Doe Defender “Letter” Is “8 for 8” Troll Dismissals & Update to CO Copyright Troll Case – Mechanic: Resurrection (1:16-cv-02580)

*** 2 Mar 2017 UPDATE – CO ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) ***

I checked the docket for the Colorado ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) and the last action (Doc #33 – 15 Feb 17) was the court giving Troll Stephenson until 16 March to name and serve the remaining Defendants. Has anyone received any calls, letters, or emails from him? If so, please email me at dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.

*** 15 Feb 2017 UPDATE – CO ME2 Case (1:16-cv-02580) ***

*** Well that was quick. The court granted the request for more time – out to 16 Mar 17.   more-time-granted_02580co  It does sadden me – but I’m certainly not surprised.  ***  Now the Troll could still name and serve the ISP subscribers, so best to monitor the docket in PACER. I expect another round of scare letters to go out – please email a copy if possible (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com).

————————————————

Well, I was at least correct in saying that the Troll Stephenson  would “file” at the last possible minute – 14 Feb 17.  He filed a motion for more time to serve the Defendants.   moretimeplease_02580co   moretimeplease_ex1_02580co

Troll Stephenson wants up to 16 Mar 17, citing that COMCAST did not even get him the names of ISP subscribers until 9 Jan 17. He even tries to make the case that he is only asking for a total of 60 days (Not the 90 days FRCP 4(m) allow)– 90 days from ISP release is 14 Apr 17. He of course makes the claim of “Good Cause” for NOT having served ANY of the ISP subscribers.

What I find extremely funny is IF Troll/Plaintiff truly had the intention to amend the complaint and serve Defendants; something would have been accomplished against the remaining 16 Does. So what Troll Stephenson is telling the court is:

• I haven’t bothered to do ANY investigative work to determine if the ISP subscribers are in fact the offender
• I have simply sent out a settlement demand letter stating that this court would “most likely consider YOU the infringer“ (YOU being the ISP subscriber)
• I didn’t bother to amend the complaint with ANY true names of the 16 ISP subscribers
• I didn’t bother to ask the court to issue summons for ANY of the 16 ISP subscribers
• I didn’t have ANY of the issued summonses served on the named ISP subscribers
• I filed the last-minute request for more time with ZERO evidence to show I have even begun to try to comply with the court’s order.

You couldn’t even be bothered to name and serve one person???

Now FRCP 4(m) is clear on the 90 days service requirement, but the court can still allow more time – and it has often done this.  I think the Colorado courts may be a tad bit tired of these clowns and their abuse of the court. This swings both ways and the court can see that this Troll has no intention of actually serving people.  Be careful Troll Stephenson… The court seems to be watching your actions. It may be time to leave this line of “ambulance chasing” work and focus on something better.

Even if the court does allow more time, I don’t expect any service to occur. I may be wrong, but going down the “Name & Serve” route is also going to open up Troll/Plaintiff to possible pitfalls and the need for more time and money – this means less profit on their side.

For now, I suggest (in a non-attorney way) those affected wait and see what the court does. As I said before, If you are innocent, please tell the Troll this – Richard Pryor Response

DTD 😉

Troll Lowe Runs Away AGAIN

I previously reported (19 Jan 17) that BitTorrent Copyright Troll attorney David Lowe (and the German BT monitoring apparatus) were running scared when faced with Doe Defender Christopher Lynch’s efforts to expose their slimy operation. At that time, attorney Lynch had obtained 5 voluntary dismissals of his clients by sending Troll Lowe a letter telling him he would expose their dirty secrets and also seek attorney fees and costs.

Well, attorney Lynch is still at it – he is now 8 dismissal for 8 attempts.  Here are the most recent letters sent to Troll Lowe – and the voluntary dismissals that resulted.    2feb17_ltr_jcltolowe   12jan17_ltr_jcltolowe   25jan17_ltr_jcltolowe   dismiss3-pdf dismiss1-pdf dismiss2

The bottom line is that your client’s foreign representatives have made some mistakes. Their system is not foolproof and it needlessly ensnares innocent people, disrupting their lives for no good reason. Their bigger mistake is the use of a string of sworn declarations filed in our revered federal courts that lack the legitimacy the law requires.

And I love this paragraph:

Is it proper to trick a court into issuing a subpoena with allegations that an “IP address was observed infringing Plaintiff’s motion picture?” Dkt. # 15. Maybe the Ninth Circuit will rule shortly in Naruto v. Slater, Case No. 16-15469, that a monkey can own a copyright, but we are unaware of any pending cases where an arbitrary number can infringe one.

I wonder how many dismissals Troll Lowe is going to have to eventually do. I’m sure he has already added a “Dismissal” letter template to his common use files. I assume Troll Lowe/Plaintiff thinks that this will eventually stop OR the dismissals are just a minor annoyance and the “cost of doing business.”

Here is an interesting idea. What if a Pro Se Defendant in one of Troll Lowe’s cases files an “Answer” and attaches some (or all) of these letters as exhibits. Now Troll Lowe may be able to get them stricken, but for that to even occur, the court is going to read them and make a determination. Things are bound to go bad for the Troll. It was only a matter of Time for Prenda Law… Time is on our side.

Update To CO BT Copyright Troll Case (Mechanic: Resurrection), 1:16-cv-02580, Against 20 Does

Since my initial 14 Dec 16, article, the case against the 20 CO Does has progressed as expected.   docket_8feb17_02580co

The Motion to Quash filed by Doe 11’s attorney, Louise Aron, was denied by the court on 4 Jan 17. On 6 Jan 17, Troll David John Stephenson, Jr., Rocky Mountain Thunder Law Firm, requested more time to “Serve” Defendants. Specifically he asked to be given until 14 Apr 17 (over 90 additional days) to effect service (AKA: trying to get more settlement). FYI: FRCP 4(m) requires that Defendants be served NLT than 90 after the initial filing.  Most courts understand the delay in even getting the ISP subscribers information and will adjust the deadline accordingly. The Troll claimed COMCAST said it will not be able to provide ISP subscriber information until 13 Jan 17.

On 9 Jan 17, judge Hegarty, issued a very short minute order concerning Troll Stephenson’s request for more time.   mustserve_by-14feb17_02580co

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants [filed January 6, 2017; ECF No. 22] is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff shall serve the remaining Defendants on or before February 14, 2017.

So the court essentially gave the Troll a little over 30 days to effect service on each Defendant. It was then that the settlement demand letters started to arrive at the ISP subscriber’s residence.   me2_settlementdemand-ltr_02580co

What caught my eye on this letter is the wording that seems to claim that the CO court “would most likely” consider the ISP subscriber (“YOU”) to be the infringer. The Troll cites a CO case in support of this claim. Upon closer examination the opinion was for a case where the Defendant defaulted – very weak. This shows the desperation the Troll feels with only having approx. 30 days to effect service on most of the Does.

As this article goes to press (8 Feb 17), Troll Stephenson has yet to amended the complaint with the names of the ISP subscribers (as Defendants). This is even after the expiration of the 10-day deadline he mentions in settlement demand letter. This show you what the Trolls think about their evidence (public IP address) and how strong it is.

So How Is The Troll Doing?

The docket (as of 8 Feb 17) shows 3 With Prejudice dismissals (likely settlements) and 1 Without Prejudice (no settlement). The Without Prejudice dismissal was for Doe 11 (the Doe who filed the motion to quash). The Troll probably decided he should avoid any Defendant who was obviously going to fight back. So even if the Troll was only able to get $4,000 from each of the 3 Does, he has still made a small profit ($12,000 – $400 filing fee).

Troll Stephenson now has less than one week to – 1) Amend the complaint to name the ISP subscribers as Defendants, 2) Request the court issue summons, and 3) Get the remaining 16 Defendants properly served.   Tick Tock Tick Tock…

I will be in Las Vegas soon, maybe I can get some good odds that the Troll will not serve anyone. Now stranger thing have happened, but based on the history of the CO Troll attorneys (Non-Malibu Media/X-Art), and the weakness of this particular case, I believe the chances are pretty slim.

Hopefully this is going to be the standard for CO BT Copyright Troll cases. If so, then CO Does only need to ignore the Troll or send him a Richard Pryor Response. Even if a few Defendants are named/serve, answering the summons/complaint (denial) will likely lead to a dismissal also.   Article on Answering Summons/Complaint

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker, Talking To The Trolls, Richard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   “Do not pity the dead Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love.” {Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows}