Welcome to the TorrentLawyer Blog, a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC resource. The purpose of this sticky post is to be simplistic and help you to navigate this site (which has 200+ articles on copyright cases we have worked on since 2010). In short, if you arrived at this site, you are facing one of three paths:
1) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT “JOHN DOE” LAWSUITS
You have been implicated as a “John Doe” defendant in a federal copyright infringement lawsuit (or worse, you have been served as a named defendant in one of these lawsuits).
WHAT TO DO NEXT: Click the “Cases We Are Working On” menu option (above), and select the name of your case and/or movie allegedly downloaded.
To make things easier for you, these are the primary lawsuits we are actively working on:
You received a DMCA notice (“Digital Millennium Copyright Act”) accusing you of downloading one or more copyrighted videos or music songs, and they have demanded a settlement claiming that if you do not pay, they will sue you for copyright infringement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: Click on the “Cases We Are Working On” menu option (above) and select which company has sent you the DMCA Notice:
You are lost, or you do not know where to start. Relax, we are here to help you understand what it is you received from your ISP or in the mail, who sent it, and what is happening to you. Once you have an idea of exactly what is happening, we can then discuss how to respond.
Strike 3 Holdings LLC continues to sieze the names of accused bittorrent users by exploiting Florida’s Bill of Discovery rules in their Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Undisclosed Defendants cases [all filed in the Miami-Dade Florida state court]. On 10/31/2019, I wrote an article explaining that “Strike 3 Holdings is NOT suing miami-dade County defendants for copyright infringement,” and now that new information has come to my attention, you deserve a follow-up article.
News about the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings Cases.
What is new is that Strike 3 plaintiff attorneys Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone are not the ones who are running these cases, at least not behind the scenes. This disproves my initial assertion that the Walker and Mamone (both Florida attorneys) together hatched this brilliant idea of “suing” defendants without actually taking the steps to file copyright infringement lawsuits against each accused bittorrent downloader in federal court.
Why I thought Mamone and Walker “hatched” the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings Scheme.
I initially thought that they read articles (mine or others’), from 2012 about the Lightspeed Media Corp. Hacker cases where John Steele (now in prison) and Lipscomb (the former Malibu Media LLC “boss”) used the Florida Bill of Discovery crooked rules to force the Miami-Dade Florida state court to disclose the names of the account holders. Once the Court forced the ISPs to disclose the identities of the accounts holders (alleged porn “downloaders”), they then proceeded to “shake down” the accused account holders in an elaborate extortion scheme… all without the breath of the Federal Court Judges breathing down the necks of the plaintiff attorneys (to force them to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its safeguards against abuse of accused defendants).
I was sure that these lawsuits provided the seed for their idea (and I am still sure of this, but I was wrong on “who hatched this idea” and who was the “gardener”).
I even went so far as to caution that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone should tread lightly, as many of the other “copyright troll” attorneys who have sued in the Florida Miami-Dade court to expose the names of the ISP account subscribers have put their law licenses in jeopardy… specifically, I am thinking about John Steele, Mark Lutz (a non-lawyer) and the other Prenda Law Inc. partners, many of whom have been jailed.
John Steele of Steele|Hansmeier also used the Florida Pure Bill of Discovery rules in his Lightspeed Media Corp. hacker cases. You can read more about the John Steele story here.
Who actually “hatched” the Strike 3 Holdings Pure Bill of Discovery Scheme.
Apparently the “scheme” to use the Florida Miami-Dade state court and the Florida Bill of Discovery rules came not from attorneys Walker and Mamone, but rather (and juicily interesting), from Emilie Kennedy, the General Counsel for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (and former attorney to Keith Lipscomb, the former “kingpin” of the Malibu Media, LLC cases). Why? Because it was Emilie Kennedy who left Malibu Media LLC to create the Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits some years ago.
If so, then this makes total sense. Emilie Kennedy knew about Malibu Media LLC’s attempts to use the Florida Bill of Discovery crooked laws. She knew that by filing in the Miami-Dade Florida state court, she could completely circumvent the federal courts and the federal judges. Thus in a way, the mystery has been solved.
Who is the “behind the scenes” shadow in the Strike 3 Holdings cases?
Actually, it should say “shadow(s).”
My observations as these cases have unfolded is that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone (the Strike 3 Holdings plaintiff attorneys, on paper) appear not to have authority to negotiate the Miami-Dade Strike 3 cases. Rather, the settlement discussions are being negotiated and handled by Lincoln Bandlow (former Strike 3 Holdings LLC “kingpin”) and surprisingly, John Atkin (Lincoln Bandlow’s rival). It is interesting to me that they are working in tandem, because I was sure that after [what I wrote about Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin here], they were rivals, not buddies.
Together, Bandlow and Atkin each seem to be splitting up and handling the negotiations when a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC defendant chooses to settle the claims against them.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:
At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1
Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, and 2019-024647-CC-05.
State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, and 132019CC024647000005.
*1/23/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed since this article:
NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, and 2019-028410-CC-05.
NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, and 132019CC028410000005.
Now for your own sanity (because I have a tendency to write long articles), I will next write about what defense lawyers have been doing in the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 cases (since Strike 3 Holdings LLC is suing people out of state and the Florida court has no jurisdiction over the so-called “Unknown Infringers.” [Think, “Motion to Quash,”] I will also go over what problems the defense attorneys are causing for their clients as a result of “doing the right procedural move.”
