132019CC027599000005

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

by
strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

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

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

Instead of filing a lawsuit against an accused bittorrent downloader in federal court, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is asking the Miami Dade County Court to reveal the identity of the owners of the accounts from which the downloading allegedly occurred. There is no claim of copyright infringement nor is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asking the court for money damages.

Once Strike 3 Holdings, LLC receives the identity and contact information, Strike 3 will likely then threaten a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court if that defendant does not settle the claims against them by paying them settlement money to the tune of thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.

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

The Florida-based legal mechanism that Strike 3 Holdings is using is called a Pure Bill of Discovery. I saw these years ago when copyright troll attorneys decided to avoid the federal courts and try to solicit settlements out-of-court under the “threat” that they would file a lawsuit if the defendant did not pay them thousands of dollars.

A Pure Bill of Discovery tells the court, “So-and-so IP address was seen downloading my copyrighted film. I want to see whether the account holder is the downloader so that I can sue him in federal court. Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I can research my claim.” In reality, the request should be “Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I will demand from him thousands of dollars or else I will threaten to sue him.”

I did not like Pure Bills of Discovery then, and I do not like them now. A Pure Bill of Discovery does not protect the identity of the accused defendant from sleazy attorneys using their contact information to extort them for everything they have.

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

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

In the Miami Dade County Florida court, the plaintiff attorneys are Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker — both Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorneys who in the past, filed copyright infringement lawsuits against John Doe defendants in federal courts.

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

I initially thought these attorneys wanted to avoid the $400 filing fee, but Miami Dade County has a $300 filing fee. Thus, my only guess as to what these attorneys are up to is that they must be trying to avoid the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judge’s scrutiny of their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases (to avoid having them ask whether their lawsuits comprise a settlement extortion scheme).

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

RACHEL WALKER AND TYLER MAMONE, STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS FEDERAL COURT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS.

Here, Strike 3 Holdings is not suing only Florida-based defendants. Rather, they are suing defendants from across the country. This is noteworthy, because it shows that they have chosen FLORIDA because of its laws (and the ability to use the Pure Bill of Discovery to circumvent the federal court discovery rules to obtain the contact information of each accused defendant). This is also called forum shopping.

Rachel Walker and/or Tyler Mamone (the plaintiff attorneys) have asked the court to order that each ISP provide the name and address of the ISP subscriber who was assigned the IP address on the date and time when the alleged instance of copyright infringement occurred. Again, they are not asking for money damages — only subscriber contact information.

Which obscure ISPs have been ordered to share their subscribers’ contact information?

ISPs involved in the Miami-Dade County-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases include:

Condointernet.net, Clarksville Department of Electricity, Hotwire Fision, Webpass, US Internet, Wave Broadband, Sonic.net, Sail Internet, Consolidated Smart Systems LLC, San Bruno Cable, CenturyLink [not so obscure], and others.

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC appears to have already succeeded in their Miami Dade County Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.

Accused defendants are now receiving letters from their ISPs (here, obscure ISPs) telling them that the ISP is under a duty to hand over their contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

Here is my thought: If the accused defendants are already receiving letters, it suggests to me that the courts have starting granting the relief asked for by Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone.

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC MIAMI DADE COUNTY PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY TIMELINE.

To date, I count only ten (10) Pure Bill of Discovery lawsuits filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC against “Unknown Infringers Identified on Exhibit 1.”

However, when I looked at the “Exhibit 1” of each lawsuit, I saw potentially hundreds of defendants hidden inside each case.

This means that this could be the start of Miami Dade state-based copyright trolling on a massive scale. The cases were apparently first filed on 9/23/2019 and the most recent filing is this past Tuesday, 10/29. No doubt more cases will follow.

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

MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

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

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

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

Local Case Numbers (closed): 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

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

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

MY FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT MIAMI DADE PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY CASES.

In sum, this is not the first time I have seen a Pure Bill of Discovery case, and I have dealt with them in the past. I personally think that states that still have this cause of action are backwards and judges should not allow plaintiff attorneys to use these cases to perpetuate a grand settlement extortion scheme.

I also know that Miami Dade County Court is not the only place these Pure Bill of Discovery cases were filed. There are a few select other courts across the US that a Pure Bill of Discovery was attempted, and the results were the same.

In sum, if Strike 3 Holdings is now trying to avoid the federal courts in order to perpetuate their settlement extortion scheme outside of the federal court’s scrutiny, these cases are about to become much dirtier than they already were.

Defendants: Is the threat to sue for copyright infringement a bluff? No.

As far as options on what to do if you receive a notice from your ISP on this lawsuit — an accused defendant is going to face the threat of a federal court copyright infringement lawsuit in their own state’s federal court if they do not settle.

If they call the bluff of the plaintiff attorney and say “come and sue me,” this is not a deterrent to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney will simply sue that individual as a “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [INSERT IP ADDRESS],” then once the lawsuit is filed in the federal court, they will threaten to name and serve the defendant if he does not settle the claims against him.

In sum:
“I don’t like these Pure Bill of Discovery cases. I do not like them at all.”

If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.

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

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

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

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

Will Strike 3 Sue Miami-Dade Florida Defendants in Federal Court?

by
strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been filing in the Miami-Dade court since September 3rd, 2019 (and continues to file even today [see below this article are the most recent set of cases]).

To bring you up to speed:

On 10/31/2019, I wrote an initial article explaining how Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is using the Florida Miami-Dade County Court to unmask defendants’ identities.

On 1/20/2020, I wrote a follow-up article explaining how Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone might have other attorneys working their cases behind the scenes (interestingly enough, both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin). UPDATE (2/20/2020): Rachel Walker is now handling her own cases.

On 2/10/2020, because of questions I was getting about confusion surrounding whether to file a motion to quash in the Florida Miami-Dade Court, I wrote an article explaining how defense attorneys are luring defendants in as clients with a “bait and switch” which ends up forcing them to settle or be sued in their home state’s federal court.

*MOST RECENT UPDATE* On 8/18/2020, I wrote the Strike 3 Holdings – List of Cases by State (August, 2020) article. There, I wrote about a slew of recent federal court filings, and I believe that most [if not all] of the defendants accused in newly filed federal court cases were former Miami-Dade Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade cases have NO TEETH.

To begin the topic of whether Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will file a lawsuit against former Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants [or to understand why we are discussing this topic in the first place], the first question to ask is “why wouldn’t Strike 3 Holdings, LLC just sue Miami-Dade defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami-Dade Florida court itself?”

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases assert a claim of copyright infringement (which carries statutory damages of $150,000 per instance of infringement). These cases assert that the accused subscriber downloaded their copyrighted adult films using BitTorrent.

By definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit, it MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

The Florida Miami-Dade based lawsuits literally have no “teeth.” These cases are NOT copyright infringement lawsuits. In these state-based cases, Strike 3 Holdings LLC merely uses the Florida Bill of Discovery laws to uncover the identities of the defendants, but the threat of “we will name and serve you if you do not settle” has NO EFFECT if that accused defendant does not live in Florida.

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

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants must be sued in the federal court of the state in which they reside. *mic drop.*

Florida Plaintiff Attorneys Rachel Walker & Tyler Mamone are LIMITED to filing lawsuits in Florida.

Couple the “no teeth” comment (above) with the consideration that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone — the two attorneys who have been suing defendants under the Florida Pure Bill of Discovery — are merely licensed in Florida (NOTE: they could be licensed elsewhere, but keep reading for the point about STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY TERRITORIES).

TO BE CLEAR: Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone CAN technically sue a defendant in any federal court across the US. However, their client – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC appears to be highly territorial, and other plaintiff attorneys from other states already “own” the territories where Strike 3 Holdings, LLC files their lawsuits.

Thus, THEY will likely not financially benefit from a John Doe defendant of theirs being sued in a location where there is already ANOTHER Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorney filing lawsuits in that state.

For example, they wouldn’t be able to sue in New York or in Connecticut where Jackie James is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in that territory… or John Atkin, who is the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney in charge of cases in New Jersey.

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

So a better question is… if I do not settle the claims against me in the Miami-Dade Florida lawsuit, WILL *ANOTHER* STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ATTORNEY sue me in my home state?

Unfortunately the answer could be a yes. We simply don’t know what Strike 3 Holdings LLC plans to do with all the names it is unmasking in the Miami-Dade lawsuits.

Since Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone started suing defendants in the Miami-Dade Florida courts on September 3rd, 2019, Strike 3 Holdings LLC has sued 74 defendants in their home state’s federal courts.

Most recently, since January 1, 2020, they have filed the following cases against defendants in the following states:

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CALIFORNIA

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Central District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-00042)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.144.176.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00921)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.55.138 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00945)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.112.16.67 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00946)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.7.250 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00948)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.154.71 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00191)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.91.3.98 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00944)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)

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

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00067)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00068)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00209)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CONNECTICUT

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN FLORIDA*

*Florida is where Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker (the plaintiff attorneys from the Miami-Dade County lawsuits) are licensed.

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

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Middle District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 47.196.216.110 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00101)

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20499)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20503)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20506)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20516)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20517)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20647)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN ILLINOIS

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00773)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN MICHIGAN

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 4:20-cv-10143)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW JERSEY

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court

  • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
  • STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP address 69.112.9.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00778)

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

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW YORK

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01435)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00554)
  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00819)

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN VIRGINIA

Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

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

Which of the above copyright infringement lawsuits were filed as a result of non-settlement of the Miami-Dade lawsuit?

I do not know whether all, some, or none of these cases were filed as a result of these defendants first being sued in the Florida Miami-Dade County Court.

Is there a way to actually check if Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants?

[*NOT USEFUL, BUT RELEVANT*: There is technically a way to track whether the IP addresses listed on the more recent federal court cases were once defendants in a Miami-Dade case, but it is a time consuming project.

The Miami-Dade County Court cases are viewable page-by-page, and each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC complaints have potentially hundreds of pages of attachments containing one IP address per defendant.

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

STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, if someone has the time — they can do a manual search to see if AT LEAST ONE IP address of the more recent federal-court cases (above) can be found in a Miami-Dade case.  If there is at least one IP address match, then yes, they are re-filing against Miami-Dade defendants.]

Focus on the bottom line: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC *is* actively suing, as you saw from the list of new cases.

This is possibly the most important point (which I demonstrated by compiling the most recent list of cases):

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is actively suing defendants in the federal courts, and their decision to file in the Miami-Dade Florida County Court [again] is not a replacement for the conventional copyright infringement lawsuits for $150,000 per instance of infringement, which by definition of it being a copyright infringement lawsuit MUST BE FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT.

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

[SIDE NOTE:] CASE LAW UPDATE AND THOUGHTS ABOUT FUTURE FORM OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC LAWSUITS.

To the reader from California that I spoke to in the past few days: I have learned of a recent case in the Southern District of California (3:19-cv-2452-JAH-LL; Doc. 4; “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 70.95.76.252”) where Judge Lopez granted expedited discovery to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (contrary to the way we thought case law was going in the Southern District of California).

I obviously will need to look into this further, but this order happened just yesterday (2/19/2020). Thus, it appears that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC CAN AND WILL continue filing lawsuits in California. (NJ case law is still in transition).

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

[Sorry for the fragmented note. If I have time, this will be an article of its own in the coming days. I will also be writing an article noting the problem that for the states where the federal courts have DISALLOWED Strike 3 Holdings, LLC from filing their “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address” cases, I suspect Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will immediately start naming and serving defendants in these states rather than first suing them as John Does and asking the federal court for expedited discovery. This way, they will avoid the expedited discovery questions altogether and proceed straight to the 21-day answer period in which the defendant will need to either file and answer and prepare for litigation (or settle the claims against them in this shortened 21-day period) — both really unfortunate options to the defendant that was just hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.]

In sum, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases… like a snake changes its skin… are changing their approach to their copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure we will be seeing the John Doe lawsuits in the same form as they have been suing in recent years, but for the moment, as you can clearly see, they are still being filed in the federal courts.

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

Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

Here is the current (updated as of 8/18/2020) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

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

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

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

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

*8/18/2020 UPDATE: Still, no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. For continuity, I am pasting the older Miami-Dade cases which have recently been closed.

CLOSED Local Case Numbers: 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

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

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

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

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

Why a motion to quash might NOT be the correct approach in a Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Florida Case.

by
strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Out-of-state defendants have received subpoena letters from their ISPs informing them that they have been sued by Strike 3 Holdings LLC in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is my observation that these defendants are being misinformed by certain defense attorneys as to whether they should file a motion to quash to try to stop the ISP from sharing their information or they should immediately pay Strike 3 Holdings a settlement to prevent them from being sued for copyright infringement.

Settlement Factory Attorneys are not Disclosing their Past Outcomes.

The problem is that these defense attorneys are recommending that out-of-state defendants file a motion to quash. However, they ALREADY KNOW THE OUTCOME that once a motion to quash is filed, the Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorney will send that defense attorney a letter threatening a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit in a FEDERAL COURT unless that accused defendant settles the claims against them for thousands of dollars.

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

This would not be a problem if the accused defendant WAS INFORMED UP FRONT that a settlement would be solicited (threatened) if the defense attorney filed the motion to quash in the Miami-Dade Florida County court.

What is actually happening, however, is that defendants are not being informed of the letters being sent by Strike 3 Holdings, and the defense attorneys are FEIGNING IGNORANCE and PRETENDING NOT TO KNOW that this (a settlement and a threat to sue in the defendant’s home state) has been the result that has come from filing a motion to quash.

In other words, someone is lying to someone, and I suspect it is [again, the settlement factory] defense attorney who is lying to their potential clients to lure them into settling the claims against them by first “selling” them on the idea of filing a motion to quash with the Florida court.

[I could stop the article here, but let’s delve a bit deeper into this topic.]

Why Would a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC Defendant Settle Now?

WHY would someone accused as a potential defendant in [what is really a state-based Miami-Dade Florida court] Bill of Discovery case (again, NOT a copyright infringement case filed in a federal court) file a motion to quash as their [settlement factory] attorneys are luring them to do?

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

If they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (and this is obviously not legal advice), the likelihood of them being named and served as a defendant in the Florida court would be logically ZERO.

WHY: The Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade cases are *NOT* copyright infringement cases for $150,000, but rather, they are merely requests to disclose the identities of the accused infringers. If defendants did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in this Florida court they would not be facing a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit because copyright infringement lawsuits MUST be filed in a federal court, NOT a state court.

Two reasons why Miami-Dade Strike 3 defendants are settling now (before a lawsuit against them is filed).

So why would an accused Miami-Dade Strike 3 defendant settle? I’ll give this TWO answers:

#1: Defense attorneys are luring defendants in with false promises from a “motion to quash” defense.

ANSWER #1: The motion to quash vehicle is not providing defendants the outcome they are looking for (filing a motion to quash lures the defendant into communication with the plaintiff attorney and forces him/her to decide whether to settle the claims against him or defend against a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court).

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

I have written extensively about motions to quash (a motion telling the court that they do not have personal jurisdiction over an accused defendant [and thus the court cannot proceed against that particular defendant] because that defendant does not live in the state in which he/she is sued).

A motion to quash is “technically” the correct motion to file when the defendant is outside of Florida.

In the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases, 99% of the defendants DO NOT LIVE IN FLORIDA (I actually do not know the actual percentage, but pretty much every defendant that has called me lives outside of Florida). Thus, the Miami-Dade Florida court has NO JURISDICTION over most of these accused defendants, and thus a motion to quash would “technically” be the proper vehicle to hide the defendant’s identity from Strike 3 Holdings LLC.

But JUST BECAUSE something (here, a “motion to quash” a subpoena) is the “right vehicle” to achieve a particular outcome (here, preventing the ISP from handing over the identity of the accused downloader) DOES NOT MEAN that by using that vehicle you will get the outcome you desire.

Strike 3 Holdings knows the ACTUAL STATE where the defendant LIVES (and threatens to sue them there, even with a motion to quash).

The problem is that in the process of filing the motion to quash, Strike 3 Holdings LLC “learns” the location of that defendant (they actually already know the location of the defendant through the geolocation of his/her IP address anyway), and the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney threatens the Florida attorney to either settle or withdraw the motion to quash OR ELSE they will file a copyright infringement lawsuit against their defendant in the US District Court (the federal court) in the state in which their client lives.

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC threatens the defense attorneys to withdraw their motions to quash or face a lawsuit against their clients in their home state.

Thus, the outcome of filing a motion to quash is that the Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorney threatens the defense attorney to settle now or else their defendant client will be sued in their home state’s federal court. *I have seen these letters* so I know first hand that this is happening.

The Miami-Dade Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” cases are not copyright infringement lawsuits.

So if the end result of filing a motion to quash is that you will receive a threat from the opposing counsel, why file a motion to quash in the first place? [Again, it is not as if the plaintiff attorney will name and serve that defendant in their “Florida Bill of Discovery” case. There are practically no damages there and the Miami-Dade Florida court has no jurisdiction over most of the defendants. So what is accomplished by filing a motion to quash? In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.]

Settlement Factory Attorneys are marketing their settlement outcomes by feigning that a motion to quash should be their strategy instead of the settlement they know will result by filing the motion to quash.

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

Unfortunately, there are Florida attorneys who have actively marketed motions to quash as the “silver-bullet” solution to these Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases. However, I do not think that this kind of marketing was the honest approach which is “in the best interest of the client,” a legal ethical attorneys need to hold by in every state… maybe not in Florida.

Eventually a defendant who files a motion to quash at the advice of their attorney will also pay that same attorney a second fee to negotiate a settlement to settle the claims against them.

What the defense attorneys neglect to tell their clients is that eventually the client will be forced to settle the claims against them and thus the client not only paid the Florida attorney hundreds or thousands for the motion to quash and the procedural hurdles involved in achieving the motion to quash, but they would also have to pay the attorney again to negotiate a settlement of the claims against their client to the tune of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.

“Playing stupid” is not an honest approach when representing a Strike 3 Holdings LLC defendant.

Thus, I am kind of annoyed when I hear stories about the misinformation I have been hearing from Florida defense attorneys who have been deceiving their clients and then “playing stupid” when a settlement is eventually suggested [and it will be suggested].

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

In sum, a Strike 3 Defendant who filed a motion to quash has probably been tricked into settling the claims against them.

So in sum, to answer the question “why would someone accused in a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC case settle?”

My first answer is that they were deceived by an attorney to file a motion to quash and now they are being forced to settle the claims against them… or risk a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit filed against them* in a federal court in their home state. Thus, to avoid being sued, they settle.

Why else would an accused defendant in a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC case settle?

#2: Unfortunately, Strike 3 often [but not always] accurately accuses the correct internet user who downloaded their copyrighted videos.

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

ANSWER #2: Strike 3 Holdings LLC accurately identified the accused defendant as the one who downloaded their copyrighted titles, and to avoid a lawsuit filed in a federal court in their state, the defendant settles the claims against him out of court.

One of the unfortunate things in the Strike 3 Holdings LLC copyright infringement cases is that Strike 3 Holdings has gotten quite good at identifying the correct defendant.

Further, they are targeting defendants based on their demographic information where before the defendant is even targeted, they are identified [sometimes mistakenly] as someone who has deep pockets. Add together the “we got the right guy” and “he can pay us a lot of money,” they have the perfect defendant who will settle the claims against him.

Strike 3 Holdings LLC copyright infringement lawsuits generally require the plaintiff to obtain testimony “under oath” from the defendant whether he downloaded the videos or not.

I wish I had more to say here. There are a thousand ways to handle a copyright infringement lawsuit from the defense side of things, however, in pretty much most cases, the defendant must assume that the plaintiff attorney will put the him or her under oath (meaning, they will take his testimony) and ask whether he has downloaded, streamed, or viewed adult films using bittorrent.

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

As soon as the defendant answers “yes,” they have just compromised their chances of winning the copyright infringement lawsuit.

Remember: The burden of proof in a civil copyright infringement lawsuit is “PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,” meaning “more likely than not,” or “51%.”

This is a much lower burden of proof than “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” or “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” as you would see in criminal cases.

Thus, knowing that the plaintiff attorney will take the testimony from the defendant if he fights back, most defendants would rather opt to settle the claims against them than expose themselves to a deposition where they might end up giving testimony which kills their defense.

So, because of these uncomfortable truths, the Miami-Dade Florida based Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits continue in full force.

OBSERVATION: Strike 3 Holdings LLC is still filing more Miami-Dade Florida based “Pure Bill of Discovery” Lawsuits.

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

Since I wrote the last article three weeks ago (and the one before than in October, 2019), I have observed that there were four more cases filed in the Miami-Dade Florida court (and within each of the four lawsuits is potentially a hundred or more defendants — I know this because the complaints implicate hundreds of defendants, each one accused of being “ONE UNKNOWN INFRINGER” having ONE IP ADDRESS).

Thus, for the cost of filing ONE federal court lawsuit, they are exposing the names of potentially a hundred or more defendants who will pay to settle the claims against them.

Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.

Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

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

Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, and 2019-028410-CC-05.

State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, and 132019CC028410000005.

*2/10/2020 UPDATE: Still, no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed in the last three weeks:

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

NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05.

NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005.

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

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

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

Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Attorneys Have a “Behind The Scenes” Shadow.

by
strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Strike 3 Holdings LLC continues to sieze the names of accused bittorrent users by exploiting Florida’s Bill of Discovery rules in their Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Undisclosed Defendants cases [all filed in the Miami-Dade Florida state court]. On 10/31/2019, I wrote an article explaining that “Strike 3 Holdings is NOT suing miami-dade County defendants for copyright infringement,” and now that new information has come to my attention, you deserve a follow-up article.

Again, you can read about the Pure Bill of Discovery topic here.

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

News about the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings Cases.

What is new is that Strike 3 plaintiff attorneys Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone are not the ones who are running these cases, at least not behind the scenes. This disproves my initial assertion that the Walker and Mamone (both Florida attorneys) together hatched this brilliant idea of “suing” defendants without actually taking the steps to file copyright infringement lawsuits against each accused bittorrent downloader in federal court.

Why I thought Mamone and Walker “hatched” the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Holdings Scheme.

I initially thought that they read articles (mine or others’), from 2012 about the Lightspeed Media Corp. Hacker cases where John Steele (now in prison) and Lipscomb (the former Malibu Media LLC “boss”) used the Florida Bill of Discovery crooked rules to force the Miami-Dade Florida state court to disclose the names of the account holders. Once the Court forced the ISPs to disclose the identities of the accounts holders (alleged porn “downloaders”), they then proceeded to “shake down” the accused account holders in an elaborate extortion scheme… all without the breath of the Federal Court Judges breathing down the necks of the plaintiff attorneys (to force them to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its safeguards against abuse of accused defendants).

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

I was sure that these lawsuits provided the seed for their idea (and I am still sure of this, but I was wrong on “who hatched this idea” and who was the “gardener”).

I even went so far as to caution that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone should tread lightly, as many of the other “copyright troll” attorneys who have sued in the Florida Miami-Dade court to expose the names of the ISP account subscribers have put their law licenses in jeopardy… specifically, I am thinking about John Steele, Mark Lutz (a non-lawyer) and the other Prenda Law Inc. partners, many of whom have been jailed.

This is John Steele, the attorney who used the Miami-Dade Pure Bill of Discovery (now he is in prison).

John Steele of Steele|Hansmeier also used the Florida Pure Bill of Discovery rules in his Lightspeed Media Corp. hacker cases. You can read more about the John Steele story here.

Who actually “hatched” the Strike 3 Holdings Pure Bill of Discovery Scheme.

Apparently the “scheme” to use the Florida Miami-Dade state court and the Florida Bill of Discovery rules came not from attorneys Walker and Mamone, but rather (and juicily interesting), from Emilie Kennedy, the General Counsel for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (and former attorney to Keith Lipscomb, the former “kingpin” of the Malibu Media, LLC cases). Why? Because it was Emilie Kennedy who left Malibu Media LLC to create the Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits some years ago.

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

If so, then this makes total sense. Emilie Kennedy knew about Malibu Media LLC’s attempts to use the Florida Bill of Discovery crooked laws. She knew that by filing in the Miami-Dade Florida state court, she could completely circumvent the federal courts and the federal judges. Thus in a way, the mystery has been solved.

Who is the “behind the scenes” shadow in the Strike 3 Holdings cases?

Actually, it should say “shadow(s).”

My observations as these cases have unfolded is that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone (the Strike 3 Holdings plaintiff attorneys, on paper) appear not to have authority to negotiate the Miami-Dade Strike 3 cases. Rather, the settlement discussions are being negotiated and handled by Lincoln Bandlow (former Strike 3 Holdings LLC “kingpin”) and surprisingly, John Atkin (Lincoln Bandlow’s rival). It is interesting to me that they are working in tandem, because I was sure that after [what I wrote about Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin here], they were rivals, not buddies.

Together, Bandlow and Atkin each seem to be splitting up and handling the negotiations when a Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings LLC defendant chooses to settle the claims against them.

MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, and 2019-024647-CC-05.

State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, and 132019CC024647000005.

*1/23/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has stopped these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. Here are additional cases that have been filed since this article:

NEW Local Case Numbers: 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, and 2019-028410-CC-05.

NEW State Case Numbers: 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, and 132019CC028410000005.

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

What TorrentLawyer article is next…

Now for your own sanity (because I have a tendency to write long articles), I will next write about what defense lawyers have been doing in the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 cases (since Strike 3 Holdings LLC is suing people out of state and the Florida court has no jurisdiction over the so-called “Unknown Infringers.” [Think, “Motion to Quash,”] I will also go over what problems the defense attorneys are causing for their clients as a result of “doing the right procedural move.”

NOTE: In defense to some good attorneys in Florida who I trust (and to whom I have referred a number of clients), the next article is going to attack those who have knowingly lured their clients into a bait-and-switch where the defendant clients thought they were hiring their attorney to fight the case procedurally, but really the defense attorney had in mind to settle the claims. More to come soon…

If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.

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

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

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

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

Skip to content