[2017 UPDATE: Carl Crowell has created a new entity called RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT which has reverse-engineered CEG-TEK’s proprietary DMCA copyright infringement notice system. Many of you have visited CEG-TEK links thinking that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was CEG-TEK, but really they are an ‘evil twin’ competitor. Since the two entities operate almost the same way, this article is relevant. Once thing to note. The “you didn’t settle” letters that Marvin asked for here will no doubt be copied by Crowell.]
Back in November 2012, I wrote an article about CEG-TEK’s CopyrightSettlements.com web site “crashes” where following a failed settlement transaction (purposeful or not), accused infringers received letters essentially saying, “[B]ecause you have decided not to settle, we will be moving forward against you in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Please pay us $3,500 or else we will sue you.” These letters were apparently sent from Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK), a software brainchild of Ira Siegel.
Now it appears that CEG-TEK is “stepping up” their game again, and more letters are being sent out, but this time from CEG-TEK’s local counsel, Marvin Cable. What is particularly concerning is that this letter appears to be sent out to:
1) ANYONE WHO CALLED IN TO CEG-TEK, BUT DID NOT SETTLE (they are scouring the CALLER-ID RECORDS and matching them with publicly available contact information), and
2) ANYONE WHO ENTERED THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION ON THEIR WEBSITE (e.g., to process their credit card payment), but the website “crashed,”
3) ANYONE WHO LEFT “BREADCRUMBS” WHEN INTERACTING WITH THEM, BUT DID NOT SETTLE.
NOTE: I have personally heard reports of 1) and 2), but 3) is a catchall for items I have not yet heard about, but expect that they are doing.
In sum, as I suspected when the Six Strikes System was put into place, with the big ISPs no longer forwarding their “$200 per title” settlement letters, their settlement stream of cash has started to run dry. As such, their production studio clients are forcing them to do whatever they can to “monetize” their clients IP (here, scrubbing the voicemail records, the caller ID records, and website tracking records, and putting names to those traces left by accused internet users), or else sue. In order to keep these clients, we see examples of letters such as this one:
Just to be clear, for a long time, when people ask “Should I settle or ignore CEG-TEK’s DMCA letters? What are my chances of being sued if I ignore?” I have been telling people that they could do either, and I laid out the factors to consider. I am still of this opinion, namely that 1) Neither Ira Siegel, Terik Hashmi, Marvin Cable, or Mike Meier have sued anyone in MANY MONTHS (since July, 2012 to be exact), and 2) the purpose of their CopyrightSettlements.com website was to convince production companies that it is easier for them to sign on with CEG-TEK and run a settlement “IP monetization” campaign, rather than to sue everyone in a copyright infringement lawsuit. I assume they are still trying to salvage this system, especially with the renewed efforts to find those who have not settled.
And as always, if you haven’t read my previous articles on the topic, I am still getting reports of website transactions not working (website “crashes,” failed transactions), and so once again, be smart and protect your contact information. Know that when you visit a website, unless you are using Tor or you subscribe to a private VPN, you share with that website your IP address, and when you call Copyright Enforcement Group’s phone number to inquire about your matter, you leak your phone number which can easily be cross-referenced back to you.
In other words, be careful with your information, and the “breadcrumbs” you leave when you conduct your daily life. These breadcrumbs can be traced back to you, and next thing you know, you’ll be on the phone with me asking how to defend a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against you and 200 other Doe Defendants.
— 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.
A number of interested readers have wondered what my opinion was about Monday’s sanctions hearing against Prenda Law Inc., Brett Gibbs, John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and the others [Case Cite: Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, Case No. 2:12-cv-08333, in the California District Court (Case Documents “Recap’d” here)]. Quite frankly, I read the #Prenda Twitter stream throughout the day just as many of you did.