NOTE: In defense to some good attorneys in Florida who I trust (and to whom I have referred a number of clients), the next article is going to attack those who have knowingly lured their clients into a bait-and-switch where the defendant clients thought they were hiring their attorney to fight the case procedurally, but really the defense attorney had in mind to settle the claims. More to come soon…
If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Instead of filing a lawsuit against an accused bittorrent downloader in federal court, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is asking the Miami Dade County Court to reveal the identity of the owners of the accounts from which the downloading allegedly occurred. There is no claim of copyright infringement nor is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asking the court for money damages.
Once Strike 3 Holdings, LLC receives the identity and contact information, Strike 3 will likely then threaten a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court if that defendant does not settle the claims against them by paying them settlement money to the tune of thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.
The Florida-based legal mechanism that Strike 3 Holdings is using is called a Pure Bill of Discovery. I saw these years ago when copyright troll attorneys decided to avoid the federal courts and try to solicit settlements out-of-court under the “threat” that they would file a lawsuit if the defendant did not pay them thousands of dollars.
A Pure Bill of Discovery tells the court, “So-and-so IP address was seen downloading my copyrighted film. I want to see whether the account holder is the downloader so that I can sue him in federal court. Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I can research my claim.” In reality, the request should be “Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I will demand from him thousands of dollars or else I will threaten to sue him.”
I did not like Pure Bills of Discovery then, and I do not like them now. A Pure Bill of Discovery does not protect the identity of the accused defendant from sleazy attorneys using their contact information to extort them for everything they have.
In the Miami Dade County Florida court, the plaintiff attorneys are Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker — both Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorneys who in the past, filed copyright infringement lawsuits against John Doe defendants in federal courts.
I initially thought these attorneys wanted to avoid the $400 filing fee, but Miami Dade County has a $300 filing fee. Thus, my only guess as to what these attorneys are up to is that they must be trying to avoid the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judge’s scrutiny of their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases (to avoid having them ask whether their lawsuits comprise a settlement extortion scheme).
RACHEL WALKER AND TYLER MAMONE, STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS FEDERAL COURT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS.
Here, Strike 3 Holdings is not suing only Florida-based defendants. Rather, they are suing defendants from across the country. This is noteworthy, because it shows that they have chosen FLORIDA because of its laws (and the ability to use the Pure Bill of Discovery to circumvent the federal court discovery rules to obtain the contact information of each accused defendant). This is also called forum shopping.
Rachel Walker and/or Tyler Mamone (the plaintiff attorneys) have asked the court to order that each ISP provide the name and address of the ISP subscriber who was assigned the IP address on the date and time when the alleged instance of copyright infringement occurred. Again, they are not asking for money damages — only subscriber contact information.
Which obscure ISPs have been ordered to share their subscribers’ contact information?
ISPs involved in the Miami-Dade County-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases include:
Condointernet.net, Clarksville Department of Electricity, Hotwire Fision, Webpass, US Internet, Wave Broadband, Sonic.net, Sail Internet, Consolidated Smart Systems LLC, San Bruno Cable, CenturyLink [not so obscure], and others.
Strike 3 Holdings LLC appears to have already succeeded in their Miami Dade County Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.
Accused defendants are now receiving letters from their ISPs (here, obscure ISPs) telling them that the ISP is under a duty to hand over their contact information to the plaintiff attorney.
Here is my thought:If the accused defendants are already receiving letters, it suggests to me that the courts have starting granting the relief asked for by Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone.
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC MIAMI DADE COUNTY PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY TIMELINE.
To date, I count only ten (10) Pure Bill of Discovery lawsuits filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC against “Unknown Infringers Identified on Exhibit 1.”
However, when I looked at the “Exhibit 1” of each lawsuit, I saw potentially hundreds of defendants hidden inside each case.
This means that this could be the start of Miami Dade state-based copyright trolling on a massive scale. The cases were apparently first filed on 9/23/2019 and the most recent filing is this past Tuesday, 10/29. No doubt more cases will follow.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:
At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1
Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, and 2019-024647-CC-05.
State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, and 132019CC024647000005.
*1/23/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed since this article:
NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05
NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005
MY FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT MIAMI DADE PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY CASES.
In sum, this is not the first time I have seen a Pure Bill of Discovery case, and I have dealt with them in the past. I personally think that states that still have this cause of action are backwards and judges should not allow plaintiff attorneys to use these cases to perpetuate a grand settlement extortion scheme.
I also know that Miami Dade County Court is not the only place these Pure Bill of Discovery cases were filed. There are a few select other courts across the US that a Pure Bill of Discovery was attempted, and the results were the same.
In sum, if Strike 3 Holdings is now trying to avoid the federal courts in order to perpetuate their settlement extortion scheme outside of the federal court’s scrutiny, these cases are about to become much dirtier than they already were.
Defendants: Is the threat to sue for copyright infringement a bluff? No.
As far as options on what to do if you receive a notice from your ISP on this lawsuit — an accused defendant is going to face the threat of a federal court copyright infringement lawsuit in their own state’s federal court if they do not settle.
If they call the bluff of the plaintiff attorney and say “come and sue me,” this is not a deterrent to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney will simply sue that individual as a “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [INSERT IP ADDRESS],” then once the lawsuit is filed in the federal court, they will threaten to name and serve the defendant if he does not settle the claims against him.
In sum: “I don’t like these Pure Bill of Discovery cases. I do not like them at all.”
If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Motions to Quash ISP Subpoena Letters, Malibu Media Lawsuits, Rightscorp DMCA Settlement Notices, and Helping John Does.
