It is one thing to sue an accused defendant as a “John Doe” defendant. As a John Doe Defendant, the accused defendant is still anonymous. Yes, he is receiving ISP subpoena notification letters from his ISP, but the world does not yet know that he has been accused of software or movie piracy.
The “Anonymous” John Doe
As a John Doe… an ANONYMOUS John Doe, he can still interact with the plaintiff attorney (obviously better and smarter to have an attorney do it). He can have his attorney argue the legal points, he can argue whether he actually did the downloads or not, he can even negotiate a settlement of the claims against him… all while being an ANONYMOUS* John Doe.
Dangers of “Anonymous” Settlements with IP-based Lawsuits
NOTE: It’s probably a good idea to take mention that an accused John Doe Defendant is merely mentioned by his accused IP address <– the IP address his internet service provider (ISP) assigned him for the 24-48 hours that they leased that IP address to him. The danger in settling anonymously is that some copyright attorneys attempt to phrase an “anonymous” settlement as being “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 108.124.24.4,” meaning, one accused IP address only. If an accused downloader is a regular movie downloader, he likely has OTHER IP ADDRESSES that were assigned to him.
[While that article referenced Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits, the topic of “anonymous settlements” is still very relevant.]
It goes without saying that common sense, settling the claims against you for ONE IP ADDRESS ONLY does not automatically settle ALL claims against you for ALL IP ADDRESSES you ever had. This is something that an attorney should negotiate in an agreement (obviously using the correct terminology).
The danger of settling anonymously is that the plaintiff attorney can take your money, say thank you, and then turn around and ask for another settlement for another movie title that you downloaded. This unending spiral of events could frustrate anybody. Obviously your attorney should be aware of the ONE IP ADDRESS PROBLEM and he should consider it in his settlement release of liability.
Kerry Culpepper’s Colorado Lawsuit… where he named and served his defendants.
So back to Kerry Culpepper and his movie lawsuits. As you can see from this screenshot, Kerry Culpepper sued on behalf of Fallen Productions, Inc. for the unlawful download of their “Angel Has Fallen” movie. Pictured below is is recent Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (federal court).
Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) filed in the District of Colorado
Fallen Productions, Inc. et al. v. Harry B. and DOE Defendants (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
Copyright Trolls
“I am not calling all movie companies who sue for the unlawful download, streaming, or viewing of their copyrighted movies “copyright trolls,” but when there is a pattern of lawsuits — all by a specific movie company, or as I have written about before, a conglomerate of movie companies — you must raise the question of whether this company is trying to legitimately enforce their copyright rights, or whether they are trying to make a quick “multi-thousand-dollar settlement” from each defendant… just as a copyright troll would.“
But again, Kerry Culpepper’s movie lawsuits are different… not because they are asking for multi-thousand-dollar settlements from each accused defendant (they are), but because of what Kerry Culpepper wants.
Kerry Culpepper does not appear to be interested in the money. Yes, a few thousand dollars sounds like a lot of money for his clients (and it is).
But it is starting to appear to me that Culpepper IP is more interested in going after the ISPs and the VPN providers. Why? Because it is the SAFE HARBOR IMMUNITY given to ISPs that I believe he is trying to break.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “safe harbor” rules, ISPs have not been liable for infringing traffic (e.g., movie downloads) that happen on their network.
Obviously each ISP has in its terms of service (TOS) that using their network for copyright infringement is reason for the ISP to terminate that account holder’s ISP internet account. But to my awareness, they rarely [if ever] cancel their customer’s account for violations of the terms of service when that account holder downloads or streams a movie from an unauthorized website.
Why I believe Culpepper IP want to get around the DMCA Safe Harbor Rules
I understand that Kerry Culpepper is looking to circumvent the safe harbor rules and he wants to force the ISPs to cooperate with his requests.
He likely wants to do this without him needing to go to the federal court and file a “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuit every time he learns that “some guy did something.”
Really, I understand that he just wants to contact the ISP and have them disclose the real identity of the account holder… without lawsuits… without subpoenas… without Hawaii Rule 521(h) lawsuits… and without going to court at all.
Why do I think this? Because [among other reasons I am still confirming], in his questionnaire to accused internet users, he asked, “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”
^^^ Why would he ask this? ^^^
[In Culpepper IP’s YTS e-mails], his $950 settlement demands are not merely, “pay me and I’ll decide not to sue you in federal court for copyright infringement.” No. Rather, with his settlements, he is asking accused internet users to provide a signed declaration detailing:
1) “which BitTorrent client you used to reproduce the motion picture;”
2) “which website or business promoted the BitTorrent client to you;” and
3) “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”
Reference: “The Truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand EMAILS to YTS users,” written on 9/16/2020.
What does Culpepper demonstrate from the Fallen Productions Inc. Colorado Lawsuit?
In this lawsuit in Colorado, you see that after some initial pushback from the judge on PERSONAL JURISDICTION issues, Kerry Culpepper first dismissed a few defendants (presumably those who settled), and then he turned around and NAMED AND SERVED a handful of defendants.
What can we take from this? What can a judge take from this? That Kerry Culpepper is not interested in the John Doe. He is not interested in their money. He is not even interested in their alleged infringement of his movie clients’ movies.
My thought: He wants their DATA to go after BIGGER FISH.
Again, why would he ask the three questions in his e-mail YTS settlement demand e-mails? Because Kerry Culpepper wants to look past the defendants and go after his real target — the ISPs who allow their subscribers to download films and movies on their internet networks in violation of the copyright holder’s copyright rights.
Understanding that Kerry Culpepper is engaging in “lawfare” (legal war) against piracy-based websites, we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC suggest that Culpepper is using these $950 settlement demand e-mails to build a portfolio of evidence against the piracy-based websites.[“Lawfare” is defined as using legal systems and institutions to achieve a goal. It can be the misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or de-legitimizing them.]
Again, I am just reporting here. Yes, I am aware of the hundreds, maybe thousands of accused individuals who received e-mails directly from Culpepper IP (now, no longer from Joshua, but from I believe a “Stephanie” <[email protected]>).
I still think that Culpepper has a bigger plan, and that plan is NOT the settlement or the John Doe Defendant.
What should I do if I am NAMED AND SERVED as a defendant?
To the accused downloaders of Kerry’s Colorado case — what should you do? Well, he NAMED AND SERVED you. This means that you are no longer a “John Doe Defendant,” but you are now a “Named and Served” Defendant.
I have written a “walkthrough” article on what to do once you are named and served. I called it, “NAMED AND SERVED AS A DEFENDANT.“
And for reference, this is article very different from the other “walkthrough” article I have written on what to do when you are accused of being a John Doe Defendant.
The point is — once named and served [as the defendants from the Colorado court were] — you are accused of copyright infringement for downloading one or more movies without a license.
Whether you like it or not, you are now “in litigation,” which means that you have procedural deadlines and responsibilities according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P) on what you must do next before you miss the deadline to file an answer with the court and Culpepper asks the court for a judgement against you.
If for some reason I won’t take you as a client, I will still happily spend time with you on the phone to answer your questions.
I will happily also refer you to an attorney in your state who is competent to represent you in this case. I have never taken a referral fee, but I still believe that even if I can’t help you — at the very least, I do my best to put you in the hands of an attorney who can help you.
Public Policy Letter to Judges on Copyright Issues
Lastly, it has been quite a while since I’ve revisited the “Public Policy Letter to Judges” article that I wrote in 2012, but I wanted to take a moment and mention that this letter has been sent to judges across the US… not only by me, but by many activist individuals who have an interest in keeping copyright trolls out of the federal courts.
While the “copyright troll” lawsuits have changed somewhat since we wrote that in 2012, the copyright laws themselves and the “uneven playing field” that I describe in this letter (this link is a .pdf attachment) is still very real, and very valid.
Now, as I did almost TEN YEARS AGO, I invite you to make this letter your own and to inform judges about the problems with copyright attorneys who sue John Doe defendants for the purpose of extracting a quick settlement. You do not need to be a defendant to send this letter.
And as always, e-mail me or contact me if I can be of assistance to you.
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 has been on a tear, filing lawsuits across the US. This time, when they file lawsuits against unknown “John Doe” Defendants in the Federal Courts, do they already know the identities of each of these defendants?
It was only a matter of time before Strike 3 Holdings sued Miami-Dade defendants in the Federal Courts.
I have been saying for months that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC would begin suing the thousands of accused defendants in the federal courts that they sorted through in their Miami-Dade, Florida “Bill of Discovery” lawsuits.
All of 2020, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has been using Florida’s “Bill of Discovery” to force ISPs to uncover the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants. However, not one defendant was sued in the Miami-Dade, Florida County court for the copyright infringement they were accused of.
Why must Strike 3 Holdings file lawsuits against thousands of former Miami-Dade defendants in the Federal Courts? Couldn’t they sue them in the Miami-Dade, FL County Court?
A bit of law here for those that are new to the topic:
ANSWER #1) PERSONAL JURISDICTION. A court may not hear a lawsuit against a defendant when that court does not have power or control over that defendant. They must have jurisdiction over that defendant, and this is accomplished most frequently by the defendant living in the state where the lawsuit is filed.
ANSWER #2) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION as it applies to copyright cases. Copyright infringement cases may only be brought in FEDERAL COURTS.
Strike 3 Holdings CANNOT sue an accused defendant for copyright infringement in a STATE OR COUNTY court (Miami-Dade is a County Court, not a Federal Court). Copyright infringement lawsuits can only be brought in a FEDERAL court.
Which federal court? They must sue the defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District [state] in which HE LIVES.
Thousands of defendants were implicated in the Miami-Dade County, Florida Court, but most of them DID NOT LIVE IN FLORIDA. Thus, the Florida courts likely had NO jurisdiction over any of the out-of-state defendants.
EVENTUALLY, Strike 3 Holdings would sue the defendants in FEDERAL COURTS.
I was sure that these THOUSANDS of Strike 3 Miami-Dade defendants would eventually be sued in the federal courts.
For this reason, I went back to August, 2020 (~6 months) to confirm whether they have started suing defendants in federal courts again, and the answer was a big “uh huh.”
NUMBER OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS FILED IN FEDERAL COURTS EACH MONTH.
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 August, 2020 (08-2020): 114 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in September, 2020 (09-2020): 114 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in October, 2020 (10-2020): 138 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in November, 2020 (11-2020): 85 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in December, 2020 (12-2020): 115 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed as of January 16, 2021 (01-2021): 128 Cases (and counting).
Total Number of New Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits filed in Federal Courts across the US in the last six months: 694 New Cases.
Why are all of the Federal Court Strike 3 Cases against “JOHN DOE” defendants?
In my gleaning, I found it interesting that all of the Federal Court lawsuits were filed against JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS. This was strange to me, because in all likelihood, we knew that Strike 3 already obtained the accused internet user’s name and address through the Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery lawsuits. So why are they still suing them as John Does?
A “JOHN DOE” Defendant is merely a PLACEHOLDER for the real Defendant.
A plaintiff sues a John Doe defendant when the identity of the defendant is still unknown. The John Doe is merely a placeholder, only to be replaced by the actual defendant’s name when the plaintiff attorney amends the complaint and “names and serves” a defendant.
QUESTION: Why sue accused defendants as JOHN DOE placeholders when they already know the ISP subscriber’s identity from the Miami-Dade lawsuits?
If Strike 3 Holdings already learned the identity of each of these accused John Doe Defendants when they were implicated as defendants in the former Strike 3 Miami-Dade lawsuits in the Florida county court, then WHY would they suggest* to the federal courts that they do not know the identity of the defendant when they sue them as a John Doe?
* I used the term “suggest” to avoid an implication that they were outright lying to the federal courts. At the bottom of this article, I explain 1) why them suing as John Doe Defendants may be appropriate (maybe they did not do research as to who actually did the download), and 2) that it is actually better for a defendant to be sued as a John Doe before he is forced into litigation to answer the claims against him (e.g., so that he can file a protective order to protect his identity, etc.).
ANSWER: It is more convenient to sue all of the defendants as JOHN DOE placeholders rather than litigating against each defendant.
CONVENIENCE. If Strike 3 Holdings sued each of these 694 defendant using their real names (e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Daniel TrueName), they would effectively have 694 cases running in the “litigation” stage concurrently.
This means that they would have to pay process servers to serve defendants at their 694 different locations across the US.
Each of the defendants would have to file an answer with the court within 21 days or face default, and Strike 3 would want to file responses to those answers.
Then, Strike 3 Holdings LLC would have 694 separate case management hearings, where each of their attorneys across the US (usually one Strike 3 Holdings attorney covering 1-3 states or territories) would need to show up in federal courtrooms across the US setting deadlines for each of their lawsuits to come up with the evidence.
Then, they would need to arrange, complete, and respond to and participate in depositions and digital forensic searches for each of these defendants… AT THE SAME TIME.
PRETENDING not to know the identities of the John Doe defendants is part of their SCHEME.
Can you imagine Strike 3 Holdings, LLC trying to litigate 694 lawsuits at the same time?
If Strike 3 Holdings, LLC pretends NOT to know the identities of each of the defendants (while they already do from the Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery lawsuits), they receive MANY EXTRA MONTHS to solicit settlements from the accused defendants before they are required to name and serve the accused defendants.
Whether their lawyers actually sat in a room and planned this out, or whether this was an unexpected consequence [of them 1) suing first in the Miami-Dade County Court to expose the identities of the ISP account holders, and then 2) suing the accused defendants in the federal courts to actually file copyright infringement lawsuits against those same defendants], you must admit that this was a genius plan as far as strategizing how to “game” the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to maximize their ability to “solicit” settlements from each and every accused defendant.
SCHEME ELEMENT #1: PRETEND to the Federal Courts that you do not know the identity of the JOHN DOE defendants (when they secretly do).
Instead of suing a defendant by his name (and starting the litigation process against the defendant), an easier solution for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is for them to to “pretend” to the Federal Court that they do not know who you are. They sue you as a “John Doe,” or a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX,” and ask the court to authorize them to send a subpoena to the internet service provider (ISP) and force them to [again] share the identity of the ISP account subscriber who was assigned a particular IP address at a particular date and time. Then, they sit back and comfortably wait for the settlement requests to roll in.
The judges [still oblivious of the Miami-Dade cases] approve their request to have the subpoenas sent to the ISPs. Each ISP is instructed by court order to hand over the identities of the ISP account holders (even though Strike 3 Holdings, LLC “secretly” already knows who they are).
SCHEME ELEMENT #2: SETTLE CASES for weeks or months while the ISPs slowly comply with their subpoena requests.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC then waits weeks or months for the ISPs to comply. During this time, they wait for all the panicked defendants [who were former Miami-Dade lawsuit defendants] to panic and call them to arrange a settlement. All of this time, the accused defendants are “John Doe” defendants, and Strike 3 accomplished this without naming and serving a SINGLE defendant. Genius.
The plaintiff attorneys in this mass bittorrent lawsuit scheme then settle as many cases as they can before the 90-day deadline for them to name and serve the defendant expires (according to recent FRCP procedural law changes, plaintiffs now have only 90 days before they need to amend the complaint and sue the actual downloader in the place of the John Doe placeholder).
SCHEME ELEMENT #3: RELY ON THE ISPs BEING SLOW to respond to the subpoenas.
The ISPs are notoriously slow in producing the identities of their subscribers. No doubt Strike 3 Holdings is aware of this. In fact, they could be relying on this to give them extra time — sometimes weeks or months — to solicit a settlement from each John Doe defendant.
SCHEME ELEMENT #4: BLAME THE ISPs for not complying with the subpoena in time, and asking the court for an EXTENSION OF TIME.
If the ISP does not timely share the identities of each of the subpoena requests (as they often do not through no fault of their own), the plaintiff attorney gets close to the 90-day deadline without knowing who is the ISP account holder behind the accused IP address. Strike 3 Holdings is thus unable to name and serve the defendant, as a result, they ask the court for an additional 90 days, blaming the ISP for not producing the identities of the account holders in time.
“Judge, we cannot do our due diligence in investigating whether this John Doe Defendant is the one who downloaded my client’s movies because the ISP has not yet told us WHO this defendant is!”
THE DIRTY SECRET: STRIKE 3 KNOWS ALL ALONG THE REAL IDENTITY OF THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANT.
The dirty secret is that ALL ALONG, Strike 3 Holdings likely already knows the identity of each of the defendants [from the Miami-Dade cases], and they are already probably in communication with them trying to get them to settle the claims against them for as much as possible. From a “federal rules” procedural perspective, it’s the perfect scheme.
Thus, if you were once a defendant in the Miami-Dade lawsuits, and now you are an accused defendant in the federal court in the state in which you reside, now you understand how and why you appear to have been “sued twice,” (first in the Miami-Dade, Florida County Court, and second, in the federal court in the state in which you live).
My opinion? Really, no. Even if Strike 3 Holdings LLC obtained the identity of the ISP account holder in the Miami-Dade lawsuit, technically, the ISP account holder often is not the actual downloader who downloaded Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted videos.
ANSWER #1: NO. Strike 3 might not yet have any idea who the defendant should be.
Often the account holder is a parent, or, a wife, or a landlord, and the one who did the unlawful downloading is not the same person who pays the internet bill. It is also possible with the huge number of defendants implicated in the Miami-Dade Strike 3 cases, Strike 3 might not have even gotten to many or even most of the accused defendants.
So they might not even know whether the ISP account holder is the one they would like to sue.
ANSWER #2: NO. An accused defendant would likely prefer to be sued as a “John Doe” placeholder rather than be “named and served” at the outset.
Even from the point of view of the accused defendant, a defendant who is “named and served” is thrown head-first into costly litigation.
Being sued as an “anonymous” John Doe Defendant allows that defendant to have time to retain an attorney, learn about the lawsuits, and decide on what options they would like to take in how to respond to or approach the accusations against them.
As a John Doe, they can file a motion to quash the subpoena (if they do not live in the state in which they were sued), or they can have an attorney contact the plaintiff for them and discuss settlement options. If they did not do the downloading, a defendant could make use of the valuable John Doe phase (and the 90 days they usually get before they are actually named and served) to develop a legal strategy to fight the claims against them.
So in my opinion, no, there is nothing evil or malicious about being sued as a John Doe. I simply find it silly that procedurally, suing defendants in federal court as John Does (while they already know who they are) is a smart way to steal time by making use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent slowness of the process.
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 have recently 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 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:
CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (8/2020 – 1/16/2021)
Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-01520, 8:20-cv-01569, 8:20-cv-01570) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.173.206.190 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07416) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 76.91.200.210 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07481) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.69.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07653) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.118.46.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07654) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.119.113.170 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01571) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.40.62 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07655) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.241.14.133 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07656) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.28.148 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01572) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.45.17 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02354) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.24.133.61 (Case No. 2:20-cv-11353) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.111.30.12 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02434) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.219.68.87 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00057) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.154.220.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10587) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.0.80.78 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02241) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.60.170.157 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02245) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.60.172.66 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10802) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.244.253.35 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02242) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.1.153.210 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02246) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.153.243.248 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10805) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.189.111.246 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02243) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.24.231.69 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02244) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 137.25.36.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09069) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.145.221.141 (Case No. 5:20-cv-02056) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.158.161.8 (Case No. 5:20-cv-02057) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.34.222.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09087) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.34.170.255 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09337) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.34.67.34 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09854) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 45.50.173.181 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08054) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.41.240.176 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01907) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 76.91.18.185 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08444) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.86.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08639) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.118.216.95 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08643) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.50.11.3 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01814) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.144.166.78 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08646) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.149.144.54 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08647) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.155.229.160 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08648) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.157.67.65 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08649) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.93.104.47 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08645)
Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 73.48.141.109 (Case No. 2:20-at-01120) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.87.193.119 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01989) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 173.87.173.243 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02004) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.176.32.230 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02125) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.197.77.235 (Case No. 2:20-at-01042) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.197.77.235 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02126) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.202.42.143 (Case No. 2:20-at-01043) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.202.42.143 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02127) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.205.185.83 (Case No. 2:20-at-01044) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.205.185.83 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02128) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.195.184.121 (Case No. 2:20-at-01045) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.195.184.121 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02129) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.239.135.113 (Case No. 2:20-at-01046) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.239.135.113 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02133) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.223.20 (Case No. 2:20-at-01047) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.223.20 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02134) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.127.160.138 (Case No. 2:20-at-01048) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.127.160.138 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02135) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.229.215.210 (Case No. 2:20-at-01049) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.229.215.210 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02136) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.100.167.93 (Case No. 2:20-at-01050) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.100.167.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02144) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.118.17.70 (Case No. 2:20-at-01051) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.118.17.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02145) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.185.0.214 (Case No. 2:20-at-01052) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.185.0.214 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02146) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.51.2.156 (Case No. 2:20-at-01053) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.51.2.156 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02147)
Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 73.202.36.45 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05836) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.198.44.245 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05911) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.241.101 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05912) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.253.167 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05913) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.93.207 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05914) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.213.49 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05915) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.207.137.235 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05917) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 67.180.64.55 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05993) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.160.193.21 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09000) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.179.214.149 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09465) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.50.7.2 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09461) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.133.147.78 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09462) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.209.231.168 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09466) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.217.224.146 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09467) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.248.70 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09463) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.248.70 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09463) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.15.13.216 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09464) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.13.224.197 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09457) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.10.104 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09468) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.155.36.73 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09458) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.95.164.72 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09469) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.155.155 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00250) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.216.241.80 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00251) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.68.110.208 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00260) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.72.122.64 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00252) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.230.114.61 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00262) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00263) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00263) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.238.126.205 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00264) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.238.127.214 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00266) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.116.40.51 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00253) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.116.45.238 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00254) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.78.202.145 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00255) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.209.13.199 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00256) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.52.89.208 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00257) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.16.100.126 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00258) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.55.164.87 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00259) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.56.119.158 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00294) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.137.64.74 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00296) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.219.196.95 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00297) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.227.165.177 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00298) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.227.167.168 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00299) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.123.139.178 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00285) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.110.139.140 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00301) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.4.202.18 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00302) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.220.32.134 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00303) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.192.121 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00288) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.152.112.110 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00291) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.162.144.107 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00304) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.67.73 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00292) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.55.162.48 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00293) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.72.197 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07952) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.15.26.232 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07953) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.55.160 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07950) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.126.151.68 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07951) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.196.181.174 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08361) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.196.183.6 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08353) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.199.77.48 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08362) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.155.207 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08363) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.192.22.79 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08354) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.254.149.216 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08364) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08355) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.93.40.154 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08356) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.10.232.35 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08357) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.125.128.214 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08365) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.25.141.208 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08366) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.215.145.39 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08351) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.247.182.196 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08358) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.68.41 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08352) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.4.124.9 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08359) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.100.49 (Case No. 3:20-cv-06902) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.13.209.224 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07419) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.15.67.119 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07422) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.183.240.137 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07424) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.204.168.222 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07426) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.13.60.123 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07477) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.194.47.216 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07479) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.193.0.46 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07484) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.201.185.183 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07485) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.212.154.244 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07486) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.165.135 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07487) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.249.130.93 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07470) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.88.90.234 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07488) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.250.227.199 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07480) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.78.200.245 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07474) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.252.18.42 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07489) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.52.94.123 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07490) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.57.10.47 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07481) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.34.225.112 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07482) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.37.246.49 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07491) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.20.77 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07483) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.73.38.234 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07492) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.88.47.25 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07475) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 67.160.239.169 (Case No. 3:20-cv-06223)
Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 99.178.134.93 (Case No. 3:20-cv-02521) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-01660) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-01605, 3:20-cv-02447, 3:20-cv-02520, 3:21-cv-00060, 3:21-cv-00061, 3:21-cv-00062, 3:21-cv-00063, 3:21-cv-00064, 3:21-cv-00065, 3:21-cv-00067, 3:20-cv-02321, 3:20-cv-02325, 3:20-cv-02326, 3:20-cv-02328, 3:20-cv-02116, 3:20-cv-02117, 3:20-cv-02118, 3:20-cv-02115)
Connecticut
Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.
Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-01157) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-01866)
District of Columbia
Strike 3 Holdings District of Columbia cases: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-03702, 1:21-cv-00057, 1:21-cv-00058, 1:20-cv-03040, 1:20-cv-03041, 1:20-cv-03146, 1:20-cv-03150, 1:20-cv-02731, 1:20-cv-02734)
Florida
Strike 3 Holdings Florida cases: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:20-cv-02315) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:20-cv-02362) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.46.164.72 (Case No. 1:20-cv-23559) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 204.195.147.121 (Case No. 1:20-cv-24019)
Illinois
Strike 3 Holdings Illinois Northern District cases:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.138.239.145 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07144) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.192.141.199 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07147) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.243.0.133 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07154) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.112.164.217 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07151) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.22.131.151 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07142) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.138.108.85 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07159) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 104.188.235.223 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00116) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 107.215.183.93 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00138) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.204.224.215 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00165) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.5.19.137 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00166) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.5.19.137 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00166) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.102.111.159 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00167) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.135.136.160 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00172) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.137.152.98 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00175) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.177.128.85 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00177) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.185.219 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00179) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.73.153.252 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00180) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-06518, 1:20-cv-06519, 1:20-cv-06526, 1:20-cv-06527, 1:20-cv-06528, 1:20-cv-05842, 1:20-cv-05842)
Maryland
Maryland Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC.
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.
Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern & Western District Cases
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.65.164.21 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13155) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.131.193.13 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13156) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.134.150.224 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13162) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.199.254.17 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13157) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.228.98.100 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13158) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 172.0.234.172 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13161) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 104.1.189.141 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10036) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 104.185.105.45 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10037) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 108.223.195.107 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10038) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.205.116.73 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10039) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 172.9.134.246 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10040) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.221.243.85 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10041) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.30.199.135 (Case No. 5:21-cv-10042) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.46.43.71 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10046) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 76.192.56.30 (Case No. 5:21-cv-10055) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.113.49.188 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10061) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.152.34.134 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10068) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.32.33.5 (Case No. 4:21-cv-10069) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.44.201.110 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10070) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.73.148.186 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10072) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.230.47.77 (Case No. 5:20-cv-12946) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.230.130.20 (Case No. 4:20-cv-12947) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.188.233.197 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12948) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.27.69.185 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12949) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.66.49.166 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12950) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.66.52.129 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12951) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.84.143 (Case No. 3:20-cv-13065) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.78.46 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12689) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.48.221.50 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01154) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.99.243.62 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01155) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.44.181.150 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01106)
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
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.216.227 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10205) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.108.155 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10217) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.133.178 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10219) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.39.224 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10220) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.185.130 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10222) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.41.90 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10223) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.204.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10224) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.78.195 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10225) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.39.170 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10226) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 70.105.172.99 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10227) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.127.201.146 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10228) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.138 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10229) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.130.74 (Case No. 1:20-cv-19551) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.131.126 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20171) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.40.219 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20172) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.77.141 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20173) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.248.215 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20174) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.189.100 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20175) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.50.195.75 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.123.36 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.162.123 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.2.119 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20176) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.49.247 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20178) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.104.23.154 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20179) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.104.34.125 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.104 (Case No. 1:20-cv-20170) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.225.188 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20187) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.46.82 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20180) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.54.46 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20181) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.191.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20189) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.75.94 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00593) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.168.148.228 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00594) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.211.26 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00582) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.121.80 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00583) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.130.45 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00584) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.86.32 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00595) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.225.75.239 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00586) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.225.77.87 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00588) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.46.97 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00590) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.148.107 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00591) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.157.165 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00592) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.228.136.123 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17193) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.47.214.229 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17195) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.80.147.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.87.47.217 (Case No. 3:20-cv-17190) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.192.3.59 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17191) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.234.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14324) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.216.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14325) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.103.83 (Case No. 1:20-cv-14321) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.188.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14329) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.155.12 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14408) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.209.232 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12939) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.242.205 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12941) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.91.220 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12943) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.104.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-12934) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.56.231 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12963) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.232.221 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12945) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.216.219 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12948) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.227.250 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12967) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.240.88 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12951) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-12936) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.236.131 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12953) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.187.159.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12954) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.68.118.218 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12955) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.76.193.98 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12956) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.172.12 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12958) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.51.212 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13499)
*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:
NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (8/2020 – 1/16/2021)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.108.211.199 (Case No. 1:20-cv-05608) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 207.38.164.46 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04676) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.37.16.119 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04492) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.38.114.55 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04484) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.27.76.152 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04493) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.41.227.188 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04486) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.52.52.131 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04494) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.56.236.25 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04495) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.77.240.203 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04496) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.129.228.80 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04487) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.23.34.26 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04498) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.105.65.41 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04500) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.167.46.179 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04488) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.190.222.158 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04489) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.69.240.87 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04490) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.89.244.123 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04501) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.232.109.63 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04502) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.113.61.117 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04491) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.116.126.78 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04503) v. John Doe Subscriber IP Address 100.37.0.82 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04483)
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:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.104.114 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04113) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.69.237 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04116) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.36.107.104 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04117) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.139.57 (Case No. 5:20-cv-04131) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.22.2 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04118) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.94.31.214 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04121) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.109.16.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04122) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.141.106 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04124) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.188.111 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04126) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.242.117 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04127) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.64.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04128) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.104.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04129) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.178.10 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04130) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.188.222.234 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04216) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.139.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06446) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.255.72 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06447) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.252.194 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06449) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.164.49 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06451) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.18.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06452) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.176.48 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06454) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.162.141.87 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06455) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.69.178 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06457) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.12.109 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06460) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.30.53 (Case No. 5:20-cv-06461) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.122.173 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00177) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.19.39.68 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00178) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.41.242 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00179) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.36.235.201 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00180) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.192.26 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00181) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.190.120 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.58.91 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.2.227 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.236.131 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00185) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.78.136.186 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.125.143 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00187) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.56.50 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00188) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.15.115 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00189) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.146.147 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05121) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.204.106 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05122) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.57.233 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05123) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.92.101 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05124) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.183.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05125) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.5.124 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05126) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.50.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05127) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.19.31.245 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05128) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.196.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05129) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.56.174 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05130) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.235.194 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05149) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.214.161 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05151) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.75.224.192 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05152) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.162.206.177 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05153) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.77.9 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05154) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.78.193.245 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05155) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.92.35.129 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05156) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.0.215 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05157) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.91.193 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05158) v. JOHN DOE INFRINGER IDENTIFIED AS USING IP ADDRESS 68.82.163.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05223) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.51.34 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04728) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.83.32 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04730) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.4.242.97 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04737) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.213.113 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04739) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 141.158.36.188 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04740) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.77.13 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04743) v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-02374) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 173.67.155.109 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00064) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 72.72.164.54 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00065) v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-02147) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.117.12.231 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01937) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 74.99.146.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01780) 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.
— 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.
How is Culpepper IP sending settlement demand emails without a lawsuit and without an ISP subpoena?
Accused internet users who are receiving settlement demand letters from Joshua Lee (a first year associate working for Culpepper) at-least-once went onto the YTS.LT and YTS.AM (“YTS”) websites and registered accounts with them using their real e-mail address (how much do you trust your piracy bittorrent-based website now?). THIS appears to be how he has been able to send them settlement demand letters without any courts, no judge oversight, no subpoenas, and no lawsuits.
AchinVerma / Pixabay
Why did I refer to Culpepper IP’s settlement demand letters as being in an “Ashley Madison” / “Pornhub” fashion?
ASHLEY MADISON HACK (2015)
The Ashley Madison hack was pretty horrible for those who were exposed by the hack. Many married men and women signed up for the site [and paid a membership fee] using their REAL NAME, E-MAIL ADDRESS, and CREDIT CARD INFORMATION.
When the Ashley Madison hack happened in 2015, hackers stole their database containing 32 million people who used their website. No doubt this ended many marriages (which were probably over anyway), but it demonstrated to the internet world that your private information isn’t private if the website you are trusting with your personal information turns that information over to nefarious individuals.
The YTS 2020 story is a bit different. The visitors to the bittorrent website registered their real e-mail addresses and proceeded to download copyrighted films using bittorrent. Registered users again trusted their private information with the website and again, they have been betrayed.
Here, YTS provided IP address logs containing their user’s information to Culpepper IP, and as we expected, the settlement demand letters have started to go out.
Is Kerry Culpepper evil? Likely not.
Many would likely disagree with me here, but what Kerry Culpepper (and Joshua Lee, a first year associate under Culpepper’s direction) of Culpepper IP are doing on the surface appears to be merely two attorneys who are fighting piracy of their client’s films.
SETTLEMENT LETTERS “CHEAP” COMPARED TO HIS LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS.
The settlement demand letters being sent out by Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP are not that expensive. They are asking for a settlement of $950. While $950 is no doubt a lot of money to many people, putting the settlement amount in context to the many thousands of dollars Culpepper has asked for in the past for one title, $950 is a bargain.
Here, his $950 settlements are not merely, “pay me and I’ll decide not to sue you in federal court for copyright infringement.” No. Rather, with his settlements, he is asking accused internet users to provide a signed declaration detailing:
“which BitTorrent client you used to reproduce the motion picture;”
“which website or business promoted the BitTorrent client to you;” and
“whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”
[“Lawfare” is defined as using legal systems and institutions to achieve a goal. It can be the misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or de-legitimizing them.]
Earlier this month, I wrote an article entitled, “Why Culpepper IP Is Engaging In A Takeover Of The Piracy Trade Names,” where I suggested that Kerry Culpepper is filing piracy-based trademarks as his own for the purpose of literally taking the domain names (and consequently, their traffic from the millions of internet users who visit their pages every day) and using it for his own purposes.
LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS
While I never know what Culpepper is doing, I can come to logical conclusions by simply looked at what he is asking for:
“which BitTorrent client…” — this provides data and evidence which he can use against the bittorrent companies.
“which website or business promoted the BitTorrent client to you…” — this provides evidence to allow him to go after companies like ShowBox, PopcornTime, and various websites and apps [all of whom have millions of users and who produce million of DOLLARS in ad revenue].
“whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.” — this is a dangerous one. ISPs have “safe harbor” rules which prevent them from being sued for activities that users engage in using their networks. However, it appears to me as if Kerry Culpepper intends to start suing the ISPs… which is BIG BUCKS for his movie clients if he succeeds.
OR, MAYBE NOT.
Obviously I could be thinking too much into all of this. Kerry Culpepper could just be an evil copyright troll who is trying to find new ways to make a quick buck for the least amount of effort… However, with all of his activities against YTS / 1337x.to, the trademark filings, and whatever else he has been doing, the simple answer is probably the one that wins out.
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.
[This follow-up article about Kodi Add-ons was written on 8/2/2017. I never hit the “publish” button [probably because I wanted to add more information at the time], but I am doing so now because our firm regularly receives questions about Kodi add-ons. At the time I wrote this article, copyright infringements filed against users of the Kodi software was rare, but I foresaw that copyright enforcement companies would begin using the behind-the-scenes capabilities of the add-ons to “catch” users pirating movie content.]
I just finished drafting the article entitled, “Why Kodi users are being sued for copyright infringement.” The purpose of writing that article was to voice the real threat that Kodi Add-ons which connect to bittorrent networks can get users sued in federal court for copyright infringement.
Bittorrent networks are generally bad news for pirates these days. There are already so many movie copyright trolls who are watching the bittorrent networks and are suing bittorrent users for copyright infringement, regardless of whether they actually did the download or not. There are even “common troll” copyright enforcement entities such as RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) which [we understand] contact movie production studios and convince them to license the rights to enforce (think, “sue for copyright infringement”) the copyrights owned by the production company who made the failed movie. If you view RIGHTSENFORCEMENT’s site and click on “clients,” you’ll see a huge list of movies which, if acquired via bittorrent, can get the downloader sued for copyright infringement. This list of movies is growing, and Growing, and GROWING. In sum, stay away from bittorrent like the plague. It is filled with those looking to sue for the unlawful download of their copyrighted films.
As for Kodi: The reason I did not like writing the article “Why Kodi users are being sued for copyright infringement,” was because while I do not condone, encourage, or cheer on those who violate the copyrights of others, I do have a “stake” in the copyright debate. Violating copyright is theft, and while I believe that much of the fault of copyright infringement falls on the content producers 1) for making unoriginal junk that does not succeed in the theaters (I call these “floppers”), and 2) for not properly making their copyrighted content available for lawful movie watchers to gain access to the copyrighted content (e.g., think, HBO and the Game of Thrones issue). It is my opinion that many would-be pirates would happily pay for content if it was more readily available (which is why Netflix and Amazon Prime are so successful).
However, Kodi and the concept of “whether an internet user can get caught streaming music or movies” has always been an interesting topic for me. The reason for this is very simple — from a legal perspective, using bittorrent can get the downloader caught because their IP address is exposed in the download of the content. However, Kodi (when tweaked to allow piracy) never used bittorrent. Rather, they STREAMED content which was being held unlawfully on some server that the copyright holders had a difficult time shutting down based on the DMCA laws, and where those servers were located. In other words, Kodi presented a technology challenge to those copyright trolls who sought to sue downloaders for the unlawful download of their films.
A few months ago, I was intrigued by the PornHub lawsuits, where I discovered that by using a MPAA-friendly company such as Google, downloaders of even streamed music could get caught. I realized that copyright infringement lawsuits could be filed against internet users who STREAMED movie content, even though their viewing activities never touched a bittorrent network. Kodi [when tweaked] was the vehicle which made this content available, and Google Analytics was the mechanism copyright holders could use to unmask the IP addresses of the downloaders accessing the copyrighted content. Kodi + Google Analytics allowed copyright holders to bypass the bittorrent networks altogether, and this is why it was such a hot topic for me as a defense attorney.
So can you understand why I think this article (Why You CAN Get Sued Using Kodi Add-ons) is such a “cheap” topic for me? Obviously a plug-in which uses bittorrent can get someone sued.
In sum, the article was not about getting caught using Kodi or getting caught streaming; rather, it is why you can get caught using bittorrent. There is nothing new to share here — a Kodi Add-on lawsuit is identical to the bittorrent lawsuit, and it should be treated the same way.
[2020 UPDATE: This is where I ended the article. Again, I am posting this article for historical accuracy. Obviously we are 3 years later, but I still regularly get questions about whether it is safe to put Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV stick, and other such questions.]
If you are here looking for VIXEN GROUP videos, you came to the wrong place. BUT *PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO READ THIS BEFORE CONTINUING TO YOUR VIXEN ADULT FILM VIDEO*. Vixen, along with Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” are all website porn brands belonging to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.
On the topic of VIXEN PORN VIDEOS, there is a woman named Micheline Pitt who started a clothing line (more on this in a second). Pornography videos often scenes of abuse, sexual assault, or even rape, and I am happy to see that she is taking a stand against these.
Micheline Pitt has started a campaign #VIXENNOTAVICTIM to bring awareness to survivors of sexual assault, rape, and abuse. For every piece of clothing that you purchase, Micheline Pitt will donate 30%-40% (or more) to RAINN to help survivors and prevent sexual violence.
If you came here looking for Vixen porn, I am not “guilting you” into buying her clothing or making a contribution to RAINN (the “Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network”), but yeah — if you are providing clicks and ad revenue to the porn industry, at least spend a few dollars balancing things out and donating to RAINN or buying Micheline Pitt’s clothing.
In short, if you are watching Vixen porn videos, put some balance into the world and donate money or buy products which benefit those who are hurt and who have their lives ruined by the porn industry.
WHERE TO FIND LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE VIXEN PORN VIDEOS
If you are actually looking for Vixen porn videos (e.g., VIXEN GROUP adult film videos related to the Vixen Blacked, Tushy, and Deeper. brand names), you do not need to go to illegal sources which can get you sued.
Vixen porn videos (along with the Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” porn video brands) all belong to the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright troll company. I am the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC and the TorrentLawyer.com website. I have been watching being getting sued almost daily for viewing these adult film videos since March, 2017.
So please, do not become a victim of Strike 3 Holdings by downloading their Vixen, Blacked, Tushy, or Deeper. branded films… NOT from illegal sources (where you can provide them ad revenue), and NOT from legal sources by paying for their content.
HOW DO THOSE WHO WATCH VIXEN PORN VIDEOS GET CAUGHT AND SUED?
Those who watch porn videos usually get caught by downloading the videos using bittorrent software. “Tushy,” “Blacked,” and now “Deeper.” are all video brands owned by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and can be found [think, were LEAKED AND ARE MONITORED BY COPYRIGHT TROLLS] on the bittorrent websites.
I don’t care which software you use: Bittorrent, uTorrent, Transmission, Vuze (Azurus), or any other software that uses BitTorrent.
You visit a website, whether it is 1137x.to (or 1337x.gd), The Pirate Bay, or any other website that allows you to browse adult film torrents and download Vixen mp4 xxx files, you click on a link, and open up your bittorrent software and download the Vixen mp4 xxx movies. THAT is how you get caught downloding their porn videos.
WHAT ABOUT THE TUBE WEBSITES WHERE I CAN STREAM VIXEN PORN VIDEOS?
Vixen porn videos (along with Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” branded videos) are illegally shared on the internet using YouTube-like websites. I do not need to name them, because no doubt you can find them.
I believed that you could get caught watching porn videos [like Blacked, Tushy, Deeper., etc.] either through a plaintiff attorney sending a subpoena to Google Analytics, Cloudfront, or any other website plug-in company that tracks the IP address and activities of users who visit their site (be careful what trackers your Tube-like porn streaming sites use).
However, once the plaintiff attorney gets the list of IP addresses of the Blacked porn site viewers, the plaintiff attorneys then needed to take the extra inconvenient step of filing one or more copyright infringement lawsuit in federal courts against “John Doe” defendants (the Blacked porn video viewers) who were assigned that particular IP address at that date and time.
They would ask the court for “Expedited Discovery” (FRCP Rule 26), and then they would send subpoenas to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) forcing them to hand over the identities of their subscribers who viewed the Blacked or Tushy videos — their IP addresses would be the ones they were assigned on the dates and time they viewed or streamed the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen videos. Those porn video viewers would receive ISP Subpoena Notification Letters letting them know that they have been sued as a “John Doe” defendant in their copyright infringement lawsuit.
Once the plaintiff attorney received the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen website visitor’s identities (which really were merely the account holders’ identities) from their ISPs, only then can the adult film Copyright Trolls (Strike 3 Holdings, LLC) begin to engage in the extortion portion of what is an elaborate settlement extortion scheme (settle for thousands or dollars or else we will NAME AND SERVE you in the federal court lawsuit).
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES AND LEGAL LOOPHOLES MADE MONITORING VIXEN PORN VIEWERS’ ACTIVITIES POSSIBLE.
Creative plaintiff attorneys have found loopholes in the legal system to shortcut the “Expedited Discovery” two-step method of obtaining the identities of Vixen porn video watchers who visited a website and exposed their IP address causing them to be caught and sued.
Instead of suing for copyright infringement in the federal courts, they sue in state courts (such as the Miami-Dade, Florida county court, the Maricopa, Arizona county court, or even St. Clair, Illinois county court). They sue using quasi-legal theories, such as equity or Bill of Discovery, and they ask the state or county court to reveal the identity of those accused of viewing, streaming, or downloading their client’s copyrighted videos.
With the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen adult videos, VIXEN GROUP’s own Florida attorneys — Rachel Walker & Tyler Mamone — engaged in this kind of state-based lawsuit with their Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits. This is an ongoing problem for those who viewed or streamed Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, or most recently, “Deeper.” videos without a license.
* 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Attorney Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP appears to be the attorney who is now working for Kerry Culpepper. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters.
ADDICTION TO PORNOGRAPHY HELPLINES
Nobody likes to talk about this topic, but it if nobody mentions it, you as the adult film viewer might not be aware of the problem.
As soon as you start spending losing hours at your computer viewing adult film websites, you might have a problem. Once your adult film viewing habits start interfering with your work and your everyday life (e.g., effects from lack of sleep, or relationship problems and the like), you might have a problem.
Bottom line, pornography addiction is essentially a dopamine addiction where the affected person seeks a “dopamine high” which they get from pornography. It must be noted that other activities, e.g., running, sex, relationships, parenting, movies, etc. also provide dopamine highs as well.
If you suspect you might need help for such a pornography addiction, then by all means, reach out to one of these groups. For privacy purposes, I might just create a fake account on reddit.com so that I can get help without pasting my name everywhere on my posts, but the official groups are set up to preserve your privacy and your anonymity as well.
IN SUMMARY:
OK, so you came here looking for Blacked / Tushy / Vixen pornography videos. I hope I have given you a few things to think about along the way.
As an attorney and the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, I support my family by representing clients who are sued by copyright trolls. This being said, if I could save you from being my client by NOT being sued in the first place, I would be just as happy with the result.
Lastly, no doubt YOU YOURSELF might not engage in these acts and your adult film viewing habits might be innocent, you cannot deny that there are others that watch pornography, and act out the abuse, sex acts, or rapes on those around them, willing or not.
Whether it is the adult films (the pornography) which is to blame or those who engage in violent acts against others, by watching pornography YOU MUST CONSIDER that you give financial benefit (in the form of power, ad revenue, and sometimes outright cash) to the pornography industry by watching porn videos, legal or not.
What you do with this information is up to you. Let’s hope you never need my services as an attorney.
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.
