VIXEN – Not to be confused with a rock band, clothing line.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement-vixen-blacked-tushy-deeper

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.

If you are looking for the Vixen music band – the all-female rock band from the 80’s. They can be found at VixenOfficial.com.

The Vixen Music Band also has a Vixen All-Female Rock Band Facebook Page.

vixen-micheline-pitt-clothing-website

MICHELINE PITT, HER CLOTHING LINE, AND RAINN

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.

Just so it is said, Micheline Pitt’s website sells an interesting line of clothing called “VIXEN BY MICHELINE PITT,” which has “GOOD THINGS FOR BAD GIRLS – SIZES XS – 4X.” Her clothing lines include “PET SEMATARY,” “THIS IS HALLOWEEN,” “FLORAL AFFAIR,” and probably a number of others that I have not seen.

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.

If you are looking for the VIXEN GROUP, the “legal” and legitimate source of the Vixen porn videos which will not get you sued, then click here.

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?

For many years, I was of the opinion that you would not get sued for viewing porn videos using the YouTube-like websites.

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.

Notably, however, are the Pornhub lawsuits where users using the Pornhub.com website to view Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films were exposed and sued for copyright infringement.

[I learned about in the context of analyzing whether someone can get caught for using the Kodi software, and more specifically, whether someone can get sued for putting Kodi software on an Amazon Firestick.]

CAUGHT (MONITORED) BUT NOT SUED

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.

Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP (who appears to represent the conglomerate of movie companies who sue defendants for the copyright infringement of their lawsuits) skirted the federal courts as well. Culpepper did this by suing accused downloaders and exposing their identities using Hawaii’s Rule 512(h) rules.

Most recently, Culpepper sent subpoenas to Cloudfront to determine which IP addresses viewed his movie clients’ films 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.

There *is* such thing as having an addition to pornography. Major sources have spoken about pornography addiction (albeit in a boring, medical kind of way), and popular groups such as Reddit’s “No-Fap” Support Group has been a great way to speak to others about what you might be going through.

Other more formal groups include “Sexaholics Anonymous” (sa.org) or “Recoveries Anonymous” (r-a.org).

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.

If I could inspire you to take actions to heal the damage that pornography viewing causes — either through getting help through Reddit’s Pornography Addiction resources, by buying clothing and supporting companies like VIXEN BY MICHELINE PITT, or by outright making donations to RAINN (the “Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network”), you will help to take a stand against sexual abuse, sexual assault, or even rape.

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 AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about what I have written here, 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 situation, 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.

    Behind The Scenes Story: Motion To Quash Online Forms

    motion-to-quash-online-forms-story

    Behind the scenes story of our law firm’s first motion to quash experience.

    I was reviewing some of my older articles when I (in 2010) referenced a terrible-but-funny behind the scenes story that happened to one of the defense attorneys when he tried to sell motion to quash online forms. When I initially wrote the article, I did not share the story in its entirety because I was trying not to bring attention to the motion to quash online forms fiasco (and I was obviously feeling pain for the attorney to whom this happened). But now ten years later, I edited the article and wrote the details of story in its entirety there, and now here (in more detail).

    I hope I have this attorney’s forgiveness in sharing this story. I kept his name out of it, and his motion to quash online forms are no longer available for sale online.

    What happened in 2010 to this defense attorney and his motion to quash online forms?

    QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT HAPPENED: In 2010, a defense attorney sold motion to quash online forms for a few dollars a copy. Someone pirated the form, everyone used it, and the plaintiff attorney asked the court to sanction the defense attorney. [Click to Tweet!]

    THE STORY:

    [I am pasting this snippet from the original 2010 article, with a few edits.]

    [We were trying to figure out what to do about the mass-bittorrent-defendant lawsuits…]

    In 2010, at the request of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group of us attorneys were trying to figure out how to deal with the mass-bittorrent-copyright-infringement lawsuits. Specifically, we were trying to figure out what to do about the ISP Subpoena Notification Letters that the accused “John Doe” defendants received.

    [ISP letters suggested subscribers should file an “objection” with the court…]

    In those ISP Subpoena Notification Letters, the accused defendants were led to believe that they should file a motion to quash (or, an “objection with the court”) in order to preserve the anonymity of their identity.

    [The ISP letters said (and still say) that if they filed an objection with the court, the ISP would not hand over the accused defendant’s contact information to the plaintiff attorney.]

