The Truth about Kerry Culpepper IP movie lawsuits.

hb-productions-fallen-productions-settlements Multiple Settlements from One Lawsuit

Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii is a complicated attorney. I have demonstrated in previous articles that Kerry Culpepper thinks “at levels higher than the average person,” and that he can usually run circles around judges do not have the caffeine to oppose him. Here, Kerry Culpepper brazenly exposes what I call a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity by representing ALL of the movie copyright trolls together in one lawsuit. [Click to Tweet!]

[SEPTEMBER 2020 UPDATE: SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAILS.]

CULPEPPER IP has figured out a way to enforce his movie clients’ copyrights out-of-court. He has done this by sending settlement demand e-mails to internet users accused of VISITING, REGISTERING (with their real e-mail address), and DOWNLOADING copyrighted movies from the YTS website.

These settlement demand letters have been sent *via e-mail* by Attorney Joshua Lee (who now appears to be working for Kerry Culpepper at Culpepper IP). Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters sent directly to internet users… without an ISP subpoena, without a Hawaii Rule 512(h) subpoena, without asking Cloudfront or Google Analytics to hand over the IP address information, and without a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Hawaii District Court.

The reason I am mentioning the Culpepper IP settlement demand e-mails here [in this article] is because with Kerry Culpepper, YOU MUST BE PREPARED that there is SOMETHING ELSE going on behind the scenes.

While in the settlement demand email” article I conclude that Culpepper’s end goal is to engage in “lawfare” against the piracy websites in order to protect his movie clients’ interests, you must be prepared that he is simply doing this for ONLY PROFIT, in which the topics I wrote about in this article REMAIN VERY RELEVANT TO YOUR SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAIL.

Here is that article for your reference: The truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand letters VIA E-MAIL to YTS users.

Now back to the movie lawsuits…

Expect to be asked to pay multiple settlements for multiple movies downloaded.

Be warned that settling the Fallen Productions Inc. (or HB Productions Inc.) ISP subpoena-based lawsuits might result in Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP asking you to pay for additional settlements for other movies your accused IP address downloaded on other dates using bittorrent.

[Also be warned that if you hire a “settlement factory” defense attorney, chances are high that in their attempt to streamline the settlement process, you will not only pay a settlement for the “Angel Has Fallen” movie (or the “Hellboy” movie, or whatever movie is behind that particular copyright infringement lawsuit), but you may also end up having to pay for EACH AND EVERY OTHER MOVIE you may have downloaded over the past few years (assuming “tongue-in-cheek” for a moment that this same plaintiff attorney is representing the other movie companies as well).]

How is it that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the same attorney representing ALL the movie lawsuits?

Now obviously Kerry Culpepper is only one attorney in Hawaii. There have been *MANY* attorneys over the past ten years which I consider to be copyright troll attorneys who represent the same set of clients. However, in the past few days / weeks, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP started a storm of activity on the web by going after YTS / 1337x.to — the bittorrent trackers and the piracy websites themselves.

Then, he followed this up be asking the court for a subpoena to disclose the identity of accused downloaders who used those website to download his client’s movies.

…Then, Kerry Culpepper sent DMCA settlement demand letters to these accused downloaders asking them to settle the claims against them for $1,000 per movie download or face a copyright infringement lawsuit in the federal courts. Thus, I am using Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP as the example in this article about his client — a COMMON MOVIE TROLL entity.

Have you heard? There is STILL a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity behind all of the movie lawsuits in the US.

I am about to claim (again, 3 years later) that the same set of attorneys (here, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) are behind ALL of the movie lawsuits filed in the US (and that each of these attorneys are working for the same common copyright troll entity), and I have proof.

[Click to Tweet!]

In 2017, I spent a lot of time making known that the movie-based bittorrent cases were all being run by the same people behind the scenes. It was too coincidental that the same “copyright troll” attorneys were attracting every single movie company to be “their” client. 

For years, I had only anecdotal evidence that the same attorneys were representing the same set of movie companies. It was only here in this lawsuit [All the movie companies together (represented by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) v. Harry Beasor and DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004) in the Hawaii District Court] that I had demonstrable proof that one attorney was representing EACH AND EVERY ONE of the movie copyright trolls.

[Initially, I could explain this theory away by thinking that it is more plausible that there is a large entity who moves within the circles of the large movie producers and has the ear of the production companies.  Thus, when there is (yet) a(nother) movie that flops, they suggest that this movie production company use their services and sue downloaders of the film to re-coup losses from their failed movie.  At one point, I thought it was the MPAA itself which was the entity behind the scenes.  Within the context of this “bigger” entity, the plaintiff attorneys filing the lawsuits in each state are merely “cogs” in the wheel of this larger entity.]

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

One Explanation: ONE attorney in each state works for the same COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity.

Let’s elaborate using logic.  If ONE plaintiff attorney in one particular state has become the ONLY ATTORNEY who files ALL of the movie lawsuits, then this plaintiff attorney must either be a MARKETING GENIUS by achieving this monopoly (meaning, the plaintiff attorney is 100% successful in attracting every one of the new movie lawsuits AND has been 100% successful in excluding EVERY OTHER ATTORNEY from filing movie lawsuits in that particular state)…

…Or (more likely,) there are a group of insiders or [there is] a single entity behind the scenes [with a reputation among the movie production companies] which actively sells their services to each of the movie companies — [offering to sue every downloader for copyright infringement].

Each attorney filing in each state’s federal court is working for this same “common copyright troll” entity which provides them with the instructions to sue defendants accused of downloading their client’s copyrighted movie titles. 

My observation: The same movie companies are always represented by the SAME copyright troll attorneys in each state.

Based on my observations over the years, the SAME plaintiff attorneys represent the SAME movie companies in EVERY STATE.

With this case (pictured above), I can demonstrate that in the Hawaii District Court, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the attorney that is representing each and every one of the movie lawsuits.

In other words, just as Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the “copyright troll movie attorney” in Hawaii, there are other plaintiff attorneys in other states who are working for a common copyright troll entity working behind the scenes. 

Who is this COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity?

But who is this common copyright troll entity?  Thinking logically that the MPAA is too-big-of-an-entity to cause such mischief, after some searching, in 2017, I found a company named “Rights Enforcement” (found at RightsEnforcement.com) being run by “Carl Crowell, a one-man police force for Hollywood studios.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (Now Defunct)

[As of writing this article, Rights Enforcement has since taken down their website and changed their name. I currently do not know under what name they are operating].

An Example of Copyright Trolls Hiding Their Activities: Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com

It was further proof at the time that there was a copyright troll [at the time, Carl Crowell, owner of RightsEnforcement.com (RightsEnforcement website *now taken down or changed to some other name I am not yet aware of*)] who was [at the time] posting each of the movies on their websites only to have those exact movies be the movies that were used to sue accused downloaders across the US.Below is an image taken from the now defunct RightsEnforcement.com website:

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-angel-productions-carl-crowell-guardaley-connection

NOTE: It appears to me that Rights Enforcement (purposefully named to be an impossible name to find on a Google Search) was the website that was used to sell Carl Crowell’s “Hire us and we’ll sue [for you] internet users who have downloaded your copyrighted films.” The RightsEnforcement.com website’s last update was in July, 2017 when they updated the list of movies.

RightsEnforcement.com has since been removed and their domain abandoned.

You might think this means that they went out of business, but really, based on my own research, it appears as if they did not want people to be aware of their activities. In other words, the RightsEnforcement.com website was meant to be hidden from people like you and me, and our articles brought too much exposure to what they were doing.

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

As you can see below, Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com even took steps to hide their footsteps by excluding their website history from archive.org’s “Way Back Machine.”

settlements-hb-productions-fallen-productions Wayback Machine RightsEnforcement

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

Why I think that HB Productions & Fallen Productions, Inc. are part of this “common copyright troll” conglomerate entity.

Returning to the HB Productions, Inc. (“Hellboy”) and Fallen Productions, Inc. (“Angel Has Fallen”) lawsuits, I have reason to believe that these two “shell” production companies are yet TWO MORE companies affiliated with Carl Crowell, Rights Enforcement (whatever name they go by now), and Guardaley (the German entity probably behind even Carl Crowell).

As you can see, these two copyright trolls are represented in this lawsuit image above by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP.

When I first saw this, I was surprised to see that so many of the “common copyright troll” entity’s clients showed up as co-plaintiffs… suing TOGETHER in ONE copyright infringement lawsuit…

But then when I immediately saw that this was filed in the US DISTRICT COURT… FOR THE DISTRICT OF *HAWAII*, my immediate thought was that “Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP must have been the one who filed this.” Only he would have the strategic calculations that would inspire him to bunch these lawsuits plaintiffs together.

“Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP” in Hawaii must have been the one who sued these defendants for all of his client’s movies (including HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc.).

In sum, call this all a conspiracy theory, but then notice which copyright holders have just sued defendants TOGETHER IN ONE LAWSUIT filed by Kerry Culpepper in the Hawaii District Court:

kerry-culpepper-of-culpepper-ip-filed-fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen-hb-productions-hellboy-isp-subpoena-movie-lawsuit-common-troll

So to date, which “copyright troll” movie companies are represented by this “COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL” MOVIE CONGLOMERATE”? Let’s look:

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

Coincidence that kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is representing each of the movie companies together?

Is it ANY COINCIDENCE that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP (the plaintiff attorney for the Fallen Productions Inc. and the HB Productions Inc. ISP subpoena based lawsuits) is also suing defendants for the bittorrent download of these other movies as well? …in the SAME LAWSUIT?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

Do you think if you were sued for just one title… and Kerry Culpepper has reason to know that the IP address [that you were assigned from your ISP] was also seen downloading these other movies, do you think that you will also be asked to settle the claims against you for these other movies too?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

Have Movie Companies Taken a Lesson [to ask for multiple settlements] from the Porn Industry Strike 3 Holdings LLC & Malibu Media LLC Lawsuits?

Strike 3 Holdings LLC and Malibu Media LLC (both pornography-based lawsuits) found a way to force accused adult film downloaders to not only settle the claims against them for one copyrighted movie downloaded, but in every lawsuit, they now ask for settlements for each and every copyrighted title ever downloaded by that internet user.

Do you think that the plaintiff attorneys behind the Fallen Productions Inc. “Angel Has Fallen” movie John Doe lawsuits (or the HB Productions inc. “Hellboy” movie John Doe lawsuits) won’t also ask for settlements from other movies they also believe that you downloaded in the past?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

[Remember, copyright infringement gives the copyright holder *THREE YEARS* from the alleged date of infringement to file a copyright infringement John Doe lawsuit against you for the bittorrent-based download of that copyrighted movie.]

How many times are YOU willing to settle the claims against you?

In sum, unlike Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP, most plaintiff attorneys have been trying to hide on the court’s dockets that they are suing for one video, but asking for settlements for other titles allegedly downloaded by that same downloader. Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii has demonstrated that there is an explicit link between these copyright holders by suing defendants for the download of each of these copyright holders’ copyrighted movie titles. [Click to Tweet!]

Why using a settlement factory attorney to settle claims in lawsuits like these could be problematic.

I don’t even need to breach this topic, but settlement factory attorneys will try to settle the claims made against their client in the most “economical” method possible.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT HIRING A SETTLEMENT FACTORY ATTORNEY TO SETTLE ONE TITLE CLAIMED AGAINST YOU WILL KEEP YOU OUT OF TROUBLE WHEN THAT SAME COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY TAKES YOUR SETTLEMENT MONEY AND LATER ASKS FOR MORE SETTLEMENTS FOR “OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED?”

…How many times can you afford to settle a copyright claim against you? How many titles can you afford to pay to settle?

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

Misleading HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc. Filings?

Thus far, these are the HB Productions Inc. and Fallen Productions Inc. that have been filed… each alleging ONLY the download of ONE title. Deceptive? Have the plaintiff attorneys in these cases disclosed the REAL INTERESTED PARTY or is the common-troll hoax still trying to be hidden?

HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07511)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07159)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07512)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07161)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07508)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07002)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07005)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07513)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07157)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07163)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07003)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07514)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07160)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07004)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07006)

HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Nevada District Court:

HB Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-5 (Case No. 2:19-cv-01849)

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

Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08339)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08343)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08340)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08341)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-31 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08342)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00367)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00369)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00374)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00371)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00368)

Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court:

Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. Beasor et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00033)

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

In sum, understand from this article the dynamics of who is really suing you.

In sum, just be careful when dealing with any of these movie company lawsuits.  I have written about Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP many times, and I have even called him an “evil genius” at times because he thinks out of the box.

Chances are that each movie lawsuit is filed by the same attorney who is filing other movie lawsuits, and because there is a “common copyright troll” between the various lawsuits, there is a mechanism for them to look up your accused IP address and check to see whether you have downloaded any of their “other clients’ copyrighted titles.”

If you as a defendant are unaware of this fact, or if you are an attorney who is purposefully blind to this fact (this is one of my big problems with “settlement factory” defense attorneys), then you expose yourself (or you expose your client) to additional claims of copyright infringement while that plaintiff attorney seeks to solicit additional money for additional titles allegedly downloaded… just after you (or your client) paid them thousands of dollars to settle the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

Obviously I am simplifying here greatly (and not all attorneys ask for additional settlements), but for what it is worth, understanding the dynamics of who is suing you and where they received your information is very important when deciding how to approach the defense of your case… especially when you seek to settle one claim of copyright infringement and that plaintiff attorney claims that you downloaded four other titles belonging to “his” clients.

[Please Click to Tweet!]


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it for my eyes only, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

    NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

    Hawaii’s 512(h) subpoenas unmask identities in a sneaky way.

    Kerry-Culpepper-IP 512(h) subpoenas Hunter Killer Productions Inc.

    Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC has taken Hawaiian Telecom, Inc.’s subscribers who downloaded his clients’ movie using their cell phones. I wanted to spend a moment on how Culpepper did this, because it provides a good follow-up on my 5/3 article about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits.

    Culpepper IP is the Hawaii-based law firm which Kerry Culpepper has since used to send letters to internet users ACCUSED OF VISITING a particular website, and downloading a movie which is copyrighted by his clients.

    * 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Joshua Lee (Joshua Jungho Lee) of Culpepper IP appears to be a first year associate who is working for Kerry Culpepper. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters, which is why I am mentioning it here.

    * 7/28/2021 UPDATE *: It appears as if Joshua Jungho Lee of Culpepper IP has filed this sort of lawsuit again — this time with his In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. (Case No. 1:21-mc-267) case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. In this lawsuit, Joshua Lee is representing Culpepper IP’s movie clients, including the following copyright holders:

    • Rambo V Productions, Inc.
    • Millennium Funding, Inc.
    • Hunter Killer Productions, LLC
    • Outpost Productions, Inc.
    • Bodyguard Productions, Inc.
    • MON, LLC

    In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. (Case No. 1:21-mc-267) is not yet a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

    Ordinarily the case would show up on my radar because the plaintiff attorney would file a In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. v. John Does copyright infringement lawsuit in a particular federal court (here, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii). However, this is not yet a copyright infringement lawsuit, but rather, a “miscellaneous” case where he asked the court to force Hawaii Telecom to disclose the identity of its subscribers who are accused of downloading his clients’ movies.

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

    Kerry Culpepper would ordinarily ask the court for what is referred to as “expedited discovery” in a copyright infringement lawsuit, meaning, he would ask the court to authorize Culpepper to send a subpoena to the ISP. I described this process in detail just days ago in the “How Paul Beik Has Malibu Media LLC Defendants Served” section of the linked article.

    This ISP subpoena would ordinarily then force the Hawaii Telecom ISP to hand over the name of the John Doe defendant(s) accused of infringing the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. copyright holder’s “Hunter Killer” movie (or whatever movie production is claiming their movies were downloaded without permission).

    Judges are aware of the “copyright troll” problem.

    I had to ask myself, “why would Kerry Culpepper go through such loops to disclose the identity of the alleged downloaders? Couldn’t he have just filed a Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. Does 1-20 copyright infringement lawsuit against 20 downloaders like any other plaintiff attorney / copyright holder? Why go through the hoops of filing the In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. (Case No. 1:21-mc-267) case which is NOT a copyright infringement lawsuit?

    Then it occurred to me: In the list of Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits filed against defendants, I did not see *any* cases filed in the Hawaii District Court. (Rather, I only saw a few Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

    Could it be that the Hawaii District Court has outlawed Rule 26 “expedited discovery” bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in their case holdings? If Kerry Culpepper cannot get a federal judge to grant an “expedited discovery” to allow him to send a subpoena to the ISPs [to discover the identity of the would-be John Doe defendants], then the plaintiff attorney has a copyright infringement lawsuit without any known defendants.

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

    Judges across the US have become aware of the problem we refer to as “copyright trolling,” where a copyright holder uses the federal courts to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against a set of unknown defendants. They use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 26) “expedited discovery” tool to unmask the identities of the defendants sued in the lawsuits.

    As a result of much abuse and harassment by a number of plaintiff attorneys, some judges have taken proactive steps to DENY the plaintiff attorney’s FRCP Rule 26 “expedited discovery” requests. If this is what is happening in Hawaii, this would in theory prevent Kerry Culpepper from forcing the ISP to hand over the names of the account subscribers (hence, no known defendants to sue).

    What is In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. (Case No. 1:21-mc-267), and why is it a “MISCELLANEOUS CASE”?

    What a BORING name for such an abused type of lawsuit!!!

    I have seen lawsuits that look something like “Case No. 1:21-mc-267” which differ from the civil cases [which look like “Case No. 1:21-cv-00267″]. These “miscellaneous” cases do not formally accuse the defendant of copyright infringement in the form of a complaint, but rather, they function more as a “motion to compel” [to force] a third party (here, Hawaii Telecom, Inc.) to disclose the identity of a would-be defendant.

    From a non-lawyer’s eye, who cares whether the plaintiff attorney used a “1:21-cv-267″ (a “civil” case) to file their lawsuit, or a “1:21-mc-267″ (“miscellaneous” case) to discover the identity of the alleged infringer. It is the same result — the plaintiff attorney (here, Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC) acquires the name of the alleged infringer and contacts him or her with the intention of accusing them of copyright infringement.

    However it is the BACKHANDED WAY the plaintiff attorney gets his defendants that simply irks me.

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

    I saw these same “miscellaneous case” filings in Florida state courts in 2010-2012.

    This is not the first time I have seen “miscellaneous cases (mc)” rather than the typical “civil cases (cv)”.

    Keith Lipscomb, the attorney [at the time] behind all of the Malibu Media LLC cases (and formerly, the Patrick Collins Inc. cases from 2010-2012) used to use a similar mechanism in the Florida state courts to achieve these same ends. As an attorney myself who operates in the FEDERAL COURTS, a “mc” case filed in a state court would not show up on my radar.

    What Kerry Culpepper did in Hawaii to force the clerk to issue 512(h) subpoenas to Hawaiian Telecom.

    Kerry Culpepper in my opinion is one of the smarter plaintiff attorneys. I have always known this, as his copyright infringement lawsuits were always out-of-the-box.

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

    When dealing with him, Culpepper rarely asked for a settlement outright — rather, he had a roundabout way of explaining that, “…since my client accessed the bittorrent file 530 times over a two-day (26 hour) period to download a full copy of the movie, and that bittorrent swarm shared the movie with 2,930 other bittorrent users over those same 26 hours, judging the discounted cost of a movie at Wal*Mart is $2.99 (in a clearance bin, not $19.99 retail on the shelf), multiply the $2.99 x 2,930 to arrive at a settlement price of $8,760.70.”

    His thinking style was also visible when he decided to sue a group of individuals who I presume were profiting off of the ad sales of a movie app which shares pirated movies. Rather than “shake down” the end user (the downloader), he went after the “big bucks,” here I assume the ad revenue, as the Showbox app was actively being used [and ads shown] by literally millions of users.

    In sum, Kerry Culpepper a good mind which he uses to discover methods of suing defendants for profit.

    Kerry Culpepper-512(h)-subpoenas-hawaii-hunter-killer-productions

    In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. (Case No. 1:21-mc-267) and their new defendants.

    This brings us to Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP’s latest feat — getting the Hawaii Federal Court to force Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. to hand over the names of several defendants WITHOUT EVER FILING A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

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

    In his application to the US District Court for the District of Hawaii entitled “In re Subpoena to Verizon Wireless” (Case No. 1:19-mc-00125) [and now with his In Re Subpoena to Hawaiian Telecom, Inc. v. John Does (Case No. 1:21-mc-00267) case], he invokes 17 USC 512(h) to ask the *CLERK* (not a judge, and WITHOUT a lawsuit filed) to issue a subpoena to disclose the identity of an alleged copyright infringer.

    Let me say that again. Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP just succeeded in getting the CLERK to issue a subpoena WITHOUT ANY JUDGE ruling on the motion, and WITHOUT NEEDING TO FILE ANY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

    Literally, the entire “miscellaneous” lawsuit was:

    • Doc 1) Application for a 512(h) subpoena,
    • Doc 2) Judge assigns the case to a magistrate judge (in my opinion, in an “I’m not touching this one,” way),
    • Doc 3) Clerk issues subpoena.
      [CASE CLOSED]

    JOSHUA JUNGHO LEE (KERRY CULPEPPER’S ATTORNEY) ARGUMENT TO THE HAWAII DISTRICT COURT

    Culpepper IP’s argument was simple. I am laying it out in points below:

    1) DC Circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena can only be issued to an ISP engaged in storing infringing copyrighted materials on their servers. (351 F.3d 1229, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

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

    2) Eighth circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena only applies to an ISP that directly stores, caches, or provides links to infringing materials. (393 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2005)).

    Culpepper IP noted that neither court mentioned anything about whether a subpoena can be issued to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to pass copyrighted content through their servers].

    Here is where Kerry Culpepper shows his talents (now filed by Joshua Jungho Lee):

    Culpepper then commented that the 9th Circuit (which is a higher court which includes and is binding upon the Hawaii District) has not ruled on whether a copyright holder can use a 512(h) subpoena to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to infringe copyrighted materials].

    He then invoked the recent BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 300 (4th Cir. 2018) case to conclude that the 9th Circuit (including the Hawaii District Court) would allow such a 512(h) subpoena.

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

    PERSONAL NOTE:

    There are some people who operate at such a high level that I get a headache when listening to them. I could strain to understand them, but I wonder whether I would understand them better if I too were a few magnitudes smarter.

    I read the arguments and looked up the references, but I don’t get the jump in logic.

    Personally, I think Culpepper confused the court with a logic-based argument, but I believe he jumped to a conclusion that his facts did not support.

    However, I’ve heard Culpepper speak — he is a smart dude and he thinks very quickly. Sometimes it is difficult to understand him because he is thinking at levels higher than the average person (here, the average judge) can comprehend.

    However, I still think that the judge dropped the ball and did not have the caffeine to oppose Culpepper (NOTE: there was no “defense” counsel to oppose him), and the Hawaii court capitulated.

    This is how I see it after reading what happened.

    [UPDATE: After writing this e-mail, Kerry Culpepper explained his reasoning why 512(h) subpoenas are a legitimate way to uncover the identities of his client’s movies.]

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

    THE END RESULT: CULPEPPER IP KNOWS WHO YOU ARE.

    The end result is that now Hawaiian Telecom Inc. will be complying with the subpoena and providing Culpepper here, a list of who-knows-how-many-defendants who allegedly used their cell phones to view, stream, or download copies of his clients’ movies, and the settlement demands will likely ensue.

    If you are an attorney and have the desire to see exactly what Kerry Culpepper did, here is the link to his previous application to the Hawaii court on this same topic.

    If you are a defendant (or you received a letter from Joshua Lee or Kerry Culpepper asking for settlement money for the download of the Hunter Killer movie (or Rambo, or The Outpost, or any other movie) using your cell phone), at least now you will understand how he got your name.

    hawaii-512h-subpoenas-kerry-culpepper-ip-hunter-killer-settlement-hawaii-hi
    Perlinator / Pixabay

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


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Hunter Killer Productions Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

      NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

      Skip to content