MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (“X-ART”) LAWSUITS, STRATEGIES, SETTLEMENTS.

malibu-media-case-consolidations

I have added this page for internet users who have been entangled in the Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) cases.  Malibu Media, LLC is an adult film / pornographic film producer, and they sue individual John Doe Defendants for the bittorrent download of “siterips” based on their demographics in federal courts across the US.

The goal of this page is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber having IP address 182.765.456.844 (Case No. 7:12-cv-03812) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Malibu Media, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS (FAQ):

Below is a good starting point to understand who Malibu Media, LLC is, and why you are being sued.  For a more in-depth article on the Malibu Media, LLC copyright trolling scheme, visit the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (‘X-ART’ SITERIP) MOVIE LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA” article on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC site.

WHAT IS MALIBU MEDIA, LLC?

Malibu Media, LLC is the company filing the copyright infringement lawsuits for the “x-art.com” adult film website.  Since 2012, Malibu Media, LLC has flooded the federal courts over 6000+ copyright infringement lawsuits based on bittorrent downloads of their adult film movies.  Each lawsuit sues for the illegal download of one film, but alleges that the defendant downloaded 20-80 additional titles.  They seek $150,000 in statutory damages for the download of that one film.

Malibu Media, LLC is notorious for accusing downloaders of downloading “siterips,” where an internet user clicks on one (1) bittorrent file, but within that bittorrent file are 20-80 additional videos.  People claim that Malibu Media, LLC is ‘leaking’ and uploading these siterips themselves, and then tracking the bittorrent swarms to see who downloads them.

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

What is Malibu Media’s affiliation with Guardaley?

Malibu Media, LLC has been intimately associated with a German company called Guardaley to track their bittorrent swarms and provide so-called forensic “evidence” in the many lawsuits.  Guardaley is a questionable company and their tracking methods have been discredited by the German courts.  Guardaley is known to claim that an accused defendant downloaded an entire file (or a set of videos) as soon as he or she clicks on the bittorrent file and loads up the bittorrent software (before even a byte of data is even downloaded).  Many accused defendants that I have spoken to claim that they never finished any of Malibu Media, LLC’s downloads (yet they were sued anyway).

How does Malibu Media, LLC choose which downloader to sue?

Once a Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader, they continue to track that downloader over the course of months.  Lawsuits are filed against downloaders based on the geolocation of where the accused downloader apparently lives.

MALIBU MEDIA USES INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS BASED ON ZIP CODE TO DETERMINE WHO TO SUE.

Malibu Media has been known to check the location of the IP address against a list of zip codes, and compare those zip codes to demographic income information and home property values within those zip codes.  Poorer communities generally are discarded, and wealthier communities end up prioritised and sued.  The reason for this is that wealthier professionals have larger bank accounts, more assets, larger families, and are likely professionals and specialists within their trade, meaning that they are more apt to settle a lawsuit filed against them for the download and viewing of pornographic materials.

How much does Malibu Media, LLC ask for in a settlement?

In a settlement negotiation, Malibu Media, LLC knows that copyright holders traditionally ask for $3,500 for the download of one title.  They also know that settlements can be anywhere between $1,500-$1,800 once negotiated by an attorney.  For this reason, they start their negotiations at $1,500 PER TITLE when they are called by an accused defendant.

Thus, an accused downloader who was claimed to download 20 titles should expect an initial settlement offer of $30,000 ($1,500 x 20 = $30K; an obscene number).

As soon as an attorney opens up settlement negotiations, Malibu Media, LLC is known to immediately drop the settlement asking price to $750 PER TITLE (they refer to this as ‘minimum statutory damages,’ which multiplied by the number of titles they ask for in a settlement results in an obscene settlement asking price).  From there, we would normally determine 1) whether to settle or fight the case based on the merits of the lawsuit (many of my clients simply do not do the download), or 2) whether to negotiate down from there.

What about Malibu Media anonymous settlements?”

Malibu Media, LLC settlements, with some tweaking of the settlement agreement during the settlement negotiations can be an anonymous settlement.  There are a small number of settlement factory attorneys who are advertising and advocating “anonymous settlements.”  Buyer beware, as settling anonymously in the way they suggest can expose you to additional lawsuits, AFTER you have just paid Malibu a settlement.

Click here to read about “Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer,” written on 7/23/2017.

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

How our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC uses LEVERAGE to minimize the settlement amount.

Because we are willing to fight each case on the merits (remember, Malibu Media lawsuits are based on Guardaley tracking methods, which are faulty), we do have leverage to negotiate the settlements down to something significantly more reasonable.  Up front, I do not encourage settlements nor do I push them on clients (especially if they did not do the download), but settlement negotiations are a good tool to consider when deciding whether to proceed with defending the case in court, or whether offering a settlement can minimize the costs to accused defendants.

(If we are fighting, here is a settlement tactic:  Remember, if a settlement is offered and we end up fighting the case, and the ultimate judgement amount ends up being LESS than the settlement amount we offered, Malibu Media, LLC’s attorneys will likely be liable to the accused defendant for ALL THE ATTORNEY FEES SPENT AFTER THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS MADE.)

HOW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC OPERATES THEIR LAWSUITS ACROSS THE U.S.

Malibu Media, LLC (and correspondingly, Guardaley) operates their lawsuits from one central location.  They usually choose a figurehead, or a law firm to manage and coordinate all of the attorneys filing lawsuits on their behalf across the US.

Until 2016, Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were run by Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb & Eisenberg (now defunct, I believe).  After Lipscomb, they were temporarily run locally from a law firm called Pillar Law Firm, and now I have reason to believe they are apparently being run by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity.

WHY DID LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA, LLC PART WAYS?

The reason Keith Lipscomb and Malibu Media, LLC parted ways was because Lipscomb apparently did not pay Malibu Media, LLC the millions of dollars they made in settlements.  

I have analyzed the numbers and it is unclear whether the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were profitable for Lipscomb, or whether he is yet one more copyright troll attorney who has cheated his copyright troll client.

WHERE IS MALIBU MEDIA SUING DEFENDANTS?  WHAT ATTORNEYS ARE THEY USING?

Malibu Media appears to be focusing their lawsuits in Texas, and the New York / New Jersey / Connecticut tri-state area.

Malibu’s attorney for the Texas cases is Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm.

Malibu’s attorney for the NY & CT cases is Jacqueline James.

Malibu’s attorney for the NJ cases is Patrick Cerillo.

You can read the details about these three Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, here.

There are other attorneys filing Malibu Media cases across the US, and I have listed the main attorneys below.  Those that file sporadically have been dropped from the list.

List of Malibu Media, LLC single-defendant cases filed as of 3/17/2017:

Jacqueline James (28% of all Malibu Cases)
Connecticut (38 Cases)
New York (40 Cases)

Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (16% of all Malibu Cases)
Texas (42 Cases)

Patrick Cerillo (14% of all Malibu Cases)
New Jersey (38 Cases)

Joel Bernier (6% of all Malibu Cases)
Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

Mary Schulz (4% of all Malibu Cases)
Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

Jon Hoppe (3% of all Malibu Cases)
Maryland (7 Cases)

Jordan Rushie (3% of all Malibu Cases)
Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

John Decker (1% of all Malibu Cases)
Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

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

TorrentLawyer Malibu Media, LLC Articles:

Below are recent articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Malibu Media, LLC plaintiff:

Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer.,” written on 7/23/2017

Judge forces Malibu Media to reveal the accuracy of their geolocation technology,” on 5/10/2017

Malibu Media movies, and why it is important to know this list,” written on 5/5/2017.

Malibu Media Cases and Why To Track Their Monthly Filings,” written on 5/4/2017.

Turnkey ‘Settlement Factory’ Defense Attorneys and Malibu Media LLC,” written on 3/29/2017.

Malibu Media, LLC appears to be adhering to an ‘Old Guard, New Guard’ distinction between their older and newer attorneys,” written on 3/13/2017.

Confirmed: Malibu Media invests in $400 filing fees at $20,000/month,” written on  3/13/2017.

2017 Malibu Media – Where Cases Are Filed and Who are the Attorneys?” written on 3/13/2017.

Malibu Media, LLC cases facing hard scrutiny in California,” written on 12/23/2016.

Malibu Media, LLC appears to be on a $20,000/month filing budget,” written on 12/23/2016.

Was Lipscomb’s Malibu Media v. Doe campaign profitable?” written on 12/22/2016.

What happened to Malibu Media, LLC in April 2016?” written on 12/21/2016.

Is Malibu Media “faking” the publication requirement in their lawsuits?” written on 2/9/2016.

Judge rules that (Guardaley) German investigator’s evidence is insufficient to prove direct infringement” written on 7/28/2015.

My Response to the yet-to-be-written guilty verdict in the Malibu Media, LLC Bellwether Trial (PAED)” written on 6/12/2013.

Malibu Media targets rich neighborhoods, and introduces prejudicial character evidence into each case” written on 6/4/2013.

UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC ‘SINGLE-DOE’ CASES FILED,” written on 3/7/2013.

