SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. SOFTWARE LAWSUITS — “THEY’RE BACK!”
I didn’t want to let this one slide. Remember the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits (where Siemens sued a number of engineers who used their NX software without a license)? Well, in February, 2022, they have filed their newest copyright Infringement lawsuit (this is the TENTH TIME they are suing), this time against 100 John Doe Defendants (here in our own Texas Southern District Court, no less).
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00588), filed in February, 2022.
Over time, the lawsuit progressed, and eventually Siemens dismissed the lawsuit once they realized who they wanted to name and serve in their own lawsuits, and they filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits against companies they discovered were using their software without a license.
WAVE 2
In Wave 2, Siemens filed a similar lawsuit, this time against 100 new defendants. They surprised a number of defendants with settlement numbers of $50,000+ (eventually, we learned that they were settling licenses to their software, and they actually cost that much). This second wave lawsuit “on the books” looked to be a failure because they missed a FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline to name and serve defendants. As a result, they dismissed the entire lawsuit, however, I know that they continued after the dismissal to contact accused defendants (or their attorneys) with the intention of having those accused defendants [now dismissed] purchase a license to cover their use of the Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX software.
WAVES 3-4 (2017 – mid-2018)
In Waves 3-4, Siemens continued to target engineers in their lawsuits. The purpose of these lawsuits was to “legitimize” those who were using their NX software “for profit.” They were more reasonable this time on the settlement amounts (no settlements, just purchase of software licenses), but they allowed the defendant some leeway in determining what software title would best benefit the user, and whether Mach 3 was needed, or whether a lower-cost alternative was an option. Siemens Industry Software Inc. also started to discuss settlement negotiations themselves (e.g., offering money to settle the claims), however, this never materialized.
WAVE 5 (late 2018)
Now in Wave 5, I do not yet know whether these 107 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers. However, at least the lawsuit itself (its intentions, and what to expect) are less of a mystery, as we were able to settle a number of claims in their previous lawsuits through the purchase of a software license.
2022 UPDATE:
WAVES 6-8 (2019-2021):
In Wave 6-8 (2019-2021), Siemens Industry Software Inc. changed their strategy, attempting to streamline the settlement process. In previous cases, those that used the software for personal reasons (e.g., academic, training, 3D printing, designing private home uses, etc.) were considered “tinkerers.” In previous lawsuits, Siemens did not require this group of individuals to obtain a software license.
IN WAVES 6-8, *THIS CHANGED*. Siemens Industry Software Inc. asked most defendants to buy software to legitimize their use. The software did not need to be the same $30,000 NX software they used prior to being sued, but lesser versions with fewer features, or altogether other software packages [at a steep discount] were presented as options.
WAVE 9 (2021) followed the same trends as WAVE 8 (2020). The only difference is that the “tinkerer” category became relevant again. This does not mean that they did NOT ask defendants to purchase a piece of Siemens software (they did); however, their focus appeared to be on the engineers who were using their software in their own businesses for profit.
WAVE 10 (2022):
Now we are in Wave 10 (2022). In this wave, there is one lawsuit which has 100 John Doe Defendants. I do not yet know whether these 100 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers. I suspect that the 100 defendants in the (4:22-cv-00588) case are all new 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.
Because software-based copyright infringement cases are especially concerning the John Doe Defendants who are accused of using pirated software (such as what is going on right now with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 [4:22-cv-00588] case in Texas), I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.
Steps an attorney should take in representing a defendant in a Siemens Industry Software Inc. case.
Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf — specifically with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00588) case:
STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.
Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.
STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.
Siemens Industry Software Inc. likes to research the claims, and they take their time in getting the entire picture before discussing settlement. It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates. And obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims without admitting guilt on your behalf.
STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER A SOFTWARE PURCHASE, A LICENSE, A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).
Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not the case with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. software lawsuits. Rather, it appears as if they are seeking to convert those using unlicensed versions of their software into paying customers. For this reason, once the investigation is completed and claims are discussed, settlement options are discussed as well. This might include purchasing software, paying a settlement, or negotiating a license based on the limited past use of the software.
The “no settlement” option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download. Because Siemens Industry Software Inc. software is expensive (costs can range from a few thousand dollars to over thirty thousand dollars), there is no reason to negotiate a settlement if the accused John Doe Defendant did not download or use the software. Rather, the alternative is to provide proof that the John Doe Defendant is not the individual Siemens Industry Software Inc. is looking for (it is difficult to prove a negative, but it is doable), or to help Siemens Industry Software Inc. come to the realization that the actual software user is the engineer next door running his business from his home.
Obviously if neither side can agree on anything, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.
STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.
Many accused defendants installed the software for educational purposes — to ‘tinker’ with the software, to learn the software, or to become conversant with the software. While the intention of the unlicensed use is noble (e.g., that user would later be working with a licensed version of the software at their workplace or in their business), for the moment, there was folly in their initial use of the software. This is our goal — to have these specifics be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Siemens Industry Software Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.
STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. NEGOTIATE A SOFTWARE LICENSE IF NEEDED OR REQUIRED.
These are two separate steps. The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of Texas contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable. The software license also is full of nuances and words that requires an attorney who knows what terms mean in software licenses (because certain words have meanings in the context of a software license which are contrary to the plain meaning of the word), and who is forceful enough to be willing to argue for terms or clauses which protect the client’s rights. Lastly, the software license should provide the accused John Doe Defendant the right to use the software in the way the accused defendant wants or needs to use the software in the future. It makes no sense to negotiate a limited software license to cover only past use when the defendant is an engineer and will be needing to use the software again in the future.
STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.
This is self explanatory. Siemens Industry Software Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.
STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.
Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.
The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit, the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.
Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.
In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.
ONE LAST THING — I wanted to discuss LEVERAGE. A copyright infringement lawsuit is in federal court, which means that out-of-state attorneys may attempt to solicit clients to engage in settlement negotiations only. However, with a client as large as Siemens Industry Software Inc., especially with the financial backing of the corporation and the millions of dollars they can pour into their lawsuits, it is probably a good idea to retain a local Texas-licensed attorney who can step foot into the courtroom if something goes wrong (and things DO go wrong). The Siemens Industry Software Inc. attorneys can recognize an out-of-state attorney who has little leverage to negotiate versus an in-state attorney who is willing to pull the settlement off of the table and proceed with defending the case if the plaintiff is not being cooperative in resolving the claims against the client. In short, an attorney with leverage will get a better result for his client as compared to an out-of-state attorney without leverage.
— 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.
UPDATE: Our entire TORRENTLAWYER.COM domain is now banned from Bing Search Engines (including all DuckDuckGo searches, and other search engines which pull their content from Bing). We suspect this is because Bing has a new definition of malware — “website content (words) that can harm the reader.”
To confirm this, here is the link that you can use to check whether our TorrentLawyer.com website is on Bing:
Since I noticed the traffic drop to zero from Bing a few weeks ago, I have been in touch with Bing trying to “fix” the problem. At first, I thought it was a WordPress plugin (providing features to our website) which might have been causing a problem.
The Bing Webmaster Platform has provided me hints on why my website was banned.
It was the Bing Webmaster Platform which provided me hints as to what I am horrified to think might be happening.
WE HAVE CHECKED: THERE IS NO MALWARE ON OUR TORRENTLAWYER.COM SITE.
TO BE CLEAR: Our TorrentLawyer.com website has always been very strict with security. We run firewalls, we have security plug-ins, and we pay for the services we use. We regularly run malware scans with multiple companies, and our website has always been free of malware.
I could not understand why the Bing Webmaster Website classified our content as “malware.”
What was confusing to me is that on the Bing Webmaster Website, I could not understand why some of our articles were classified as “malware.” These web pages did NOT have malware.
The way they banned our TORRENTLAWYER.COM domain was that they marked the “/” page as having malware. It does NOT have malware, we have checked, re-checked, and have had other companies recheck.
THERE IS NO MALWARE.
To confirm this yourself, these links have been provided to me by a friend (I’m not sure he wanted me to share his info, so I’m posting the links).
Bing elevated my ticket, and then explained that my TorrentLawyer.com website certainly violates Bing’s guidelines.
As a quick update, after communicating with Bing trying to resolve the problem, they elevated my ticket, and then responded that “our TorrentLawyer.com website certainly violates Bing’s guidelines.”
Now Bing has added most of my articles and pages to be classified as “malware” on their Bing Webmaster platform.
Here is the strange thing. After confronting them on the malware question (again, our website has no malware), the following day, I observed a change of how many more of my pages were classified on their Bing Webmaster Site. Bing classified mostly all of my articles and pages on my Torrentlawyer.com website as “malware”.
Again, I know this wasn’t there before because I was watching this category literally the day before trying to find out why my website was banned from Bing Search Engines.
A snapshot of Bing’s Site Explorer for our Torrentlawyer.com site. As you can see, they have now excluded 2.1K of our website’s links. AND, even though it appears as 1.5K pages are still indexed, they are still banned from being shown on Bing Search Engine Results.
Bing has now restricted my account to prevent me from adding or updating URLs on their search engine.
In the past few days, Bing has restricted our ability to add URLs to their search engine. The default is that users can add 1000 new URLs per day.
Bing initially lowered my ability to submit new URLs from 1000/day (originally), to 10/day, and as of yesterday, it was lowered to 0/day. They have not even given me a chance to contest or correct their new classification.
So what in the world is happening at Bing?
I suspect Bing has a new definition of malware. Does “malware” now include harmful content (instead of harmful code)?
I am grief-stricken to even consider this possibility. I am concerned that Bing might have a new definition of malware.
Definition: Malware is code that can infect the machine that accesses that code.
New Definition: Malware is website content [code] that can infect the reader [machine] that accesses that website content [code]?
Is it possible that the term “code” now means “website content” [meaning, harmful words on a webpage which could now be classified as harmful “code”]?
Is it possible that the term “machine” now includes not only the computer, but the reader who accesses the content (code) of the website?
Because if so, then yes, my website articles can all be considered malware — each article provides useful content which can affect the thoughts of my readers.
What I told Bing to explain the content on my TorrentLawyer.com website.
This is a snippet from my most recent e-mail to the Bing Search Engine (I added the bullet points):
“TorrentLawyer.com” is a blog of the Cashman Law Firm PLLC.
We do not encourage piracy, nor do we link to any content which infringes the copyright rights of any copyright holder.
All content on that website discussed copyright infringement lawsuits filed in federal courts, as we represent clients in those lawsuits.
All of these lawsuits surround the defendants’ alleged use of the BitTorrent networks, hence the name “TorrentLawyer.”
As for our beliefs, we believe in the enforcement of U.S. copyright laws and statutes.
Our law firm’s mission is to fight against entities known as “copyright trolls,” who misuse the U.S. copyright laws to monetize their copyrights rather than to take steps provided to them by the DMCA to stop the infringement of their copyrighted content.
Lastly, there is NO ADULT CONTENT on our website. The lawsuits in which we represent clients are adult film companies, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and formerly, Malibu Media LLC.
However, we do not endorse or encourage the viewing of adult content, nor do we link to adult content on our website.
Is anything here so offensive that they should classify my articles as “malware” and block my entire TORRENTLAWYER.COM domain from posting useful content on their Bing Search Engines?
Even Bing’s own Site Explorer shows I have NO URLs with Guideline Issues.
Lastly, IF our TORRENTLAWYER.COM website violated Bing’s guidelines, wouldn’t it show up in their Site Explorer under the “Filter by: URLs with guidelines issues” category?
As you can see from the attached screenshot, there are “No URLs Applicable” to this category.
So I guess the question that needs to be asked is…
“If there are no Bing Guidelines Issues, why does my TorrentLawyer.com website have Bing Guidelines Issues?”
I am frustrated to share this news, but our entire TorrentLawyer.com website has been banned from the Bing Search Engine. Being banned from Bing Search Engines means that our 10+ years of content have also disappeared from DuckDuckGo, and all other search engines which obtain their results from Bing.
Hundreds of articles have disappeared overnight from being banned from Bing Search Engines… by the push of a button.
Our TorrentLawyer blog has hundreds of articles that we have written since 2010 on the copyright troll problem, and now all of that work and all of that information has DISAPPEARED OVERNIGHT because someone at Bing did not like our content.
We contacted Bing multiple times about the issue, and they merely said that our content “violated their guidelines” and thus we are banned from their search engine. When we asked them for further details, they refused to give us anything other than, “Refer to our guidelines. We have looked at your website and have determined that it violated our guidelines.“
I have looked at the guidelines, as have other attorneys. Our only conclusion is that our TorrentLawyer website violated their guidelines because “we say so.”
Our website has been attacked hundreds of times over the years by those that do not want our content shared.
Behind the scenes, over the years, our website has been constantly attacked, hack attempts have been blocked, and we have spent a considerable amount of time simply keeping the TorrentLawyer Blog website up.
We have signed up to Cloudflare so that our content still shows up when our website goes down (because of a successful intrusion into our website).
We have our website hardened to make it difficult for hackers to change the content of our website articles (this has happened).
We have implemented strict https only (encrypted SSL traffic) on our websites, and we have changed our http headers, sometimes breaking the functionality of the website itself… just to keep the website up and running.
We cannot control those who have a different opinion than us.
What we cannot control, however, is someone who has a viewpoint which differs from ours. Our law firm is a DEFENSE LAW PRACTICE. We defend people ACCUSED of committing crimes and violations of laws and rules. Such accused defendants deserve an attorney to represent them, even if public policy declares them as “bad” or “evil.”
With so much crime and things going on in our news, it is honestly shocking that our content should get so much concern. It is even more shocking that we would ever be banned from Bing’s Search Engine (or any search engine, for that matter — these are supposed to share useful content, not to moderate it).
Yes, we defend internet users accused of piracy. Yes, we defend clients in cases involving adult content. Yes, our website article titles sometimes contain NSFW terms. Yes, the copyright lobby hates that we exist, but we do.
Suspicion of “settlement factory attorneys” Uch. I really don’t want to go here.
What bothers me more than thinking that the pro-copyright lobby wants us to disappear is the thought that some of our so-called competition also wants us to disappear.
SETTLEMENT FACTORY SO-CALLED “BITTORRENT DEFENSE” LAW FIRMS
For years, we have called out practices by other law firms which we refer to as “settlement factories.” We have exposed their tactics, we have openly shared their scams.
Simply put, we have made enemies, and we have been attacked as a result.
Unauthorized Attempted Logins on our WordPress websites.
I have looked at the logs on our website’s firewalls. I have watched the attacks as they relentlessly happened over the years, as they happened. I have personally blocked hundreds of IP addresses who tried to log into the back end of our WordPress websites with usernames of only someone who would know us would try to use.
Why would a hacker try to log in as “Rob Cashman” or “houstonlawy3r”?
I frequently see logins with variations of “Rob Cashman” or “Cashman Law Firm” as the username, or more frequently, “houstonlawy3r,” which is a username someone would only to know to use if they knew that I post my Twitter comments as “houstonlawy3r.” This is too much of a coincidence; it is not a random hacker (we have those too that regularly try to get into our websites).
So as a sidenote, I cannot give up the suspicion that another law firm I have called out as a “settlement factory” [never by name — I don’t destroy reputations — but by their activities] have hired hackers who use bots and DoS attacks to take down our website.
Thus far, that strategy of breaking into my site didn’t work… but convincing someone at Bing to remove my entire website and the TORRENTLAWYER.COM domain — because our content allegedly “violated their guidelines” — that did work.
On January 6, 2022, our TorrentLawyer.com traffic from Bing Search Engines went to zero.
Accused defendants in copyright infringement lawsuits were hurt by this ban.
Whoever it is that caused our website to be banned from Bing has hurt our readers.
Yes, our business will be hurt by this — for over a month now, we have had ZERO WEBSITE VISITS FROM BING SEARCH ENGINES, and we are fine. It is simply unfortunate that someone would go so far as to try to make our ENTIRE WEBSITE disappear. This is simply wrong.
What Free Speech? What Free Press? What Rights of Appeal do we have when it is the Bing Search Engine itself which banned us?
There should be free speech and free press, but every day, that seems to be dwindling into the twilight. With so much pro-copyright legal power, damages for copyright infringement have done nothing but increase. It is simply surprising that the copyright lobbyists, the lawmakers, and the politicians have joined up with pornography companies and adult film companies to enforce their rights over the rights of the individual.
Why I believe as an attorney that adult films should not be copyrightable.
Specifically, see this article of mine from 2012, reason #3, “Scènes à faire” (or, Scenes a faire in plain text). Not only should adult films be classified as obscene, and thus ineligible for copyright infringement, but rather, every adult film has the same scenes, the same acts, the same genres, the same nurse, police outfit, or story line. Only the actors are different, but the scenes are all the same (mixtures of various acts in one order or another).
Copyright Trolls misuse the US Copyright Laws, and THIS is what we fight against.
However, copyright protection should allow a copyright holder to go to a court and get an INJUNCTION to force a website to take down a web page illegally hosting copyrighted content. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to send DMCA copyright violation notices to internet users directly telling them to “cut it out, or else.”
Copyright holders have many ways to enforce their copyright rights, which their intended outcome should be TO STOP THE INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR COPYRIGHTED CONTENT.
Copyright Trolls use the federal courts to monetize their copyrights, not to stop the infringement of their copyrights.
Instead, copyright holders have resorted to using the federal courts “as a sword, rather than a shield.” They wield a federal court lawsuit like a weapon to hold that sword over the heads of individual downloaders who are sued as “John Doe Subscribers” in copyright infringement lawsuits.
And, instead of trying to take down the copyrighted content which was put on a particular website without their permission, they use the federal court lawsuits to solicit (dare I say extort) thousands of dollars from each accused defendant in return for their promise not to name and serve that defendant in the federal court lawsuit.
The TorrentLawyer Blog is simply trying to expose the misuse of the US Copyright Laws by copyright trolls.
STOPPING THIS (misuse of the US Copyright Laws) has been the focus of our Cashman Law Firm PLLC law firm since 2010. It is not that we are piracy friendly (as some search engines might think), and it is not that we are promoting piracy or copyright infringement in any way, shape, or form. WE ARE NOT.
We are simply trying to stop the copyright trolling problem. For now, that means 1) teaching internet users about the schemes and methods of the copyright holders to avoid being sued in a copyright infringement lawsuit, and 2) defending accused downloaders who have found themselves entangled in a lawsuit.
Until now, we relied on Search Engines to share our content.
Until now, we relied on the search engines to share our content with would-be readers. The logic is that if we provided good quality content, and if we complied with the rules and guidelines of each of the search engines (e.g., having content in a specific format, properly marking up our websites so that search engine bots and crawlers will be able to understand our articles, etc.) we will be listed on the search engines where readers could find our content. This is not “SEO.” This is simply providing good and valuable content.
We never anticipated that our entire website would be taken down by the Bing Search Engine.
However, what we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC could not anticipate that there would be forces beyond our control who could make our content DISAPPEAR without warning, without us being able to contest any opposition to our content, and unilaterally without any oversight.
This happened when we were banned from the Bing Search Engine in January, 2022. Overnight, our website went from being listed on the top of the search engine results to being banned by Bing and delisted COMPLETELY from their search engine, as if our content never existed.
Banning TorrentLawyer.com from Bing causes us to be delisted also from DuckDuckGo, Brave, other privacy-based search engines.
Again, being banned from Bing’s search engine isn’t the issue. The fact is that so many other search engines use Bing’s search engine results when pulling content which will show up on THEIR search engine’s results. This includes search engines such as DuckDuckGo, the new Brave search engine, and pretty much every other “anti-Google,” “anti-tracking,” “pro-privacy” search engine. These search engines are right in line with our views and beliefs, yet our TorrentLawyer website is now banned from those websites too.
If you search “site:https://www.torrentlawyer.com” on any Bing Search Engine (or on any of the DuckDuckGo or related search engines), you will find that now ZERO articles show up. At the bottom of the search engine page, you will now see a notation that all content from this website has been removed.
Search engine results: TorrentLawyer.com banned from Bing Search Engine.
Now we know we cannot rely on the search engines to deliver our content.
In sum, we cannot control the search engines — we know that now. “Fairness” and “Free Speech” are no longer concept that protect our content from being erased from history.
We are asking for YOUR help to share your thoughts on how we can deliver content to you. Solution #1: GitHub Page.
We do have enough of a following over the years to still provide content to our readers, even if we are no longer on the search engines. The challenge now is how to present our content in this new pro-censorship environment on the website itself.
For this reason, I have started a GitHub page at https://github.com/TorrentLawyer. Assuming they are willing to allow us on their website, we will be seeking your assistance on how to properly present content on our website and handle issues that pop up.
If you see anything wrong with our TorrentLawyer Blog website or our Cashman Law Firm PLLC website, please log into GitHub and open up a new issue on our GitHub page, and let me know that a particular issue exists.
If you can suggest a change to our website, or a suggestion on how I can properly present the hundreds of articles and posts in a way that would be useful and accessible to you as the reader, please open up an issue on our GitHub page and let me know.
What we are doing now with the Bing Search Engine to fix the problem.
As far as being banned from Bing’s Search Engine, we are currently working to eliminate any content which they might find as misinformation, harmful, or offensive. I will be removing any category which references adult films, and I will be removing brand names of companies like Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, including references to their “Tushy, Vixen, Blacked, and Deeper” brands.
However, honestly, I am concerned that this will not fix the problem. I suspect their problem with our website is its so-called “harmful” content.
We cannot remove the fact that we defend accused downloaders accused of piracy. This, and the implications that follow will continue to have those who are against our content continue to attack our site, and they will continue with their efforts to de-list us from the search engines.
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 LLC cases have always ebbed and flowed. They typically sue a handful of “John Doe subscriber” defendants in a federal court for copyright infringement (for the illegal download of their copyrighted adult films under the Tushy, Blacked, Vixen, Deeper brand names).
Those “John Doe subscribers” who have been caught downloading the adult film titles usually end up paying money to settle the claims against them. Those who did not download their copyrighted titles should not settle.
Who is “caught” downloading?
Just for clarity, those who are “caught” does not mean those who were monitored using BitTorrent to download a particular adult film. Yes, Strike 3 Holdings LLC *does* get their lists of IP addresses of “John Doe subscriber” defendants from the logs of the BitTorrent networks, but their logs are INSUFFICIENT to prove that it was YOU — the accused “John Doe Subscriber” — who downloaded a particular video on a particular date and time.
Who is NOT “caught” downloading?
Rather, in order to find that it is “more likely than not” you who did the download (in civil cases, this is referred to as the “preponderance of the evidence”), they need your TESTIMONY UNDER OATH where you admit to them [usually in a DEPOSITION] that it was you who downloaded their copyrighted video(s) using BitTorrent.
If you did not download the videos (and you do not know who did), AND you are ready, able, and willing to show up at a deposition and testify under oath (lying means perjury which is jail time) that you did not download their videos, then THERE IS NO REASON TO PAY THEM ANY MONEY TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.
Those who did not do the downloads hopefully do not settle, and Strike 3 Holdings LLC moves on to other defendants in other lawsuits.
How did Strike 3 Sue Defendants in the Miami-Dade Florida County Court? Copyright Infringement cases are ONLY filed in FEDERAL COURTS.
In 2020-2021 (and still a few lagging cases now in 2022), Strike 3 Holdings LLC came up with a way to “sue” defendants and get them to pay them money to settle, but they did so WITHOUT having the federal courts and the federal court judges monitor their cases and watch what they were doing.
They did this by suing defendants in the Miami-Dade County Court (just as Malibu Media did a few years beforehand). Malibu Media LLC (another adult film company hosting the x-art.com website brands) sued defendants in both the Miami-Dade Florida County Court and the Maricopa County Arizona County Court using the states’ “Bill of Discovery” rules.
The purpose of these state-based lawsuits were to uncover the naked identity of the ISP subscriber / account holders’ true identity without requiring a subpoena from a “John Doe Subscriber” lawsuit in a Federal Court.
Eventually, the Malibu Media LLC Miami-Dade County Court and Maricopa County Court strategies were eventually cut short, but Strike 3 Holdings LLC continued these state-based “lawsuits” for quite a bit longer than Malibu Media LLC was able to do so. As of writing this article (1/23/2022), I was shocked to see that there were a few Miami-Dade cases still open:
Why I wrote THIS article. What changed from the Miami-Dade County, Florida state-based cases?
What shocked me, however, was how quickly Strike 3 Holdings LLC moved their cases back into the federal courts in 2021. As I wrote in our most recent “STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS – LIST OF CASES BY STATE (JANUARY 2022)” article, it appears as if Strike 3 Holdings LLC has made use of their Miami-Dade Florida state-based lawsuits and has sued defendants in Federal Court.
Thousands of defendants were implicated in the Miami-Dade County, Florida Court, but most of them DID NOT LIVE IN FLORIDA. Thus, they were filing lawsuits against defendants KNOWING that the Florida courts had NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION against most of the defendants. Strike 3 would not do this without a PURPOSE. What was their end goal in uncovering all those thousands and thousands of names of would-be accused defendants?
I was sure that these THOUSANDS of Strike 3 Miami-Dade defendants would eventually be sued in the federal courts.
EVENTUALLY, Strike 3 Holdings would sue the defendants in FEDERAL COURTS.
And they did…
In 2021, Strike 3 Holdings LLC filed ~2,209 lawsuits in Federal Courts across the US, each lawsuit claiming $150,000 in copyright infringement damages against ONE John Doe subscriber defendant.
For each lawsuit, they paid a ~$400 filing fee. In December, 2021 alone, they filed 163 cases in federal courts.
If you calculate a ~$400 filing fee per lawsuit x 163 lawsuits filed in DECEMBER 2021, you can easily calculate that Strike 3 Holdings LLC “invested” $65,200 in DECEMBER ALONE for the sole purpose of suing John Doe subscriber defendants in order to solicit large settlements from each of the 163 defendants.
There are not many words I can add to the the story the numbers tell. They speak for themselves as to exactly what Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been doing.
I went back through the court filings in 2021 to confirm whether they have started suing defendants in federal courts again, and the answer was a big “yes.”
NUMBER OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS FILED IN FEDERAL COURTS EACH MONTH OF 2021.
As far as I can glean from the records of which cases were filed when and where, this is what I have come up with:
Number of Lawsuits filed in December, 2021 (12-2021): 163 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in November, 2021 (11-2021): 393 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in October, 2021 (10-2021): 240 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in September, 2021 (09-2021): 148 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in August, 2021 (08-2021): 174 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in July, 2021 (07-2021): 185 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in June, 2021 (06-2021): 112 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in May, 2021 (05-2021): 259 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in March, 2021 (03-2021): 115 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in February, 2021 (02-2021): 98 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in January, 2021 (01-2021): 194 New Cases.
Total Number of New Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits filed in Federal Courts across the US in 2021: 2,209 New Cases.
List of Recent Strike 3 Holdings Federal Court Filings by State
Here is a list of Strike 3 Holdings filings in the Federal Courts for each state in which they sued defendants:
California
California Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Lincoln Bandlow of Bandlow Law.
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 in 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.
Below are the recently filed Strike 3 Holdings California cases:
*NEW* CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (12/1/2021 – 1/23/2022)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02066) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02069) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02076) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02079) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02080) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.136.195.110 (Case No. 2:21-cv-09723) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.201.159.25 (Case No. 2:21-cv-09724) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.89.26.183 (Case No. 2:21-cv-09722) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 136.52.29.140 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02068) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.101.105.4 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02070) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.111.81.141 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02075) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.21.164 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02067) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.211.236.163 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02073) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.219.150.200 (Case No. 8:21-cv-02074) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.56.242.47 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02094) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.30.118 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00437)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.176.35.194 (Case No. 2:21-at-01214) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.220.166.2 (Case No. 2:21-at-01212) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.220.210.140 (Case No. 2:21-at-01218) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.132.51.65 (Case No. 2:21-at-01217) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.206.117.169 (Case No. 2:21-at-01208) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.221.5 (Case No. 2:21-at-01213) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.231.90.227 (Case No. 2:21-at-01215) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.48.197.246 (Case No. 2:21-at-01204) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.48.197.246 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02343) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.105.15.248 (Case No. 2:21-at-01210) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.135.35.76 (Case No. 2:21-at-01209) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.38.154.205 (Case No. 2:21-at-01219) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.53.244.81 (Case No. 2:21-at-01205)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.52.4.66 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09844) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.129.95.179 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09843) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.89.59 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09846) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.116.232.165 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09816) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.151.59 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09810) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.188.231.57 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09842) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.209.18.40 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09847) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.170.20.135 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09805) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.14.8.147 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09845) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.237.96.190 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09841) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.207.43.110 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09815) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.35.78.182 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09817) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.37.70.47 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09802) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.45.83.2 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09813) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.167.201.202 (Case No. 4:21-cv-09800) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.50.3.158 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09874) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.201.184.243 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09883) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.0.215 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09880) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.185.207 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09871) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.107.248 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09877) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.158.199.121 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09884) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.162.94.138 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09876) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.248.212.37 (Case No. 3:21-cv-09881) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.37.139.156 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09886) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.35.217.145 (Case No. 5:21-cv-09869)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-02114) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-02115) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-02117)
Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01604) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01683) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01684) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01685) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01686) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01687)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-00940) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-01245) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 108.214.156.119 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01240) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.104.17.231 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01243) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.53.238.67 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01238) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.106.187.140 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01241) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.106.249.229 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01244) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.32.157.85 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01237) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.5.66.101 (Case No. 3:21-cv-01239) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:21-cv-02109) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:21-cv-02111) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:21-cv-02114) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:21-cv-02115) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:21-cv-02117) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02936) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02937) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02939) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-02940) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 104.48.223.33 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24400) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.21.168.87 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24405) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 70.131.190.137 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24406) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.124.88.202 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24402) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 73.138.176.235 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82515) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.3.196.231 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24401) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.109.188.88 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24407) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.207.187 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24404) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 98.249.159.41 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82514) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.254.210.231 (Case No. 1:21-cv-24403) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 174.48.188.201 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82527) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 45.31.52.221 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82520) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 65.34.253.213 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82529) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 73.0.4.78 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82523) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 73.1.195.149 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82528) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 73.85.17.85 (Case No. 9:21-cv-82522)
Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern & Western District Cases
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.41.166.33 (Case No. 2:21-cv-12977) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.62.69.59 (Case No. 2:21-cv-12978) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 73.18.199.236 (Case No. 2:21-cv-12976) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.21.89.147 (Case No. 2:21-cv-12980)
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:
*UPDATED* NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2022)
*UPDATED* Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court
Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 104.246.50.209 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20525) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 174.57.12.36 (Case No. 1:21-cv-20520) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.47.211.91 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20522) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.197.52.185 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20524) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.114.252.146 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20526) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.116.113.139 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20521) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.121.6.190 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20527) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.16.213 (Case No. 1:21-cv-20519) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.90.114.202 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20523) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.131.27 (Case No. 3:21-cv-20541) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.76.32 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20537) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.86.57.142 (Case No. 3:21-cv-20540) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.112.178.59 (Case No. 3:21-cv-20542) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.114.248.226 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20539) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.116.116.187 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20538) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.187.19.52 (Case No. 3:21-cv-20544) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.226.65.38 (Case No. 3:21-cv-20543) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.120.23 (Case No. 2:21-cv-20536)
*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.
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.
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:
*UPDATED* NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 1/23/2022)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06985) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06986) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06987) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06988) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06989) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:21-cv-06990) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-10863) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-10864) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-10865) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10866) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10867) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10868) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10869) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10870) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:21-cv-10871) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01308)
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.
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:
*UPDATED* PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 1/23/2022)
Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.245.67 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05513) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.2.154 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05515) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.102.95 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05514) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.16.27.103 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05523) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 131.106.39.144 (Case No. 5:21-cv-05527) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.174.51 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05521) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 216.164.116.24 (Case No. 5:21-cv-05528) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.84.68.5 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05518) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.249.204.117 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05512) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.253.200.79 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05525) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.242.91.141 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05526) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.101.90.210 (Case No. 5:21-cv-05516) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.99.93.242 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05520) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.76.178 (Case No. 2:21-cv-05511)
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.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Virginia cases:
*NEW* VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 1/23/2022)
Virginia Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01413) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01414) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01415) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01416) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01417) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01418) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01419) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01420) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01421) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01422) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:21-cv-01423)
Forrest Matthew Seger, III of Clark Hill (San Antonio), or Andy Nikolopoulos and David Grant Crooks, both from Fox Rothschild LLP.
As of January, 2022, I have not seen many new cases filed in the various Texas District courts, however, I *have* seen a LOT of activity by Forrest Matthew Seger, III on his cases from 2021. Thus, I would not mistake “no new cases” to mean “no activity.” There is a LOT of activity in Texas.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, 1. and 2. (below) are the TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
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.
