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

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: