Choose authentic content. Avoid settlement factory websites.

Picture suggesting settlement factory websites are faked.

It just occurred to me that some settlement factory websites are not written to educate you, but rather to lure you in to click on that law firm’s webpage or blog.

Obviously every business writes a website to grow their business — law firms (including mine) are no different. However, I have been well aware that some of us attorneys write useful content for the purpose of educating you — the accused defendant. Other attorneys just write contentless keyword-spammed articles which are written to show up at the top of search engines.

"68 John Doe Defendants Sued in Florida."
"23 John Doe Defendants Sued in California."
...and so on.

In this article, I explain why I think these content-less websites are settlement factory websites meant only to lure you in.

Photo of man fleeing the scene.
Source: Pixabay.com by Candid_Shots

We are changing the structure of our websites.

We have been doing “spring cleaning” of the TorrentLawyer blog these past few weeks; I am not sure you have noticed. Most of the changes are “under the hood” — I’ve been re-categorizing older content, and updating useful information with today’s lawsuits so that our content is more orderly… for myself and for you.

In the coming weeks, I will hopefully be updating the structure of the pages themselves so that they are more readable (my articles typically have been horribly content-laden – an older employee once told me that “reading my articles was like walking through mud”). I hope to fix that shortly.

I researched and wrote every one of my articles.

This blog has hundreds of articles that I (Rob Cashman, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) personally researched, wrote, and edited. I researched and wrote each article myself. I have never hired someone to write my articles for me, nor do I think doing so is authentic or honest.

We started this blog to bring clarity to a new area of law.

I am not a journalist, I am an attorney. However, in 2010 (now ten years ago), I decided that someone should write about the growing number of mass-bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits. Even the other attorneys did not understand at the time how intellectual property laws and copyright laws applied to someone accused of downloading music and movies (ugh, now adult films). So I created this blog to hash out those topics.

Picture suggesting the ghostwriting of blogged content.
pedrofigueras / Pixabay

Copyright Trolls, a pimple sprouted from patent trolls.

We called these companies who file these lawsuits “copyright trolls” after patent trolls who purchase the rights to certain patents for the purpose of extorting others for hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars. You can read up on these topics on an older blog called “Cashman IP.”

Now defense attorneys betray their clients.

Now we are ten years later, and the number lawsuits have grown exponentially, but so too, the number of attorneys claiming to “defend John Doe Defendants against the copyright trolls” have grown exponentially as well.

Misinformation floods attorney blogs like blood.

These attorneys pump out “bad information” on their websites, often suggesting motions to quash, or suggesting that John Doe Defendants immediately settle when these two options mask better, more practical approaches.

But some attorneys appear to have read my articles (and other articles on the web, of course), but they forgot to look up the actual law, and so they grossly misinform accused defendants when they try to get them to sign on as clients. One such attorney [who to my horror is actually at the top of search engines now] knew nothing about copyright law or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and on many occasions referred to copyright infringement lawsuits as “criminal lawsuits” (you know, where if you are found guilty you go to jail…?!?)

Calling a copyright case a “criminal” case is criminal.

I am obviously nobody’s police man, but on a few occasions, I had to physically yell at this attorney to learn the law he is practicing and stop telling John Doe Defendants that copyright infringement cases ARE NOT CRIMINAL CASES. THEY ARE CIVIL CASES FOR MONEY DAMAGES.

…This guy too has a website and a blog, and he pays Google AdWords for you to visit his website. This (he, and attorneys like him) is why there is so much conflicting information on the internet about these cases.

BIG difference between copying and theft.

I always thought that some of these newer attorneys were simply “standing on the shoulders of others.” But the fighting between these attorneys is simply terrible.

When my research shows up on another attorney’s blog…

Some defense attorneys copy each other’s websites (try to copy-and-paste content from this blog; I have actually needed to disable the ability to copy content from my website).

Why? Because my research and experience shows up on their pages, as do case number lists of who was sued in which court, along with other content that I spend time researching.

I have tested this by making “errors” in the case numbers or title of who the “John Doe subscriber accused IP Address …” was, and I have seen them “lifted” and pasted into other attorneys’ lists and blogs.

I encourage healthy competition (and even encourage it), but when what I write ends up on another attorneys website, it is rant-worthy (FYI, it is copyright infringement too, as funny as that is considering what we do).

When what I tell potential clients in phone consultations is copied word-for-word…

In addition to copying each other’s written content, and some attorneys lack the originality to simply talk to a potential client about his/her circumstances. This is because the defense attorney hires inexperienced attorneys (or, non-attorneys they make you think are attorneys) to take their phone consultations for them. These extra bodies read the same “scripts” to potential clients, often pushing the client to settle or file a motion to quash, etc.

I too say the same thing (or cover similar topics) each time I speak to a client, e.g., I walk them through the options once they are sued, the probable outcomes of each option, etc. But my conversations are based on MY experience based on MY knowledge from the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cases I have represented accused defendants. Too often, newer attorneys just read scripts, and these “scripts” were copied from other attorneys in their phone consultations.

I sometimes chuckle when I ask potential clients (e.g., when there is a red flag) show me that they are an actual defendant in a lawsuit in order to take their phone consultation. This is silly, but too often, I have had my law firm’s methodologies and things I literally tell clients — statistics and facts only I would know based on my years of experience — copied by other attorneys (or their newly hired attorneys), word-for-word. I know this because I am often not the first attorney someone speaks to when they speak to me, and I often ask what they were told prior to speaking to me.

I still believe having defense attorneys in each state benefits defendants.

I always thought that it was a good idea that defense attorneys too should be located in every state in which the copyright trolls were suing defendants. The whole idea of “one attorney in one state representing every defendant from every state” smelled.

When one attorney represents all clients from every state (as we saw with hindsight in the settlement factory attorneys, below), too much power concentrated in too few attorneys.

This scenario invited collusion between the plaintiff attorney and the defense attorney. It suggested to me that if one attorney is handling each and every case in every settlement (or every lawsuit), the defense attorney will not fight hard for their client and will come to malpractice by not properly representing them.

Settlement Factory Attorneys born in a cottage industry.

I was right, and for years, I have called out settlement factories and their tactics because their attempts to “cut corners” deprives the accused defendant of proper attorney representation.

From these mass-bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits was born the “settlement factory” attorney. This is a quantity-based law firm represents clients in a boilerplate fashion. Call it a “discount” law firm because they represent everyone the same way (although I many times objected to them charging a flat rate fee of $2,500 for what amounted to less than $2,500 worth of work).

Feel secure in the hard-earned money you are paying your attorney.

The logic was that if a “settlement factory” discount attorney is billing $300/hour, and his “streamlined” settlement negotiation takes him only five hours of time, then he should only bill you $1,500 (= 5 hours x $300/hour), not $2,500. So like so many other “scams” affiliated with settlement factories, even the amount they bill does not match the amount of work they do for a client.

Refocusing this article back to settlement factory websites not written by the attorneys who host them.

I have written many articles in the past about settlement factories, but to my surprise, now their settlement factory websites are yet one more scam. These same attorneys plaster the search engines and YouTube sites with ads and pay-per-click links to bring traffic (you) to their websites.

You click, they pay Google AdWords for you to visit their devoid-of-content site.

If you only knew how much these same attorneys pay per click (you can look them up on https://www.semrush.com), you would be absolutely floored! Type in “Strike 3 Holdings subpoena” [or the attorney websites who show up in the Google Paid Results to these searches] into SEMrush and you will be horrified if you learned that ONE PARTICULAR ATTORNEY regularly pays $60.00 PER CLICK in their Google AdWords campaigns.

If I told you that more than one attorney is also paying these crazy fees (rather than writing authentic, real content), you would be horrified and betrayed by these attorneys who fight for your click-juice. [For context, if they were paying $3/click, I wouldn’t balk. And, I have run Google AdWord campaigns in the past and would again in the future, but holy smokes!]

I would never pay $60 to have someone click on my site. They do, and this should concern you.

So, I am out of time once again, and I need to get back to work. With a chuckle, I wrote this quick article calling these guys out on their websites and their ghost-blogged content.

In sum: I always thought that a certain handful of bittorrent defense attorneys post repeating content that was so devoid of content (after all, how much can you write about the same thing?).

What I did not notice was that the articles these attorneys churn out might not have been written by those attorneys at all.

-Rob

P.S. – I wouldn’t be surprised if these same attorneys started panicking and writing “I’m authentic, I write my own content” articles over the coming days and weeks. It is usually the ones that jump who are actually guilty of the thing I have just pointed them out for.

Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys and their personalities.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Why knowing which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys are filing the lawsuit against you is relevant to your case.

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys work together as cogs in a wheel to run what our Cashman Law Firm LLC calls a “quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme.” As far as the public is concerned, each Strike 3 Holdings attorney appears to work independently and appears to have autonomy to make decisions on how to run the copyright infringement cases federal court cases. However, based on my observations, there are attorneys who have authority to direct their own cases, and there are attorneys who appear to read scripts to accused defendants and file boilerplate documents in the federal courts when moving their cookie-cutter lawsuits against hundreds of John Doe defendants through the federal court system.

strike-3-holdings-attorneys-personalities Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys Personality
3dman_eu / Pixabay

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys come in two flavors.

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys appear to come in two flavors:

“Bosses”: There are Strike 3 Holdings attorney “bosses” (which are attorneys who have been running the settlement extortion scheme and the lawsuits for years now).

“Underlings”: There are Strike 3 Holdings attorneys which are “underlings” (which are newer attorneys who have been hired by Strike 3 to be a “warm body” in a federal court.

While I understand that in all cases, the more experienced Strike 3 attorneys appear to control the lawsuits, albeit “in the shadows.” I wrote about this in the article, “Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys in Miami-Dade County, Florida Have a ‘Behind the Scenes Shadow'” article in January, 2020).

The former “boss” of all of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys was Lincoln Bandlow.

For many years, Lincoln Bandlow (formerly of Fox Rothschild LLP) ran each and every Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit filed across the US. I understand that his network used to be separated into “teams” of attorneys, although which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys were on what “team” remains unknown to me.

My best guess is that each team was presumably separated by region — each geographic area of the US had a different “team”; although I would not be shocked if the “teams” were separated by hierarchy (like a pyramid). This way, those with decision-making power would be on one team, and those “underlings” who are merely reading scripts and following orders are in another team.

Why I think Strike 3 Holdings LLC now has multiple bosses.

Interestingly enough, as of May, 2019, I no longer think that there is one “boss” or “kingpin” running all of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits, but TWO. In May, 2019, I started to notice that the wrong Strike 3 Holdings attorneys were listed on the various court filings across the US. One of their Strike 3 Holdings attorneys would be listed as the attorney-of-record, but another attorney would be the one handling the case.

What was more interesting is that while Lincoln Bandlow [originally] was running everything, I noticed that a growing select number of attorneys [like Jacqueline James (Jackie James)] exerted authority over their cases in the form of making on-the-spot decisions where in the past, they would need to always “consult their client” and get back to me (meaning, they would check with Lincoln to get his authority or permission to agree to something I was pushing for a particular client of mine).

I noticed the same thing with John Atkin, who first worked for Fox Rothschild LLP (apparently as an “underling”) handling their New Jersey cases. But then, John Atkin left Fox Rothschild LLP and formed his own law firm, “The Atkin Firm, LLC.” That same day, based on my interactions with him, he began to manage his cases as if he were a “boss,” making decisions on-the-spot and deciding the direction of his own cases.

I discussed this shake-up of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in an article that even one year later is still an interesting read because the players are still the same people.

I created this page so that you can look up the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys who sued you so that you can know their personality.

For now, I am creating this page with the intention of identifying which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys are operating in which states, so that [over time; I will edit this page again with updates] you will be able to come back here and look up the attorney who sued you in your home state’s federal court.

A Quick Note About Strike 3 Holdings State-Based Lawsuits (and why I think they will be filing in Arizona next).

NOTEWORTHY SIDE COMMENT: Since 2019, Strike 3 Holdings attorneys have also been suing defendants in state and county courts, such as the Miami-Dade County, Florida court. These lawsuits are NOT copyright infringement lawsuits, and no claims are asserted against each John Doe Defendant implicated in their lawsuits. However, because the threat is that “we will identify the accused infringer and sue him or her in the federal court in which he lives,” (my quote referring to them, not their actual words), these state-based Bill of Discovery lawsuits are concerning because they expose each possible defendant to Strike 3 Holdings and their forced-settlement extortion scheme.

This is not the first time a copyright troll such as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC tried this tactic of suing defendants in state courts under that state’s Bill of Discovery laws. Other former prolific copyright trolls have sued defendants in Maricopa County, Arizona as well as Miami-Dade, FL. [Arizona is where Strike 3 will probably be going next once they exhaust the “Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery” lawsuit campaign they have been running since late 2019].

List of Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys by State

Here is a list of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys for each state in which they are currently suing defendants:

Miami-Dade County, Florida
There are two known Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in Miami-Dade, Florida. Rachel Walker, and Tyler Mamone. In January, 2020, I wrote that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone were not the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys with apparent authority to decide the fate of each accused John Doe defendant, but rather, Lincoln Bandlow was the one apparently running the cases behind the scenes.

More recently, it appears to me as if these Strike 3 Holdings attorneys *are* running the Miami-Dade, Florida cases, but where a defendant lives in a different location, e.g., they live in New York or Connecticut where Jackie James is “in charge” of that region, the case is handed off to Jackie James, and so on.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the currently open Miami-Dade County Strike 3 Holdings cases:

Local Case Numbers (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

California
California Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Lincoln Bandlow of Bandlow Law.

As you have read above, Lincoln Bandlow used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP, where he ran all of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and their cases across the US. But since the shake-up May, 2019, he left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm.

I still think that Lincoln is behind the scenes running each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed across the US, but I no longer think he has sole authority and decision-making power. I believe that John Atkin (NJ) and Jackie James (NY/CT) also have similar power and authority.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings California cases:

CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 107.184.92.94 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07421)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 172.89.57.72 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01520)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.173.206.190 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07416)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.118.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06262
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.164.4 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06261)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.87.197.120 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01393)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.76.115 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06260)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 137.25.32.101 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06808)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.185.19.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06807)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.236.62 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04710)
v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04709)
v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 4:20-cv-04709)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05221)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05220)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05220)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05221)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

*[NOTE TO SELF: “Is there a difference between a “John Doe Subscriber” and a “John Doe infringer? No, but the title of being accused as “John Doe infringer” is funny, and here is why.]

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

…Interestingly, not much going on in the California Southern District Court.

Connecticut
Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.

Jacqueline James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York federal courts.

I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in the hierarchy.

Jaqueline James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day she stopped filing for them.

It is important to note that Jackie James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.

It was only later that [I presume] Strike 3 Holdings contacted her and asked her to file copyright infringement lawsuits on their behalf.

Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the Strike 3 Holdings federal court lawsuits filed in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.

When negotiating cases, Jackie James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on settlement prices, but she is a tough in her approach.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases:

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:20-cv-01157, 3:20-cv-00961, and 3:20-cv-00960)

…These are newer cases, and the judge has not yet been assigned for these. I’m guessing Jackie James will be the plaintiff attorney in each of these.

UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.

New Jersey
New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by John Atkin of The Atkin Firm, LLC.

John Atkin used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP in New Jersey. John Atkin was the only one of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys handling all of the New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings filings, however, at the time in which he was with Fox Rothschild, LLP, I did not get the sense that he had authority to negotiate the cases himself. Rather, it appeared as if he was local counsel filing cases for Lincoln Bandlow.

That changed in/around May, 2019. As you have read above, in my observation, John Atkin overthrew Lincoln Bandlow’s authority and carved out autonomy for himself among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in the hierarchy. By May, 2019, he already left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm. I learned about this when I started seeing “The Atkin Firm, LLC” on the cases in which I was representing clients rather than Fox Rothschild, LLP.

I still think that Lincoln might still be the “boss” of the various Strike 3 Holdings attorneys across the US along with the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, but it appears to me as if John Atkin is working on his own (maybe as a co-equal boss with Lincoln Bandlow and/or Jackie James), with sole authority and decision-making power over his cases.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey cases:

NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.30.49 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10208)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.99.44 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10206)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.216.227 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10205)

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.217.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10207)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.129.28 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10201)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.44.2 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10198)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.166.25 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10202)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.66.59 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10199)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.41.90 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10223)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.185.130 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10222)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.108.155 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10217)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.204.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10224)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.127.201.146 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10228)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.39.170 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10226)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.78.195 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10225)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.138 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10229)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

*NOTES TO SELF: There are TWO IMPORTANT reasons why Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is putting so much money into filing lawsuits in New Jersey:

1) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC almost lost New Jersey as a state in which they would be allowed by the federal court to sue defendants (for lawyers, it was bad case law). For a short while, judges stood up to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and stopped them from being allowed to send subpoenas to ISPs to force the ISPs to hand over the subscriber information to them.

Apparently Strike 3 won that battle, so now they are taking advantage of that “WIN” and suing many defendants in New Jersey.

2) The plaintiff attorney for each of these New Jersey cases is John Atkin of the Atkin Firm, LLC. There is a history WHY John Atkin is important to New Jersey, and that history is uncovered by understanding WHAT HAPPENED with the shake-up of attorneys last year.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

New York
New York Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.

Just as I described in the “Connecticut” section, Jackie James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York federal courts.

I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in their hierarchy.

Jackie James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day she stopped filing for them.

It is important to note that Jacqueline James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.

It was only later that [I presume] Strike 3 Holdings contacted her and asked her to file copyright infringement lawsuits on their behalf. Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the Strike 3 Holdings federal court lawsuits filed in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.

When negotiating cases, Jacqueline James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on settlement prices, but she is a tough in her approach.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New York cases:

NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

New York Eastern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:20-cv-03660, 2:20-cv-03654, 2:20-cv-03657, 2:20-cv-03653, 2:20-cv-03646, 2:20-cv-03659, 2:20-cv-03655, 2:20-cv-03648, 2:20-cv-03649, 2:20-cv-03658, 2:20-cv-03647, 2:20-cv-03651, 2:20-cv-03650, 2:20-cv-03656, and 2:20-cv-03399.)

New York Southern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-06030, and 1:20-cv-05425.)

New York Western District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01081, 1:20-cv-01079, 1:20-cv-01084, 1:20-cv-01083, 1:20-cv-01082, 1:20-cv-01085, 1:20-cv-01080, and 6:20-cv-06505.)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.

Maryland
Maryland Strike 3 Holdings cases used to be run by Jessica Haire of Fox Rothschild, LLP, but more recently, they are run by Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC.

Let’s cover Jessica Haire first.

Pre-May, 2019.

The first time I spoke to Jessica Haire was in March, 2018. She and Lincoln Bandlow were colleagues at Fox Rothschild, LLP and were working together on managing the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases. At the time, whenever I would message Lincoln Bandlow, Jessica Haire would often respond back to me on his behalf.

It is interesting to note, however, that when Lincoln Bandlow left Fox Rothschild, LLP, Jessica Haire continued to work for them. I believe she is still working for them today.

Post-May, 2019:

Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC (“Elsy Velasquez”) is the name of the Strike 3 Holdings attorney who is showing up for the current slew of Strike 3 filings in Maryland District Court. She showed up as a new attorney filing lawsuits for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC [if I recall correctly] shortly after Lincoln Bandlow left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his new law firm.

She works out of Clark Hill PLC, and she works out of their Washington, DC office.

The first time I contacted Elsy Velasquez was in May, 2019 because she was the attorney that was taking over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.

It is important to note that after a hiatus of filings (probably due to the pandemic), Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has put a lot of faith in Elsy Velasquez by allowing her to file many cases on their behalf.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Maryland cases:

MARYLAND STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings Maryland District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe* (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, 8:20-cv-02300, 1:20-cv-02276, 1:20-cv-02271, 1:20-cv-02278, 1:20-cv-02277, 1:20-cv-02279, 1:20-cv-02285, 1:20-cv-02286, 1:20-cv-02284, 1:20-cv-02283, 1:20-cv-02280, 8:20-cv-02287, 8:20-cv-02289, 8:20-cv-02290, 8:20-cv-02291, 8:20-cv-02288, 8:20-cv-02293, 8:20-cv-02292, 8:20-cv-02295, 8:20-cv-02294, 8:20-cv-02296, 8:20-cv-02297, 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, and 8:20-cv-02300)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

*NOTES TO SELF: It is important to note that Strike 3 Holdings appears to be putting A LOT of money and resources into filing lawsuits in Maryland.

…The logic is that each of these defendants has money to pay a large settlement to them, or else they wouldn’t file the lawsuit against them.

Also interesting is that EVERY ONE of these Maryland cases were filed on ONE DAY — AUGUST 6TH, 2020.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jason M. Saruya of Clark Hill PLC.

Jason Saruya of Clark Hill PLC is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in Pennsylvania District Court.

He works for Clark Hill PLC, and he works out of the Philadephia, PA office.

There is not much information about Jason Saruya, but from what I understand, he is a younger attorney, and he is probably working with Elsy Velasquez as his superior, as Elsy Velasquez was the attorney from Clark Hill PLC that took over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania cases:

PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Pennsylvania Middle District Court*

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.55.82.15 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01322)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.130.61.38 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01324)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.58.204.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01323)

[*NOTE TO SELF: It is interesting that they are filing against defendants in the Pennsylvania MIDDLE District Court, and *NOT* in the Pennsylvania EASTERN District Court (where 99% of copyright troll litigation over the years happens there). I do not have a reason why this is the case.]

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Virginia
Virginia Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Dawn Marie Sciarrino of Sciarrino & Shubert, PLLC (more recently, I have found that she is working for Jacqueline James, the Strike 3 Holdings attorney for the NY/CT region).

Dawn Marie Sciarrino is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in the Virginia federal court filings.

MY ORIGINAL WRITE-UP ON DAWN:
Dawn Marie appears to be a partner in her law firm, and she works out of Centreville, VA.

There is not much information about Dawn Marie Sciarrino (even their https://www.sciarrino.com website was down when I tried to reach it).

From what I understand, she has been practicing as an attorney for many years. Her first bar was in New York in 1991, and she has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for the District of Columbia Circut.

What I do not understand is… [with her background, both educational and vocational] why in the world would she take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client? This makes no sense to me.

UPDATED INFORMATION:
Doing further research, I was very surprised to see that Dawn Sciarrino was listed as an attorney in Jackie James’ website.

Understanding Jackie James’ background and her experience, the connection between Jackie and Dawn became clear. They know each other. It was likely Jackie who suggested that Dawn take the Virginia cases because Strike 3 Holdings, LLC needed an attorney to file lawsuits in the Virginia federal courts against those Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings defendants who did not settle the claims against them.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Virginia cases:

VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Virginia Eastern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-00825, 1:20-cv-00823, and 1:20-cv-00824.)

It is now 8/21/2020, 8:30am CDT, and I have written up what I could find on the current list of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed both in Miami-Dade, and in the federal courts. Obviously more cases are filed each day, so I will do what I can to keep it current. Also in this article, I am using a new coding feature (new for me, at least) called Shortcodes. If you notice that something isn’t working on the page, or that I broke the code, please e-mail me at [email protected].


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the varioius Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and my experiences with them, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can send a SMS / WhatsApp message to us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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.

Secret Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amount and Methods of Achieving Settlements.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amounts – How much is an average settlement?

Strike 3 Holdings settlement amounts vary greatly from one defendant to another based on 1) how many titles that defendant allegedly downloaded, and 2) how much MONEY Strike 3 Holdings believes they can get from that accused defendant. How Strike 3 tries to achieve a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount from each accused defendant and remain profitable is the subject of this article.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, a quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme threatens accused John Doe Defendants with $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court if the accused defendant does not come to an agreement to settle the claims against them.

Strike 3 Holdings settlement amounts range from $750/title allegedly downloaded or unlawfully copied (also known as “minimum statutory damages”), all the way to $500/title… sometimes $300/title, or less. A typical Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount would be $13,000 (which comes out to be $500/title x 26 titles <– the national average of how many titles each accused defendant generally downloads before they a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount is solicited from them).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

However, I have seen a Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost as high as $30,000-$40,000 (e.g., for cases where the accused downloader has downloaded 100+ titles). To be clear: just because Strike 3 Holdings might ask for a $40,000 settlement does not mean they will get it. Really, they need to sue a John Doe Defendant who can actually afford to pay such a settlement.

[Just so that I do not scare you, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost is often just a few thousand dollars because this is literally all my client can come up with. This is where the settlement extortion scheme game is played.]

Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amounts | strike-3-holdings-settlement-amount-and-methods
A Strike 3 Holdings Settlement cost can be tens of thousands of dollars, but if the client does not have that kind of money, they could settle with what they have in their bank account, even if it is much less.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

The Strike 3 Holdings Settlement “Extortion Scheme” Explained

STEP 1: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS FILES A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT.

For years, Strike 3 Holdings settlements used to be reached after they paid a $400 filing fee to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court against ONLY ONE John Doe Defendant.

The lawsuit would be filed in the federal court where the defendant lives (they can determine in which state and in which federal court to file the lawsuit based on the IP address).

They file the lawsuit claiming copyright infringement because the law gives the copyright holder $150,000 in damages [per instance of infringement] for the unlawful copying of their copyrighted films. The copyright laws are federal laws – states cannot pass their own copyright laws. This is why the lawsuits eventually need to be filed in federal courts.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Why would Strike 3 Holdings pay a $400 filing fee without yet knowing the identity of the accused downloader?

This was literally they was it was done. Strike 3 Holdings cannot achieve a multi-thousand-dollar settlement (or any settlement) without first knowing who the downloader is. But to obtain the identity of the accused downloader, they need to file a copyright infringement lawsuit and then they need to convince the judge to allow them to send a subpoena to the ISP to force them to reveal the account holder’s identity. Only then can they ask for a settlement from someone.

Does it make sense to pay a $400 filing fee to a federal court to sue someone without knowing whether they will settle?

The economics of Strike 3 Holdings’ scheme are interesting too. Think of it — a Strike 3 Holdings settlement costs them a $400 filing fee for the expectation that the defendant they sue in the federal court will hire an attorney and will pay Strike 3 Holdings a settlement many, many times more than the $400 filing fee they paid to sue that defendant.

But, Strike 3 Holdings LLC file the lawsuits BLINDLY — they do not know who the defendant is when they file the lawsuits and pay the $400 filing fee. So how do they know who to sue and who not to sue?

My understanding is that they decide who to sue by geolocating the IP address to determine statistically which accused downloaders live in a location where the residents of that area have money. They decide to sue those defendants based on the demographics of everyone else who lived there in that town, zip code, or area.

But really, it is a money game. File one lawsuit, pay $400. File one hundred lawsuits against John Doe Defendants, pay $40,000 (hoping that they will profit at least that much in settlements yielded from their lawsuit campaign).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are filed to obtain settlements.

It makes financial sense that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC files these lawsuits for the sole purpose of obtaining the identity of each accused defendant so that they could solicit a settlement from each one of them.

(Obviously, Strike 3 will disagree and will claim that they file the copyright infringement lawsuits to protect the copyright rights provided to them by the law, whether or not that leads to a settlement. They will also claim that they only sue those who actually do the downloads.] Either way, practically, Strike 3 Holdings wants a settlement in the form of a settlement check.

However, the checks do not come rolling in — they need to first FILE THE LAWSUIT against an internet user who actually downloaded their client’s copyrighted titles, and they need to determine whether that defendant can actually pay a settlement (so that they can decide whether to proceed with the lawsuit or move on to other defendants who can pay a settlement). To do this, they need to figure out who they are suing.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

STEP 2: FIGURE OUT WHO THEY JUST SUED BY SENDING A SUBPOENA TO THE ISP ASKING THEM TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER (who presumably did the download).

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC first seeks to determine the identity of the accused John Doe Defendant. They achieve this by sending a subpoena (with the court’s permission) to reveal the identity [and often the address] of the account holder who was assigned the IP address at the date and time Strike 3 Holdings’ “investigators” monitored and observed the accused defendant’s account uploading, downloading, and/or streaming their copyrighted adult films using bittorrent.

Once Strike 3 Holdings LLC obtains the accused John Doe Defendant’s account information, they feed their name and address into a “magic blackbox” to do a search on who that defendant is. Why? They do this do determine whether or not the defendant has MONEY.

[While I have spent quite a bit of time going into the details of software they use to look up each defendant, really between us, I wouldn’t be surprised if their super-secret-so-called-“research” was really a search of the account holder’s address on Zillow.com to find out how much the property they are living in is worth, and to see a picture of the neighborhood that they are living in. Well, that, and a quick Facebook, LinkedIn or Instagram search of the accused John Doe Defendant to see 1) what he does for a living (Strike 3 Defendants are generally male), 2) whether he is employed, and 3) whether there are any suggestions that he has MONEY.]

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

STEP 3: SOLICIT A SETTLEMENT FROM EACH DEFENDANT, RINSE, AND REPEAT.

There is not much to say here. Once Strike 3 Holdings LLC learns the identity of the account holder AND they determine that he likely has money to pay a settlement for the copyrighted titles he allegedly downloaded, they try to settle the claims against that defendant.

Very often, this is where Strike 3 Holdings, LLC makes a mistake. They’ll sue a defendant who did not download their copyrighted films (which means that defendant should NOT pay a settlement), or they sue a defendant who cannot afford to settle the claims against them.

Alternatively, the timing of the lawsuit could cause Strike 3 Holdings, LLC settlement costs to be too high. This can result in cashflow problems, where the money they pay out is less than the money they have coming in.

Filing so many cases at the same time, each case against one defendant, the numbers can go against them very quickly, making their entire campaign unprofitable.

This is where the Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery cases came in.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

How the Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings cases solved their cashflow problem.

In the Miami-Dade County Court, Strike 3 Holdings devised a way to unmask the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants without needing to sue each defendant in Federal Court. They did this by exploiting the Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” laws, which allow Strike 3 Holdings to send subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the identity of the accused John Doe Defendants… without needing to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in the federal courts.

In other words, Strike 3 Holdings was able to pack HUNDREDS OF DEFENDANTS INTO EACH CASE (essentially paying a $300 filing fee to “sue” hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit). Then they would review each of the hundreds of accused defendants in each Florida Bill of Discovery lawsuit to determine whether they have MONEY using their “magic blackbox.”

Then, if they cannot get a settlement from that accused Miami-Dade, Florida defendant, they file a lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court where that defendant lives.

In sum, instead of paying a $400 filing fee to sue ONE DEFENDANT in federal court without knowing whether he could pay a settlement or not, they first “vet” hundreds of defendants together with a $300 filing fee, and only then [if that defendant does not settle the claims against him], they file the lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Do Strike 3 Holdings actually sue those who do not settle in federal courts?

In short, yes. In February, 2020, I wrote an article asking this very question, and the answer is “yes, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will sue defendants who do not settle the claims against them.”

I revisited this same question just yesterday (8/19/2020), and arrived at the same answer. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is suing those defendants who do not settle the claims against them… if they can pay.

IN SUMMARY

So as you can see, Strike 3 Holdings LLC is running a “well oiled,” quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme. Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost varies greatly based on the number of titles the accused downloader allegedly downloaded, and how much he is able to pay.

The lawsuits are not initially filed in federal courts (where copyright infringement lawsuits belong), but rather, the accused downloaders’ identities are revealed in a Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit. Then, each defendant (once their identity is known) then is vetted to determine whether they have MONEY.

If that defendant does not pay a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount, then Strike 3 Holdings, LLC follows-up with a lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court in the state in which they live.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can send a SMS / WhatsApp message to us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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.

Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Lawsuits are NOT copyright lawsuits.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

MIAMI DADE COUNTY STRIKE 3 CASES SUE TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE DOWNLOADER, NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Strike 3 Holdings LLC is NOT suing defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami Dade County Court in Miami-Dade, Florida. However, they are copying what John Steele of Prenda Law Inc. [now in prison] did with his Lightspeed Media Hacker cases.

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.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

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.

You can read about the Pure Bill of Discovery topic here.

miami-dade-county-strike-3 miami dade county strike 3 holdings scheme
Perlinator / Pixabay

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.

However, apparently these attorneys must have done their research on what John Steele [now in prison], Paul Duffy [now R.I.P.], and Mark Lutz [?] have done in the past, and they must have thought, “why not avoid the federal courts all-together? Let us do exactly what John Steele and his gang did before they were arrested.”

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).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

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.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

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.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

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 (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

State Case Numbers (open cases): 132019CC024647000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC003737000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC005388000005, 132020CC006500000005, 132020CC009493000005, 132020CC009491000005, 132020CC009492000005, 132020CC011499000005, 132020CC011744000005, 132020CC011743000005, 132020CC012478000005, 132020CC014481000005, 132020CC014520000005, 132020CC014518000005, 132020CC016577000005, 132020CC016669000005, 132020CC016660000005.

*8/18/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has put a stop to these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. For reference, below are older cases that have been closed. This might seem like good news, but watch the federal court filings — the John Does from these cases are the ones now being sued in the federal courts across the US.

Local Case Numbers (closed): 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-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, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

State Case Numbers (closed): 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC003063000005, 132020CC003059000005, 132020CC005727000005, 132020CC006503000005, 132020CC006499000005.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

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.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them when Malibu Media LLC used this same tactic, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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.

Skip to content