fees/costs, as Attorney Lynch unnecessarily ran up the attorney fees when there was no need to. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – Collette C. Leland is the attorney representing Troll VanderMay – “… limited representation of responding to Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions, …” Doc_82_Legal_Rep_VM_00395(WA) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe tells the court that their case was run with the “proper due diligence research and credible evidence.” The Troll claims Attorney Lynch was not interested in the “…civil investigation of the facts and judicial resolution of the merits, but rather to threaten, intimate, harass and bully Plaintiff’s counsel and to obfuscate and churn away with unnecessary legal fees.” Doc_83_TrollResponse_Rule11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF MAUREEN VANDERMAY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Standard Troll VanderMay long-winded statement – “Plaintiff proceeded in good faith, as did I, in seeking redress for this infringement. The fact that Plaintiff later decided to move for dismissal is not indicative of any lack of factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims.” Doc_84_Decl_VanderMay_Rule 11_00395(WA) What I find really funny is Troll VanderMay claims that since Lamberson didn’t respond to the settlement demand with a denial, which somehow indicates he is the offender. Correct me if I’m wrong, but by the complaint, it didn’t matter to Troll/Plaintiff if Lamberson (or other Does) were innocent, as they were also pursuing the “Negligence” claim (AKA: Indirect Infringement). Note: this baseless claim was later killed by the court. DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LOWE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe complains that Attorney Lynch hurt his feelings: “In the six weeks since that time I have been stunned and disappointed by the unbridled aggression, ad hominem attacks on prior counsel and me, personally, the admissions from Defendant’s counsel about the vexatious manner in which he has sought to run up fees in this litigation, and the dishonesty with which he has interacted with opposing counsel.” Doc_86_Decl_Lowe_00395(WA) I also loved this one: “Defendant endlessly pursued frivolous theories apparently based on Internet blogs by those interested in perpetuating illegal downloading using BitTorrent.” Are speaking about me Troll Lowe??? I do not “perpetuate” illegal downloading; in fact I tell people who doing it, that they need to stop it. YES, I do fight against the Copyright Trolls. It is my opinion you are nothing more than sleazy-greedy-douchebags which are abusing the Copyright Law to make some money. DECLARATION OF KURT UEBERSAX IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Executive producer for Elf-Man. I will use a Prenda associated term of “Equine Excrement” to show my opinion on this declaration. “11. In the present case I have been assured that the infringement associated with the defendant has stopped and that the defendant is now aware of the seriousness of this issue. Further it appears that the only additional result we might obtain would be to force the defendant into bankruptcy as his attorney claims he is destitute.” Doc_87_Decl_KurtUebersax_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF DANIEL MACEK IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – This one is a sad joke (more opinion) – Daniel Macek claims he is a consultant for the Shelf-Company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), in its technical department. Funny there is absolutely no mention of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC). Doc_88_ Decl_DanielMacek_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PATZER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Claims he is an independent contractor predominantly for Excipio GmbH (German company). Excipio contracts with Crystal Bay Corporation to provide Crystal Bay with the data collection system (Crystal Bay licenses the use of Excipio’s system and servers). Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF PATRICK PAIGE – 2013 Declaration for a Malibu Media LLC case in which Mr. Paige (Forensic Consultant) states that IPP software worked as claimed and identified the correct public IP address. So…. Is Troll/Plaintiff saying that Excipico/Crystal Bay Corp. is IPP and the software works??? Doc_90_Decl_PatrickPaige_00395(WA) ATTORNEY VANDERMAY’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1927 – Troll VanderMay claims Attorney Lynch only worked this case in hopes of filing an eventual motion for fees/costs. She offers the court the simplistic opinion that Plaintiff and Defendant merely had “different views of this case and how it should be conducted.” Troll VanderMay claims Defendant failed to meet the burden of to justify any sanctions. Doc_91_VanderMay_Opp_Rule 11_00395(WA) So please take a read and give me your thoughts. DieTrollDie :) “So many assholes… So few bullets.” – {Ford Fairlane – The Adventure of Ford Fairlane} Share this:

August 8, 2014 § Leave a comment

RightsCorp – Plans Of ISP Control & Subpoenas For Subscriber Information
Posted on August 7, 2014 by DieTrollDie
Sometimes people are a bit shocked that Copyright Trolls change tactics. As most people do not like change or unfamiliar situations, I understand this feeling. Well brothers and sisters, the fact of the matter is the BitTorent Copyright Trolling business model is not going away very easily. This business was designed to make lots of money for a small group of people and the profits are just too damn addictive for them. As any good business requires flexibility to survive, the Trolls are likely to try new things. This is especially true when the status quo isn’t working as well as you like. Rightscorp_money1For this particular article, I’m talking about RightsCorp. Please note that RightsCorp is more of a BT Copyright Monetization Troll, than a traditional BT Copyright Troll. They sign up copyright holders and monitor BT for infringing content of these clients. Identified US public IP addresses are then sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) formatted email via their ISP, informing them of the observed infringing activity and asking them to pay a fine to prevent any possible legal action against them. Note: Some ISPs do not forward these settlement emails to their customers, as they obviously see this as a “legal” scam (my opinion). BTW – if any rights holder or RightsCorp doesn’t agree with me or a specific point, please tell me and I will address it. There are two things from RightsCorp that I want to discuss –

Their plans to force the various ISPs to “Play Ball.”
Subpoenas for ISP subscriber information IAW Title 17, § 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online.
RightsCorp Plan

Here is a copy of a RightsCorp investor Presentation to the Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit. Investor_Presentation_at_The_Anti-Piracy_&_Content_Protection_Summit In this presentation, RightsCorp indicates they are going to try to hold the ISPs responsible for the activities of their subscribers. As the “Safe Harbor” provision of the DMCA basically prevents the ISPs from being sued because of ISP subscriber activities, RightsCorp has to show that an ISP is not upholding its requirements to maintain the Safe Harbor status. RightsCorp knows the ISPs are not going to risk becoming liable and will likely take some type of actions to stop or at least slow copyright infringement from the subscribers. So what is required by the ISPs to maintain their Safe Harbor status? RightsCorp tells the potential investors that IAW Title 17, § 512 an ISP is only protected if it –

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

Fair enough – that requirement is valid. But what else does this subsection have to say??? Title17_512i Now many people will say I’m biased and maybe even Pro-Piracy (I’m not), but reading this seems to indicate to me that the technical measures employed by RightsCorp (and others) to identify and protect copyrighted works have additional requirements.

(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;

I see problems here – in NO way was the BT technical monitoring system developed in a broad consensus of copyright owners and ISPs. Nor was the BT monitoring system developed “in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;” The BT monitoring systems we know of are all proprietary systems in which the owners consider the inner workings to be a “trade-secret.” We know nothing of the system RightsCorp uses and I’m willing to put forth an idea – that quite possibly RightsCorp have contracted/agreement with some well-established German BT monitoring firm to provide them with the information. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. We already know that Excipio GmbH sells its service to a Shelf-Company by the name of the Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) in relation to previously filed Copyright Infringement cases. Find out more interesting information on CBC from Fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

What ISP Actions?

These actions could entail forwarding the DMCA-like settlement demands to subscribers, slowing down or killing an Internet connection, or even possibly requiring the subscriber to settle with RightsCorp prior to reconnection. Now if the ISPs decide not to “play Ball,” RightsCorp has three options.

Seek damages for Copyright Infringement due to Non-Safe Harbor compliance.
Seek a court injunction IAW section (j) of Title 17, § 512.
Drop the issue with the ISP.
Subpoenas For ISP Subscriber Information IAW Title 17, § 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online

Most of you know that I’m constantly telling to people that RightsCorp does NOT file Copyright Infringement law suits (AKA: sue people). I even have a screenshot from their Web site where they state this. Then imagine my surprise when I obtained a RightsCorp document telling an ISP subscriber that they obtained the person’s name/address via a subpoena. RightsCorp_Subp_Notice Also attached to the letter is multiple pages showing a large number of files belonging to a RightsCorp client that were infringed upon via the public IP address in question. I did some searches for RightsCorp on RFC Express and the results are spotty at best. The following documents are from case 2:14-mc-00276-UA, Central District of CA, with the nature of the suit being “890 Other Statutory Actions.” Docket_5Aug14_MC_00276(CA) Decl_Subp_17USA_512_MC_00276(CA)- Subpeona_Telescape_MC_00276(CA)- Summary_and_DMCAs_MC_00276(CA)- If you examine the docket, you will see that it is a civil misc. case (Not a Copyright Infringement case) and it was opened and closed on the same date. The case was only opened so as to allow the court to issue a subpoena (IAW Title 17, § 512) that RightsCorp (via attorney Dennis Hawk, Business Law Group) could forward to the ISP. NOTE: The above letter is NOT from this case – I picked the RightsCorp case at random. Also note that the docket indicates NO demand for a jury. Now depending on the particular ISP, a subscriber may or may not be notified of the subpoena. Please note that the subpoena in this example case does not have a provision to allow the ISP subscriber to challenge it – the case is CLOSED. Based on limited access to the various RightsCorp cases, I don’t see this being a standard procedure for them. RightsCorp makes it money by using automatic emails to generate settlement quickly and cheaply. Obtaining a subpoena requires the action of an attorney (and some filing fee I assume) and will likely only be used on IP addresses they see as serial infringers in which they have sent multiple DMCA-like settlement letters to and have yet to get a response. Now if you call RightsCorp, you will likely be told that you need to pay a large settlement to make this go away or they may take you to court. They do have the option to file a Federal Copyright Infringement case in the PROPER jurisdiction, but that is not what they want (my opinion). Settlement generation is “King” here.

Copyright Troll Elf-Man Responds to Motion For Fees/Costs & Sanctions X2 – Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)
Posted on August 5, 2014 by DieTrollDie
On 4 Aug 14, Elf-Man LLC (via Troll Lowe) filed its response to Defendant Lamberson’s Motion for attorney fees/costs and sanction IAW Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927. It will take me some time to wade through all the bull$h!T and pull out some Troll gems to highlight. Previous Elf-Man article.

Make sure you also look at the various attached exhibits to these documents (below).

piss2I will not try to break down all the documents, as it would be exceedingly long. Attorney Lynch is going to have a field-day replying to Troll/Plaintiff, as well as pointing out the aspects they did not even bother to respond to. I don’t know much about the judge, but it does seem he opened the door for fees/costs and can clearly see how Troll/Plaintiff gamed the system. Lets hope he decides to assign a “cost” to these Troll actions. Attorney Lynch has until 11 Aug 14, to reply.

So what is Troll/Plaintiff claiming in all this digital dribble???

Defendant’s has not met the burden of proof to justify any sanctions IAW FRCP 11 and 28 USC §1927.
Defendant should not be granted attorney fees/costs, as Attorney Lynch unnecessarily ran up the attorney fees when there was no need to.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – Collette C. Leland is the attorney representing Troll VanderMay – “… limited representation of responding to Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions, …” Doc_82_Legal_Rep_VM_00395(WA)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe tells the court that their case was run with the “proper due diligence research and credible evidence.” The Troll claims Attorney Lynch was not interested in the “…civil investigation of the facts and judicial resolution of the merits, but rather to threaten, intimate, harass and bully Plaintiff’s counsel and to obfuscate and churn away with unnecessary legal fees.” Doc_83_TrollResponse_Rule11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF MAUREEN VANDERMAY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Standard Troll VanderMay long-winded statement – “Plaintiff proceeded in good faith, as did I, in seeking redress for this infringement. The fact that Plaintiff later decided to move for dismissal is not indicative of any lack of factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims.” Doc_84_Decl_VanderMay_Rule 11_00395(WA)

What I find really funny is Troll VanderMay claims that since Lamberson didn’t respond to the settlement demand with a denial, which somehow indicates he is the offender. Correct me if I’m wrong, but by the complaint, it didn’t matter to Troll/Plaintiff if Lamberson (or other Does) were innocent, as they were also pursuing the “Negligence” claim (AKA: Indirect Infringement). Note: this baseless claim was later killed by the court.

DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LOWE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe complains that Attorney Lynch hurt his feelings: “In the six weeks since that time I have been stunned and disappointed by the unbridled aggression, ad hominem attacks on prior counsel and me, personally, the admissions from Defendant’s counsel about the vexatious manner in which he has sought to run up fees in this litigation, and the dishonesty with which he has interacted with opposing counsel.” Doc_86_Decl_Lowe_00395(WA)

I also loved this one: “Defendant endlessly pursued frivolous theories apparently based on Internet blogs by those interested in perpetuating illegal downloading using BitTorrent.”

Are speaking about me Troll Lowe??? I do not “perpetuate” illegal downloading; in fact I tell people who doing it, that they need to stop it. YES, I do fight against the Copyright Trolls. It is my opinion you are nothing more than sleazy-greedy-douchebags which are abusing the Copyright Law to make some money.

DECLARATION OF KURT UEBERSAX IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Executive producer for Elf-Man. I will use a Prenda associated term of “Equine Excrement” to show my opinion on this declaration. “11. In the present case I have been assured that the infringement associated with the defendant has stopped and that the defendant is now aware of the seriousness of this issue. Further it appears that the only additional result we might obtain would be to force the defendant into bankruptcy as his attorney claims he is destitute.” Doc_87_Decl_KurtUebersax_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF DANIEL MACEK IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – This one is a sad joke (more opinion) – Daniel Macek claims he is a consultant for the Shelf-Company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), in its technical department. Funny there is absolutely no mention of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC). Doc_88_ Decl_DanielMacek_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PATZER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Claims he is an independent contractor predominantly for Excipio GmbH (German company). Excipio contracts with Crystal Bay Corporation to provide Crystal Bay with the data collection system (Crystal Bay licenses the use of Excipio’s system and servers). Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA)

DECLARATION OF PATRICK PAIGE – 2013 Declaration for a Malibu Media LLC case in which Mr. Paige (Forensic Consultant) states that IPP software worked as claimed and identified the correct public IP address. So…. Is Troll/Plaintiff saying that Excipico/Crystal Bay Corp. is IPP and the software works??? Doc_90_Decl_PatrickPaige_00395(WA)

ATTORNEY VANDERMAY’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1927 – Troll VanderMay claims Attorney Lynch only worked this case in hopes of filing an eventual motion for fees/costs. She offers the court the simplistic opinion that Plaintiff and Defendant merely had “different views of this case and how it should be conducted.” Troll VanderMay claims Defendant failed to meet the burden of to justify any sanctions. Doc_91_VanderMay_Opp_Rule 11_00395(WA)

So please take a read and give me your thoughts.

DieTrollDie 🙂 “So many assholes… So few bullets.” – {Ford Fairlane – The Adventure of Ford Fairlane}

Share this:

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 Copyright Troll Elf-Man Responds to Motion For Fees/Costs & Sanctions X2 – Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA) Posted on August 5, 2014 by DieTrollDie On 4 Aug 14, Elf-Man LLC (via Troll Lowe) filed its response to Defendant Lamberson’s Motion for attorney fees/costs and sanction IAW Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927. It will take me some time to wade through all the bull$h!T and pull out some Troll gems to highlight. Previous Elf-Man article. Make sure you also look at the various attached exhibits to these documents (below). piss2I will not try to break down all the documents, as it would be exceedingly long. Attorney Lynch is going to have a field-day replying to Troll/Plaintiff, as well as pointing out the aspects they did not even bother to respond to. I don’t know much about the judge, but it does seem he opened the door for fees/costs and can clearly see how Troll/Plaintiff gamed the system. Lets hope he decides to assign a “cost” to these Troll actions. Attorney Lynch has until 11 Aug 14, to reply. So what is Troll/Plaintiff claiming in all this digital dribble??? Defendant’s has not met the burden of proof to justify any sanctions IAW FRCP 11 and 28 USC §1927. Defendant should not be granted attorney fees/costs, as Attorney Lynch unnecessarily ran up the attorney fees when there was no need to. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – Collette C. Leland is the attorney representing Troll VanderMay – “… limited representation of responding to Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions, …” Doc_82_Legal_Rep_VM_00395(WA) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe tells the court that their case was run with the “proper due diligence research and credible evidence.” The Troll claims Attorney Lynch was not interested in the “…civil investigation of the facts and judicial resolution of the merits, but rather to threaten, intimate, harass and bully Plaintiff’s counsel and to obfuscate and churn away with unnecessary legal fees.” Doc_83_TrollResponse_Rule11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF MAUREEN VANDERMAY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Standard Troll VanderMay long-winded statement – “Plaintiff proceeded in good faith, as did I, in seeking redress for this infringement. The fact that Plaintiff later decided to move for dismissal is not indicative of any lack of factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims.” Doc_84_Decl_VanderMay_Rule 11_00395(WA) What I find really funny is Troll VanderMay claims that since Lamberson didn’t respond to the settlement demand with a denial, which somehow indicates he is the offender. Correct me if I’m wrong, but by the complaint, it didn’t matter to Troll/Plaintiff if Lamberson (or other Does) were innocent, as they were also pursuing the “Negligence” claim (AKA: Indirect Infringement). Note: this baseless claim was later killed by the court. DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LOWE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION – Troll Lowe complains that Attorney Lynch hurt his feelings: “In the six weeks since that time I have been stunned and disappointed by the unbridled aggression, ad hominem attacks on prior counsel and me, personally, the admissions from Defendant’s counsel about the vexatious manner in which he has sought to run up fees in this litigation, and the dishonesty with which he has interacted with opposing counsel.” Doc_86_Decl_Lowe_00395(WA) I also loved this one: “Defendant endlessly pursued frivolous theories apparently based on Internet blogs by those interested in perpetuating illegal downloading using BitTorrent.” Are speaking about me Troll Lowe??? I do not “perpetuate” illegal downloading; in fact I tell people who doing it, that they need to stop it. YES, I do fight against the Copyright Trolls. It is my opinion you are nothing more than sleazy-greedy-douchebags which are abusing the Copyright Law to make some money. DECLARATION OF KURT UEBERSAX IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Executive producer for Elf-Man. I will use a Prenda associated term of “Equine Excrement” to show my opinion on this declaration. “11. In the present case I have been assured that the infringement associated with the defendant has stopped and that the defendant is now aware of the seriousness of this issue. Further it appears that the only additional result we might obtain would be to force the defendant into bankruptcy as his attorney claims he is destitute.” Doc_87_Decl_KurtUebersax_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF DANIEL MACEK IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – This one is a sad joke (more opinion) – Daniel Macek claims he is a consultant for the Shelf-Company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), in its technical department. Funny there is absolutely no mention of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC). Doc_88_ Decl_DanielMacek_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PATZER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS – Claims he is an independent contractor predominantly for Excipio GmbH (German company). Excipio contracts with Crystal Bay Corporation to provide Crystal Bay with the data collection system (Crystal Bay licenses the use of Excipio’s system and servers). Doc_89_Decl_MichaelPatzer_Rule 11_00395(WA) DECLARATION OF PATRICK PAIGE – 2013 Declaration for a Malibu Media LLC case in which Mr. Paige (Forensic Consultant) states that IPP software worked as claimed and identified the correct public IP address. So…. Is Troll/Plaintiff saying that Excipico/Crystal Bay Corp. is IPP and the software works??? Doc_90_Decl_PatrickPaige_00395(WA) ATTORNEY VANDERMAY’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1927 – Troll VanderMay claims Attorney Lynch only worked this case in hopes of filing an eventual motion for fees/costs. She offers the court the simplistic opinion that Plaintiff and Defendant merely had “different views of this case and how it should be conducted.” Troll VanderMay claims Defendant failed to meet the burden of to justify any sanctions. Doc_91_VanderMay_Opp_Rule 11_00395(WA) So please take a read and give me your thoughts. DieTrollDie :) “So many assholes… So few bullets.” – {Ford Fairlane – The Adventure of Ford Fairlane} Share this: at Will County Pro-se.

meta

%d bloggers like this: