sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 9:12am
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
Ohai Steele. Angry, aren't you? Good, good.
The only good analysis is an analysis of the dynamics. No doubt half a year ago no judge ruled that joinders were improper. Now it's a different picture.
Half a year ago it was unbelievable that any of you trolls would be sanctioned. What we have now? We'll see in a couple of weeks.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 3:17pm
It is a bit strange I did not comment here yet, isn't it?
Virginia troll Wayne O'Bryan, who is in danger of being sanctioned by the court, wrote a response where he copy-pastes the same nonsense about copying and pasting motions.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:42pm
Re:
Well, though I promised to post something new on my blog tonight, I will pass, at least till tomorrow. Tired.
I want to share a couple of observations though.
Both defaulted defendants did receive the original summons. There is a proof of service: one signature is unreadable, the other clearly states a different name, so it may be a case that Malgorzata Pralat of Greenville, Wisconsin has never received the summons.
According to the order displayed above, Sperlein mentioned to the judge that one of the two packages he sent to defendants later, this time by first class mail, had bounced. He did not specify which one, but I'm sure it was the one sent to Malgorzata Fraczyk: the other defendant lives in Buffalo Grove IL, and owns property, so it is much less likely that a package sent to his address would bounce. Sperlein said that he talked to her over the phone, but since he was caught lying in the past, I wouldn't take his word for granted.
So, most likely one of the defaulted defendants, Malgorzata Fraczyk, is not aware about the scam he was involved with.
Malgorzata lived in an apartment complex with many units, most likely with a roommate(s), thus someone using her network, wired or wireless, is the most likely scenario, and since she is a woman, I don't believe that she knowingly downloaded gay pornography.
You don't have to be a Sherlock Holmes to come to these conclusions... while Sperlein did not believe that she was sharing his movies, at least intentionally, he went after her just because he could, because she was an easy target. What a slime. Every time I think about Sperlein, I have an acute desire to wash my hands.
Also I want to remind you an mysterious story about the other victim, Mariusz Pralat.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:49pm
Re:
The reason why I'm so interested in this case - I was a defendant on it and was the only one fighting. The entire docket can be found here (my motions are 16, 25 and 38).
For the protocol: I belong to collaterally damaged group thanks to "impeccable" evidence provided by Germans.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:35pm
Wow Mike, you get the news in real-time. The last document was filed just hours ago. I thought I was first to report.
I'm joking - I'm not seeking neither fame or money, and I'm happy that these cases receive so much needed publicity - TechDirt has a bit wider audience than my blog :)
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:07pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If not for my ethical quirks, I would be happy to trade places with my "victimized" plaintiff: ~250K in a couple of months given a couple of grands and a week of paperwork investment.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:54am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One minor point: there is no evidence that could convince any reasonable judge...
You analogy won't fly either: if the cop pockets (or gets a cut) the money in question, than yes, it's shakedown, extortion, racket, name it...
One more surprise: I'm not a "pirate" and was caught in the middle of this fraud thanks to the "quality" of the evidence, so shut up. Saying that, I found myself more sympathetic to pirates, their ideas and views on copyright than to those righteous, heartless, cruel, greedy, double-faced and cynical attorneys.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am
Marc Randazza should rename his lawfirm to "Janus Law". Unfortunately the domain and trademark are already taken by a guy who doesn't understand the irony.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:27am
Re:
+1
A bit of elaboration on P.S. I maintain a list of twitting copyright trolls. In twitter, the only way to be excluded from another person's list is to block that person from following. That was the actual reason why he blocked me. Otherwise blocking does not make much sense: I still can see all his tweets, I still can mention and reply.
Randazza, a self-proclaimed First Amendment fighter, used a technicality to stifle my free speech. Isn't it ironic to say the least?
Right holders (not all of them, but those who embedded litigation into their failing business models) fuck over the rights of general (mostly not wealthy) public and get away with that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
True. With one correction: who is the majority here? Just ask around if a million-dollar fines for an individual in a copyright infringement case are insane or not. And see what majority thinks.
Re: Re: Common sense.... So damned rare, it's now a superhuman power
Than go after the seeder.
Suing a random person in a chain of events is like pulling a random car from a mile-long highway pile-up. Sure that car contributed to the collision by not holding an appropriate distance. So fine that driver.. ok, not fine, but make him pay for all other collided car repairs.
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
A couple of cases recently dismissed based on improper joinder:
2 cases Paul Grewal 5/31
0-cv-04381-CW Kaudia Wilken 8/11
11-cv-01738-SI Susan Illston 8/19
11-cv-02533-DMR Donna Ryu 07/15
10-cv-04472-BZ Bernard Zimmerman 9/6
3 cases 10/5 John Gibney
How is that "universal"???? And that's just a 10-min googling, I'm sure there are much more there.