    [My approach…]

    The ISP letters neglected to say (and still neglect to say) that the objection they are referring to is called a Motion to Quash.

    LOOKING AT WHAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN, I REALIZED THAT FILING AN OBJECTION ALONE WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD NEED TO PREVAIL IN COURT BY HAVING A JUDGE QUASH THE ISP SUBPOENA as to that John Doe Defendant.

    I analyzed the motion to quash question. “That was a bad outcome waiting to happen,” I thought.

    Thus, my approach was to realize that the motion to quash was a bad idea.

    […A Defense Attorney Differed, and Decided to Sell Motion to Quash Online Forms]

    Another attorney’s approach [bless his heart, even today he has my utmost respect] decided to make a few bucks per defendant [in 2010, the copyright infringement lawsuits had THOUSANDS of defendants per lawsuit filing]. This attorney decided to sell a “motion to quash” package containing motion to quash online forms that his customers — accused John Doe Defendants — could download and use (e.g., for $10 per document download).

    His logic was that his motion to quash online forms would make it easy for each defendant to file a motion to quash without needing to hire him as an attorney directly (saving him time and paperwork). And, because there are thousands of defendants per lawsuit, he would make “a few bucks” along the way… or else that was his plan.

    behind-the-scenes-motion-to-quash-online-forms-story
    Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

    […His plan did not work. An accused defendant bought his online form and uploaded it to the bittorrent network.]

    …I will never forget the uncontrollable laughter an attorney next to me experienced when he realized that this defense attorney’s “motion to quash” package was pirated and UPLOADED TO THE BITTORRENT NETWORK.

    Still rolling on the floor, “he made just seven sales, and his clients are all accused of copyright infringement. What did you expect them to do?” he said while trying to sit up and regain his composure.

    [Click to Tweet This Story!]

    [The end result: The defense attorney was successful in getting accused defendants to use his motion to quash online forms, but it tragically backfired…]

    As a result, many accused downloaders used this form to file motions to quash in this case (the case the article was written about). The plaintiff attorneys got mad at all of the extra paperwork this caused [because there were thousands of defendants], and they asked the court to sanction the defense attorney who sold the motion to quash online forms.

    IN SUMMARY.

    Again, that attorney (bless his heart) had such a rocky beginning in these copyright cases, and I understand that he is no longer representing clients in bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases. However, even years later, his name is still fresh in my mind, and with the recent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Miami-Dade cases, I still tried to send him a few clients because he was licensed to practice in Florida.

    As for his motion to quash online forms — these were later adopted and modified (or supplanted) by a blogger called “DieTrollDie” in what he called the “Richard Pryor Response (RPR).”

    [Please click here to Tweet this article!]

    direction 1497322527
    geralt / Pixabay


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about anything I have written, 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 case, or you can send a SMS / WhatsApp message to us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

      Choose authentic content. Avoid settlement factory websites.

      Picture suggesting settlement factory websites are faked.

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

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

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

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

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

      We are changing the structure of our websites.

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

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

      I researched and wrote every one of my articles.

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

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

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

      Picture suggesting the ghostwriting of blogged content.
      pedrofigueras / Pixabay

      Copyright Trolls, a pimple sprouted from patent trolls.

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

      Now defense attorneys betray their clients.

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

      Misinformation floods attorney blogs like blood.

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

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

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

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

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

      BIG difference between copying and theft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Settlement Factory Attorneys born in a cottage industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      -Rob

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

      Motion to Quash in one page (FAQ); when NOT to file a motion to quash.

      motions-to-quash-faq Motion to Quash in One Page

      What is a motion to quash, and how is it relevant in my copyright infringement lawsuit?

      What is a motion to quash in a copyright infringement lawsuit?

      motion to quash is a request for a court to render a previous decision null or invalid. In copyright infringement lawsuits, motions to quash are requests to nullify a decision made by the court allowing the plaintiff attorney to send subpoenas to the ISPs forcing them to provide the identity of an accused defendant.

      What is a motion to quash a subpoena?

      A motion to quash a subpoena is a request for the court to determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over the accused defendant. If the ISP subpoena letter recipient lives outside of the state in which the lawsuit was filed, the court will quash the subpoena and render the subpoena null and void.

      motion to quash is a request for a court to render a previous decision null or invalid. In copyright infringement lawsuits, motions to quash are requests to nullify a decision made by the court which allowed the plaintiff attorney to send subpoenas to the ISPs forcing them to provide the identity of one or more accused defendants.

      A motion to quash is the first legal term or so-called “tool” an accused defendant learns about when reading the subpoena letter sent to him by his ISP is that:

      1) He was implicated as a one of a small set of “John Doe” Defendants in a copyright infringement lawsuit.
      2) The copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by a copyright holder apparently owning the rights to a movie he clicked on or downloaded.
      3) He is being sued for $150,000 for the download of that movie.
      4) He may or may not have actually downloaded that movie.
      5) His ISP is being forced by a subpoena ordering them to turn over his true identity (along with other relevant information).

      After asking around, he learns:
      …6) There is a way to stop the ISP from handing out his contact information, and that is filing an “objection with the court.”
      7) The “objection with the court” that he would file is called a motion to quash.

      Motions to quash are not the answer, and here is why:

      A motion to quash is the first piece of “legal jargon” an accused defendant grasps onto.

      The accused defendant thinks, “I am going to quash the subpoena!”  Then the next logical thought is to search the internet for “motions to quash,” or “forms on how to file a motion to quash,” or “sample motions to quash,” etc.

      What that accused defendant receives in the search results is almost never his answer on how to file the motion to quash, but some enterprising attorney who decided that he will use this term to lure him in as a paying client for many months to come.

      Faced with the prospect of hiring an attorney to file a motion to quash for him, the accused defendant never asks, “should I file a motion to quash?”

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

      “Should I file a motion to quash?”

      Should I file a motion to quash a subpoena?

      Often, the answer is no. If you live outside of the state in which you were sued, your motion to quash the subpoena might succeed. But as a result of quashing the subpoena, the plaintiff attorney can file the same lawsuit in your home state.

      Obviously as an attorney I need to dance around this issue because this blog is not to be considered legal advice.  However, NO, contrary to popular thought and mob rule, it is my belief having defended “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases for now OVER SEVEN YEARS that motions to quash are NOT an effective tool for stopping your ISP from handing out your information to the plaintiff attorney.

      What exactly is a motion to quash?

      Simplifying a bit, a motion to quash in the context of a bittorrent lawsuit tells the court that they do not have “PERSONAL JURISDICTION” over you.  In other words, a motion to quash informs the court that the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll filed the lawsuit against you in the *wrong federal court* (and plaintiff attorneys have been forced to reimburse the ISPs for making this mistake).

      [The actual context is that this would be a motion to quash (or nullify) the subpoena which is forcing the ISP to hand over your information.  The attack itself is on the validity of the subpoena, not the copyright troll or the plaintiff.]

      The question a judge must determine when faced with a motion to quash is “does this John Doe Defendant live in the jurisdiction or territory in which my federal court has power and control to enforce the laws over that defendant?”

      When is a motion to quash successful?

      When is a motion to quash a subpoena successful?

      A motion to quash a subpoena is successful if the accused John Doe defendant filing the motion to quash lives in a state OTHER THAN where the lawsuit was filed.  However, the dismissal will still allow the copyright holder to file a lawsuit against that same defendant in his home state.

      A motion to quash is successful if the accused John Doe defendant filing the motion to quash lives in a state OTHER THAN where the lawsuit was filed.  

      For example, an accused defendant who is living in New York, and not in California where the lawsuit was filed), then the California federal judge will sever and dismiss that defendant from the lawsuit.  

      The motion to quash the subpoena as to that John Doe Defendant will be successful, and the ISP is released from its obligation to hand over the information for that John Doe Defendant to the plaintiff attorney.

      The dismissal will be, however, “without prejudice,” meaning that the copyright holder will still have three (3) years from the alleged date of infringement to sue that defendant in the federal court of the state in which he or she lives.

      When is a motion to quash not successful?

      When is a motion to quash a subpoena not successful?

      A motion to quash a subpoena is not successful when the accused “John Doe” defendant lives in the state in which he was sued.  Here, the judge will determine that the federal court has personal jurisdiction over that defendant, and the motion to quash will be denied.

      What happens if I lose a motion to quash a subpoena?

      As a motion to quash is denied, the internet service provider (“ISP”) who initially held back that accused defendant’s contact information from the plaintiff attorney who sent the subpoena will now comply with the subpoena and will provide that defendant’s information to the plaintiff attorney.

      A motion to quash a subpoena is not successful when the accused “John Doe” defendant lives in the state in which he was sued.  Here, the judge will determine that the federal court has personal jurisdiction over that defendant, and the motion to quash will likely be denied.

      The effect of this is that as soon as a motion to quash is denied, the internet service provider (“ISP”) [who initially held back that accused defendant’s contact information from the spreadsheet of names and addresses provided to the plaintiff attorney] will now separately comply with the subpoena as to that John Doe Defendant who filed the motion to quash and lost.  

      Think of this as the ISP sending that defendant’s contact information in a FedEx package to the plaintiff attorney stating, “this is the guy who filed the motion to quash and lost.”

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

      Isn’t it illegal for the ISP to hand out my information?  Can I sue my ISP if they comply with the subpoena?

      Can I sue my ISP if they comply with the subpoena?

      Yes. However, there are limits on who can sue an ISP for disclosing subscriber information, and even if you win your lawsuit against your ISP, your damages are limited to $1,000.

      This is actually an interesting topic which I first researched many years ago.  The answer is that it depends on whether the federal judge in your case considers the ISP to be under the rules of the Cable Act or not.  

      You would think this is an easy answer, “yes or no, does an internet service provider fall under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934?” but judges in the bittorrent copyright infringement cases have had different opinions of this over the years.

      Unrelated to the very muddy area of under which Title of the Communication Act do ISPs fall, this issue has become relevant to our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice in defending bittorrent defendants.  

      The reason for this is that a cornerstone part of our strategy is not only understanding the personality and proclivities of the plaintiff attorney (will he name and serve, what are his motivations, etc.), but also to understand how each federal judge sees the validity of the bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases.  

      Judges who quote a certain set of case law (which places the ISPs in the context of being under the Cable Act) or who quote Arista Records LLC (sorry for the Wikipedia link) are usually plaintiff / copyright holder friendly.  Those that do not are more “John Doe” Defendant friendly.

      Anyway, in 2011, I once looked into suing an ISP for disclosing the identity of a John Doe Defendant, and I was hit with a wall of messy, disorganized law with inconsistent case law rulings on this topic (whether ISPs fall under the Cable Act, whether they are to be considered under Title 2 of the Communication Act, or under some other classification).  

      In short, even if I were successful, in the end, the defendant would have only had damages of $1,000, so it made no sense to fight the lawsuit (the time alone to file it would have cost the defendant the slap-on-the-wrist money he would have made from being right).  Anyway, just a fun tidbit.

      The plaintiff attorney’s response to a motion to quash

      Historically, the plaintiff attorney who sees an accused John Doe Defendant file a motion to quash will claim that the defendant lacks “STANDING” to file the motion to quash.

      Would I win a motion to quash a subpoena?

      Likely no. If you are filing a motion to quash a subpoena in a John Doe copyright infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff attorney will tell the court that you do not have STANDING to file the motion to quash. The reason is because you are filing a motion to quash before you are a named and served defendant in the lawsuit.

      He will claim that the John Doe filing the motion to quash was never named and served in the lawsuit (and might never be named and served).  

      They will point out to the court that the purpose of the “JOHN DOE” placeholder, by definition, is that this is an unnamed defendant.  In order to determine who the actual defendant-to-be-named is in the lawsuit, they need the subscriber’s identifying information to determine whether this subscriber was the downloader or not.

      [A plaintiff attorney deciding to “NAME AND SERVE” a defendant is outside the scope of this article.  Click here for more information on what to do when you are named and served.]

      As a result, federal judges sometimes buy this argument and they deny the motion to quash, or they find some other justification to deny the motion to quash.

      A quick comment about the personalities of the plaintiff attorneys who represent the copyright holders:

      Plaintiff attorneys / “copyright trolls” have a bad reputation because they have been known to incorporate their personal hurt feelings and egos into the prosecution of their client’s cases.

      The purpose of a “copyright troll” / bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit is to extract as many multi-thousand dollar settlements as possible in return for the $400 filing fee their client paid to file the lawsuit.  Most of these attorneys work on a commission basis, so the time they spent “fighting” the case is court is wasted time.

      When a defendant files a motion to quash, this forces the plaintiff attorney to oppose the motion to quash.  Following most oppositions comes a hearing (which sometimes takes up the entire morning, even though the hearing itself on the motion to quash is 5 minutes long).

      Thus, any defendant who files the motion to quash ends up with a vindictive attorney who is looking to recoup that time lost in dollars and commissions.  This translates into an overly hostile or vindictive attorney who increases the settlement price to “nail” that defendant who filed the motion to quash.

      plaintiff-attorneys-response-to-motion-to-quash
      3dman_eu / Pixabay

      What happens after motion to quash?

      After a motion to quash is filed, the court will determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant. If the defendant wins the motion to quash, the court will sever and dismiss him from the lawsuit, and will order the subpoenas quashed for the other defendants as well.

      Instead of a motion to quash, what should the first step of defense be?

      Great question.  Rather than jumping to file a motion to quash, the accused “John Doe” defendant needs to figure out whether he actually downloaded the movie that is the subject of the lawsuit.  

      Next, whether he downloaded it or not, he needs to speak to an attorney to determine what his options are.

      Most attorneys who understand that motion to quash attempts are usually unsuccessful will instruct the client to forego filing the motion to quash, and to move right into defending the claims against the client.

      There is a long period of time in which the “John Doe” defendant remains anonymous.  During this “John Doe” phase, the anonymity of the accused John Doe Defendant is preserved.  

      Hiring an attorney at this point (before being named and served) provides you with so many more options than you might have after being named and served.  

      During this time, your plaintiff attorney has a window in which he can investigate whether each accused downloader actually downloaded the file or not; he purportedly does this in order to determine which John Doe Defendants to name and serve, and which not to name and serve.

      Really, this is the bulk of where the bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits spend their time.

      During this “John Doe” phase of the lawsuit, the courts issue FRCP Rule 4(m) extensions over and over until the judge forces the plaintiff attorney to name and serve some defendants or stop wasting the court’s time.  

      During this time, an attorney defending a John Doe Defendant has the opportunity to obtain whatever evidence the plaintiff attorney has on that defendant, and he has the opportunity to explain that it was not the accused John Doe Defendant who did the download.

      If the client actually did the download, the defense attorney has other tools at his disposal (e.g., the “no settlement” route, the “ignore” route, or the minimum statutory damages strategy, if the plaintiff attorney names and serves the defendant or otherwise won’t negotiate a settlement).  

      Obviously, negotiating a settlement for a defendant who actually did the download is usually the quickest way out of the lawsuit (watch out for settlement factory attorneys and so-called defense attorneys who actually represent the copyright holders (“weretrolls”), but it perpetuates the whole copyright troll scheme.

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

      Why FIGHTING the case is not the best answer either (even with an innocent defendant).

      Lastly, there is always the option to “FIGHT,” or litigate and defend the claims against you, like a hero slaying a “copyright troll” dragon (I did not make up that analogy).  However, there are bad attorneys here too, because they really want you to pay them an hourly fee for the next few hundred hours.

      They’ll claim that they are defending your case because the copyright holder does not actually have evidence of copyright infringement (which is true — what they actually have is called “snapshot evidence,” which is not copyright infringement).  They will also explain that copyright law gives the prevailing party (the “winner”) the attorney fees they paid to their attorney.

      Thus, they can spend $20K-$30K on the litigation, and they’ll recoup it from the copyright troll when they win their case, right?? Wrong.

      Copyright Troll / Plaintiff Attorneys know EXACTLY WHEN to dismiss an innocent defendant to avoid having to pay attorney fees.

      The plaintiff attorneys are very aware of the attorney fees which are awarded to the winner of the lawsuit.

      Thus, they know EXACTLY WHEN to dismiss an accused defendant (usually after being named and served, right after discovery (think, depositions, interrogatories, evidence gathering, and questions under oath, etc.) once the defendant establishes that he actually did not do the download).

      This means that the plaintiff attorney deprived the wrongly accused “innocent” defendant of ALL the money and months of anguish he paid to his defense attorney.

      The defendant is dismissed, taking nothing back for his losses.  However, the defense attorney sits there fat and piggish having taken every penny the named defendant had.

      Chances are, that attorney never explained to the named defendant that such a dismissal could happen, or else the defendant may have chosen to settle early on (and the defense attorney would have made significantly fewer dollars in fees).

      Why FIGHTING based on the argument that the plaintiff attorney has no evidence is also dumb.

      This deserves to be its own post, but I’ll get straight to the point.  Representing a client who did the download based on the argument that the plaintiff attorney has no evidence is foolish, and here is why:

      Even if I were to charge a defendant only $100 to defend the claims against him (if I said pro bono or no fee), and I defended that client on the basis that the plaintiff attorney had no evidence against my client [based on the “snapshot evidence” theory]:

      *EVEN IF I AM RIGHT* (that “snapshot evidence” is insufficient to prove copyright infringement), MY OWN CLIENT WHO DOWNLOADED THE MOVIE WOULD BE THE ONLY EVIDENCE THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WOULD REQUIRE TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

      Why?  Because after being named and served, there is something called “discovery,” where among other things (such as having a computer forensics expert check the computer for the infringing copyrighted title), my own client would be forced to answer questions under oath, AND ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD BE, “DID YOU DOWNLOAD THE XYZ FILE USING BITTORRENT?”

      At that point, once your client admits guilt in a deposition, or otherwise under oath, there is nothing to do but to settle.  Snapshot evidence at that point becomes irrelevant to whether this defendant downloaded the film.

      As one attorney cleverly said it, I believe today on Twitter:

      “I can be the most educated, smartest, wizardly genius attorney ever to exist.  No legal argument can change the fact that my client downloaded the film.”

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

      IN SUM, INSTEAD OF THE MOTION TO QUASH, CONSIDER YOUR CASE.

      Thus, for someone who received notice that their ISP is handing out their information to the plaintiff attorney, don’t worry about the motion to quash.  Ask yourself whether you recognize the movie you are accused of downloading, and whether you downloaded or watched the movie without a license (e.g., with bittorrent, or with Popcorn Time, etc.).

      Whether the answer is yes or no, don’t wait.  Hire an attorney, explain your situation, and let the attorney either 1) convince the plaintiff attorney that you did not do the download or will not otherwise settle (a.k.a., the “no settlement” representation), or 2) have the attorney settle the claims against you.

      This time while you are an “anonymous” John Doe is precious to you; don’t squander it.

      Fighting (defending the claims against you in litigation) only makes sense when 1) you understand that EVERYTHING YOU PAY YOUR ATTORNEY TO DEFEND YOU WILL BE LOST, but you do not want to give in and settle the claims against you, and 2) when you want your attorney to file an answer, admit guilt, and argue $750 minimum statutory damages (when you did the download and the plaintiff attorney is unwilling to settle or negotiate fairly).

      All other times, one of the “ignore” routes or “settle” route is the more economical approach.

      CONCLUSION:

      So, based on what I just shared with you, ask yourself, “should I file a motion to quash?”

      NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN A LAWSUIT-NEUTRAL ARTICLE WRITTEN FOR THE TORRENTLAWYER UNIVERSITY.

      FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

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

        …OR, SKIP TO THE APPOINTMENT…

        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.

        TorrentLawyer Update – July 17, 2020

        Bryan N DeMatteo New York Bittorrent Cases NY

        With COVID-19 on the minds of the citizenry, along with social distancing, masks, and a dizzying set of events relating to social unrest, the court cases relating to copyright infringement have (for the most part) been on pause.

        TWO MORE TROLLS IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY

        To my biggest surprise, two huge copyright trolls [for the moment] appear to be out of business — Malibu Media, LLC, and Rightscorp. Malibu Media, LLC had their hands full with an appellate case for some time, and the owners keep suing their own attorneys (and vice versa). There is so much more to say here, but it has literally been MONTHS since I have even thought about them. Relevant to you, ABSOLUTELY NO NEW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN FILED IN MONTHS.

        Same deal with Rightscorp. Rightscorp seemed to be in such a powerful position, especially after the BMG v. COX Communications lawsuit. However, I hear that the owner of Rightscorp has moved on to other matters, and all of the people I used to speak to there appear to no longer be working there.

        On top of that, their website is broken and people who actually want to pay the DMCA notification $20 fee requests sent to them are unable to. Plus, there is nobody answering their phones (“the voice mailbox is full”), other phone numbers are disconnected, and nobody responding to e-mails. In other words, “the lights are on [meaning, they are still sending DMCA notifications… or maybe its a robot running on automatic], but nobody is home.”

        STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS IN THE MIAMI-DADE STATE COURT

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC was the copyright holder making the most noise over the past few months. First, in late 2019, Strike 3 Holdings filed a slew of “so-called lawsuits” (really, no lawsuit, just a request for a state court to unmask the identities of thousands of accused infringers) in the Miami-Dade, Florida court.

        The immediate confusion was what to do with these ISP subpoena notification letters which went out to hundreds of account holders across the United States [read: not a Florida resident] threatening to disclose their identities to Strike 3 Holdings based on the Florida Bill of Discovery law. But by definition of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims being copyright claims, the Miami-Dade, state-based Florida state court cannot try copyright infringement cases. Plus again, Strike 3 Holdings sued non-Florida residents in a Florida state court (where the court does not have personal jurisdiction over them. Rather, you sue a defendant where the defendant lives, not in some obscure county which enforces state rules which do not apply to that out-of-state defendant.)

        The third confusion was the contradiction between what Strike 3 Holdings told the judges when asking the state court to disclose the identities of the alleged downloaders versus what they actually did with that information. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorneys told judges they were seeking the contact information to determine who is the alleged infringer (who downloaded their adult films using bittorrent without permission) so that they could decide whether to sue them in their home state’s federal court or not. But then when they received the contact information of the ISP account holders, they turned around and solicited multi-thousand dollar settlements from each account holder.

        SETTLEMENT OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS IN THE MIAMI-DADE STATE COURT

        To make things worse, filings such as a motion to quash in a STATE COURT should be filed by an attorney LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THAT STATE. The typical settlement-based out-of-state attorneys have been sticking their sticky fingers into the state court rather than referring the matter to a Florida licensed attorney.

        We at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC noticed that these out-of-state attorneys are trying (even today) to profiteer off of the Florida state-based cases by offering to file motions to quash in the Florida courts, even though they are not licensed to practice law in Florida. Some of these same attorneys enlist local attorneys who file motions to quash (likely splitting the ill-gotten fees with the local Florida attorneys) with full knowledge that the result of filing an objection with the court (or a motion to quash) is that Strike 3 Holdings LLC immediately threatens to sue that defendant [trying to hide his identity] in his home state’s federal court. Many of the current Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits filed in the past few months are the result of a failed motion to quash filed by an out-of-state attorney (or their local counsel) in the Miami-Dade, Florida court. [I just wrote that article today, so go ahead and read it to see if you live in a state where they are suing defendants.]

        The problem [with these attorneys practicing law in a state where they are not licensed] is that law degrees are not a national US-based certifications, but rather, each state licenses its own attorneys who are knowledgeable about their state’s laws and procedures. In federal courts (e.g., the US District Court of the District of the Northern District of California, and other federal courts), there is no issue with an out-of-state attorney representing a client [and our law firm does this all the time] because all federal courts run according to the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and the court’s local rules). But state courts are different.

        In my opinion, it is possible for an out-of-state attorney to represent a client in a foreign STATE-based lawsuit (e.g., the Florida county court), but really, to file a motion to quash in the Miami-Dade court [which is what we are speaking about here], you really need a Florida licensed attorney to do so. Anything else is less than adequate.

        I have spoken to many potential clients who have been implicated as “defendants” in the Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, and every time one of them wants to file a motion to quash anyway (even though I have written so many articles explaining why this is a bad idea), I have forward them to certain Florida-licensed attorneys who I know to be knowledgeable and competent about this area (especially since they dealt with this same issue when Malibu Media, LLC sued defendants in the same Miami-Dade Florida state court [and Maricopa County state court] years ago).

        The funny thing is that these same Florida attorneys who dealt with the same Florida “Bill of Discovery” cases when Malibu Media LLC are telling those I send to them that a motion to quash is not an effective strategy. This is the advice which is coming from a Florida-licensed attorney, yet, the settlement factory and settlement-based law firms from other states are pushing for accused defendants to hire *them* to file motions to quash in the Florida courts [even though they are not licensed to practice law in that state]. Amazing.

        MY OPINION ABOUT MOTIONS TO QUASH

        All I have to say about that topic is to read the article about “Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach.” In this article, I discuss what the out-of-state attorneys are doing, and I discuss what a number of Florida-based attorneys are doing as well (there are “settlement factories” in Florida as well masking their settlement-based practices by selling “motion to quash” services for their clients).

        Otherwise, things at our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC law firm are going smoothly. I am watching the MG Premium Ltd. copyright holder (who has recently filed the MG Premium Ltd v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05134) case), and I am watching the activities of other copyright holders who have been actively monitoring all of the millions of US residents who have been sitting in quarantine and using bittorrent to view their copyrighted videos. So far, everything seems quiet, and quiet is good.


        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about anything I have written here, 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 matter, or you can SMS/Whatsapp 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