Up front, there were some pretty good articles on the event, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing substantive that I can add to what has already been written. I advise anyone affected by the AF Holdings, LLC cases (or any of Prenda Law Inc.’s so-called “trusts”) to read the following articles:
In sum, it is my opinion that whatever the result, there was a lesson taught — that copyright trolls are not “above the law,” so to speak. As far as the effect of Monday’s hearing, we will not know the effect until we read Judge Wright’s order (which we do not expect to see for a few days). However, as for the applicability, the ruling will apply nationwide, and no doubt every court which hears their cases will probably receive a copy of the order.
There is a lot of mention of “trusts” when it comes to the Steele|Hansmeier organization. I have a “love-hate” relationships with trusts. They form a wonderful legal alter-ego function when it comes to protecting assets and benefiting third party beneficiaries. However, in scenarios like this, I believe they are tools to break the law and hide from responsibility. The problem here is that I’m not so sure Steele and Co. could pull off having a trust without it being broken by the courts.
From what I have read, it is my opinion that there is too much involvement in the trust by all parties, and putting it simply, keeping the classic definition and rules of a trust, I’m not sure they’ve done it in a way which could withstand scrutiny. For example, I’m not sure who the grantor is, who the grantee (receiver of assets) is, and for which beneficiary or purpose was the trust formed. Are there any documents relating to the formation of the trust? Are there any filings anywhere relating to the trust? Also, who is the trustee who is in charge of directing and managing the funds of the trust? I would be worried of the parties mishandling the movement of the funds (the trust assets), and this is where they may get busted for playing the trust game… not to mention that I hear that nobody has filed taxes on this income and all the members are U.S. citizens? I can’t believe no taxes have been filed or paid, because if not, the IRS would be after them for tax evasion (and I have heard nothing of the sort happening).
As far as the Hansmeier deposition that nobody gets paid and that every lawyer gratuitously works for free without receiving an income, I call BS on that statement. It appears to me that he is playing semantics with the term “income” according to the tax code, and he can get in trouble the way he has maybe misused the term. No lawyer, as wonderful as any of them might be, would work for “no income.” Even Brett Gibbs. I assume there is some foreign trust account set up for each of them into which funds get deposited on a regular basis. And, those “offshore trusts” need to pay taxes just like any other legal entity.
My sadness from Monday’s events stem from the fact that Steel/Hansmeier/Duffy clan staying out of court was a very smart move. By staying as far away from the court as possible, Judge Wright was unable to swear them in, and he was unable to take their [what would likely have been incriminating] testimony. If he sanctions them, if he orders a bench order for their arrest (not likely), or if he does something to them, from a distance [and out of jail], they can easily appeal any order the judge makes, essentially eviscerating any legal authority Judge Wright may show.
I mentioned to a few other lawyers how queasy attorneys get when a judge speaks strong words. However, we all have been watching these cases for almost THREE YEARS NOW (come June), and I have never seen a judge do any damage to a copyright troll. Even Evan Stone, the prolific copyright troll out of Dallas, Texas — for sending subpoenas out before the judge gave authorization to do so, he was only sanctioned $10,000 (essentially one day’s income for Steele, according to Alan Cooper’s testimony, or three of Evan Stone’s settlements).
At the end of the day, unless the result of this hearing is a state bar disciplinary hearing (or more seriously, a criminal investigation if there was indeed “fraud” in the legal sense), and unless some lawyers lose their licenses, there will be no deterrence from Prenda Law Inc. (or any other copyright troll) thinking twice about their actions, and copyright trolling lawsuits will grow exponentially until enough people cry out, “this must be stopped!”
—
UPDATE (3/14/2013):
SJD reports that Judge Wright has ordered the Steele|Hansmeier gang to appear on 3/29/2013 based on “their pecuniary interest and active, albeit clandestine participation in these cases” (emphasis added). He continues that “Not only does [their motion not to appear] lack merit, its eleventh-hour filing exemplifies gamesmanship” (emphasis added). Wow. Further, the judge expanded his inquiry to impose sanctions not only to the original masterminds of these lawsuits, but to the so-called entities who are supposed to be separate and apart from their operation (they’re not). He called Livewire Holdings LLC, and 6881 Forensics, LLC to be present at the hearing. Now if these entities will be represented by the same Steele / Hansmeier / Duffy / Lutz characters (Hansmeier’s deposition already pegged paralegal Lutz as the CEOs of a number of these entities), this will look very bad for them.
NOTE: A commenter referred to this article (or me) as a “buzzkill,” and that got a good laugh out of me. If you knew how much my reporting on these blogs represented how dull I sometimes am in real life, the humor of that comment is pretty on-point. On this note, however, if you read Judge Wright’s order carefully, again, he’s only threatening sanctions. Even if he imposes $1 million dollars in sanctions, I cannot imagine Steele and the others would pay it. After all, they technically don’t “own” that money that is in the various trusts (#sarcasm).
— 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.
Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who have been dismissed from the BASEPROTECT UG, LTD. v. JOHN DOES 1-X (Case No. 2:11-cv-03621) and the CENTURY MEDIA, LTD. v. SWARM AND JOHN DOES 1-944 (Case No. 2:12-cv-03868) cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The politics leading to the dismissal of these cases is quite simple. Each of these cases lagged on for almost TWO YEARS with little progress being made against the hundreds of John Doe Defendants implicated in the lawsuits. After 178 documents were filed with the court in the Baseprotect case (whether they be motions to dismiss defendants who have settled, motions to quash, or administrative motions and/or hearing notes), eventually the case got stale.
On 2/26, Judge Joseph Dickson issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (which is usually indicative of a soon-to-be-dead case) as to why the court should not SEVER AND DISMISS all defendants except for John Doe 1.
In other words, Judge Dickson figured out that the John Doe Defendants in this case — the alleged co-defendants of the “same” bittorrent swarm — had download dates which were spaced so far apart that it was very unlikely that each of the hundreds of defendants participated in the “same swarm and the same time.” In other words, joinder was obviously deficient and the judge was about to break apart the case into a few hundred pieces telling plaintiff attorney Jay McDaniel that he better pay the $350 filing fee for each of the John Doe Defendants and file separate actions, or else he’s dismissing everyone except for John Doe #1. The judge set the hearing date for 4/1.
In sum, McDaniel decided to cut his losses (which if you look at just how many people settled, you would conclude that this case was very profitable for him since its original filing on 6/23/2011), and without even waiting to attend the 4/1 hearing, he dismissed the case in its entirety.
Oh, and while he was at it, he also dismissed the Century Media, Ltd. case that same day.
Once again, congratulations to all who have been dismissed from these cases.
— 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.
Obviously nobody wants to drag anyone into any lawsuit, but as a strategy — even months later — I still think the “double tap” is still a very good strategy, and at the very least, it is certainly fun to think about.
So revisiting the strategy, I visited my own blog and re-read the article from back in October. While reading, I noticed the “Like” button and instinctively clicked it (social engineering). Moments later, I received the following e-mail from WordPress.
double-tap joinder strategy for named defendants
LOL. Sorry if you thought I was going somewhere with this post. 😉
— 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.
Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.
To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Siterip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.
MALIBU MEDIA ASKING FOR UNUSUALLY HIGH SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS
Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.
MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS SUE ONLY ONE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT
While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.
WHO ARE MALIBU MEDIA’S ATTORNEYS IN EACH STATE?
Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.
MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES
Illinois Central District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)
Wisconsin Eastern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)
Indiana Northern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)
District Of Columbia District Court Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)
FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES
New Jersey District Court Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)
Wisconsin Eastern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)
California Southern District Court Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)
Florida Middle District Court M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)
Florida Southern District Court M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)
Colorado District Court Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
Maryland District Court Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)
Illinois Central District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)
Illinois Northern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888) Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)
Michigan Western District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)
Indiana Southern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)
Indiana Northern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)
Colorado District Court Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)
P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.
What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?
[2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms. 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.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. GOT IT