And what about those cases when you trolls sensed the heat and dismissed your cases just before a judge was about to spank you?
And how many cases are dismissed because you trolls failed to serve defendants (so no joinder argument was even started)?
And how many your troll cases were dead upon arrival because of improper jonider (Shadur, Baker etc)?
You are full of shit, Steele, go away, hide under the bridge before you get disbarred.
"mumbo jumbo, chicken gumbo"
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
The only good analysis is an analysis of the dynamics. No doubt half a year ago no judge ruled that joinders were improper. Now it's a different picture.
Half a year ago it was unbelievable that any of you trolls would be sanctioned. What we have now? We'll see in a couple of weeks.
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Virginia troll Wayne O'Bryan, who is in danger of being sanctioned by the court, wrote a response where he copy-pastes the same nonsense about copying and pasting motions.
There is an interesting development in his case, very-very interesting: http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/18/trolls-in-panic-steele-hansmeier-files-an-amicus-brief-tr ying-to-prevent-the-inevitable-downfall-of-the-us-trolls/
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
Re: Re: Let this be a lesson boys and girls
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
Re:
I want to share a couple of observations though.
Both defaulted defendants did receive the original summons. There is a proof of service: one signature is unreadable, the other clearly states a different name, so it may be a case that Malgorzata Pralat of Greenville, Wisconsin has never received the summons.
According to the order displayed above, Sperlein mentioned to the judge that one of the two packages he sent to defendants later, this time by first class mail, had bounced. He did not specify which one, but I'm sure it was the one sent to Malgorzata Fraczyk: the other defendant lives in Buffalo Grove IL, and owns property, so it is much less likely that a package sent to his address would bounce. Sperlein said that he talked to her over the phone, but since he was caught lying in the past, I wouldn't take his word for granted.
So, most likely one of the defaulted defendants, Malgorzata Fraczyk, is not aware about the scam he was involved with.
Malgorzata lived in an apartment complex with many units, most likely with a roommate(s), thus someone using her network, wired or wireless, is the most likely scenario, and since she is a woman, I don't believe that she knowingly downloaded gay pornography.
You don't have to be a Sherlock Holmes to come to these conclusions... while Sperlein did not believe that she was sharing his movies, at least intentionally, he went after her just because he could, because she was an easy target. What a slime. Every time I think about Sperlein, I have an acute desire to wash my hands.
Also I want to remind you an mysterious story about the other victim, Mariusz Pralat.
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
Re:
For the protocol: I belong to collaterally damaged group thanks to "impeccable" evidence provided by Germans.
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
Re:
On the post: Some Good Court Rulings Against Copyright Trolls... And One Bad Ruling
I'm joking - I'm not seeking neither fame or money, and I'm happy that these cases receive so much needed publicity - TechDirt has a bit wider audience than my blog :)
On the post: Court Rejects Liberty Media's Attempt To Say NY Defendant Can Be Sued In California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Rejects Liberty Media's Attempt To Say NY Defendant Can Be Sued In California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You analogy won't fly either: if the cop pockets (or gets a cut) the money in question, than yes, it's shakedown, extortion, racket, name it...
One more surprise: I'm not a "pirate" and was caught in the middle of this fraud thanks to the "quality" of the evidence, so shut up. Saying that, I found myself more sympathetic to pirates, their ideas and views on copyright than to those righteous, heartless, cruel, greedy, double-faced and cynical attorneys.
On the post: Court Rejects Liberty Media's Attempt To Say NY Defendant Can Be Sued In California
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Rejects Liberty Media's Attempt To Say NY Defendant Can Be Sued In California
On the post: Court Rejects Liberty Media's Attempt To Say NY Defendant Can Be Sued In California
Re:
A bit of elaboration on P.S. I maintain a list of twitting copyright trolls. In twitter, the only way to be excluded from another person's list is to block that person from following. That was the actual reason why he blocked me. Otherwise blocking does not make much sense: I still can see all his tweets, I still can mention and reply.
Randazza, a self-proclaimed First Amendment fighter, used a technicality to stifle my free speech. Isn't it ironic to say the least?
On the post: Hurt Locker File Sharing Lawsuit Lists Hockey Stadium IP Address
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Fines
It's not a joke.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Common sense.... So damned rare, it's now a superhuman power
Suing a random person in a chain of events is like pulling a random car from a mile-long highway pile-up. Sure that car contributed to the collision by not holding an appropriate distance. So fine that driver.. ok, not fine, but make him pay for all other collided car repairs.
Next >>