California Judge Consolidates ALL Malibu Media, LLC Cases, and WHY THIS IS BAD,” written on 7/12/2012.

(UPDATED) Forum Shopping by Malibu Media, LLC Copyright Trolls” written on 5/7/2012.

Malibu Media, LLC cases go down in FLAMES in Virginia,” written on 4/3/2012.

Malibu Media, LLC – Friend or Foe?  Foe!” written on 3/23/2012

Malibu Media, LLC — New “Copyright Troll” on the Block,” written on 3/6/2012.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.  

To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, 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.

    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.

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

    LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY, AS OF 3/12/2017)

    Cases in the Connecticut District Court (38)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00187, 3:17-cv-00188, 3:17-cv-00189, 3:17-cv-00190, 3:17-cv-00195, 3:17-cv-00203, 3:17-cv-00213, 3:17-cv-00219, 3:17-cv-00220, 3:17-cv-00221, 3:17-cv-00223, 3:17-cv-00224, 3:17-cv-00225, 3:17-cv-00227, 3:17-cv-00229, 3:17-cv-00230, 3:17-cv-00232, 3:17-cv-00233, 3:17-cv-00249, 3:17-cv-00250, 3:17-cv-00251, 3:17-cv-00252,  3:17-cv-00253, 3:17-cv-00254, 3:17-cv-00256, 3:17-cv-00257, 3:17-cv-00258, 3:17-cv-00259, 3:17-cv-00271, 3:17-cv-00272, 3:17-cv-00273, 3:17-cv-00274, 3:17-cv-00275, 3:17-cv-00276, 3:17-cv-00277, 3:17-cv-00278, 3:17-cv-00279, 3:17-cv-00280)

    Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (12)
    Attorney: Mary K. Schulz of the Media Litigation Firm, P.C.

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.138.51 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01183)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
    …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address96.95.112.34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01209)

    Cases Filed in the Maryland District Court (7)
    Attorney: Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”) of the Law Office of Jon a Hoppe, Esquire

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 8:17-cv-00397, 8:17-cv-00396, 1:17-cv-00402, 8:17-cv-00401, 1:17-cv-00398, 1:17-cv-00399, 8:17-cv-00400)

    Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (16)
    Attorney: Joel A. Bernier of Sheikh Legal Services PLLC
    176 S. Main St., Suite 1, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 ([email protected])

    MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:17-cv-10422)
    v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
    v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
    v. IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
    v. IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
    v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
    v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
    v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
    v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
    v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
    v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
    v. IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
    v. IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
    v. IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
    v. IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
    v. IP Address 68.40.27.99 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10441)

    Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court (38)
    Attorney: Patrick Joseph Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”)

    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246, 2:17-cv-01251, 2:17-cv-01237, 2:17-cv-01240)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
    v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
    v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
    v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
    v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.57.99.138 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01321)

    Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court (10)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-01079, 2:17-cv-01078, 2:17-cv-01084, 2:17-cv-01077, 2:17-cv-01083, 2:17-cv-01076, 2:17-cv-01081, 2:17-cv-01080, 2:17-cv-01075, 2:17-cv-01082)

    Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court (30)
    Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00983, 1:17-cv-00985, 1:17-cv-00987, 1:17-cv-00988, 1:17-cv-00989, 1:17-cv-00992, 1:17-cv-00994, 1:17-cv-00995, 1:17-cv-01065, 1:17-cv-01067, 1:17-cv-01068, 1:17-cv-01069, 1:17-cv-01070, 1:17-cv-01072, 1:17-cv-01074, 1:17-cv-01075, 1:17-cv-01076, 1:17-cv-01078, 1:17-cv-01088, 1:17-cv-01094, 1:17-cv-01095, 1:17-cv-01096, 1:17-cv-01097, 1:17-cv-01098, 1:17-cv-01099, 1:17-cv-01100, 1:17-cv-01101, 1:17-cv-01102, 7:17-cv-00981, 7:17-cv-00982)

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

    Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (8)
    Attorney: A. Jordan Rushie (“Jordan Rushie”) of Flynn Wirkus Young PC / Rushie Law

    MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00662, 2:17-cv-00509, 2:17-cv-00506, 2:17-cv-00510, 2:17-cv-00508, 2:17-cv-00507, 2:17-cv-00512, 2:17-cv-00511)

    Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court (42)
    Attorney: Andrew Darshan Kumar (“Andrew Kumar”) and Michael J. Lowenberg (“Mike Lowenberg”) of the Lowenberg Law Firm

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:17-cv-00413, 4:17-cv-00415, Case No. 4:17-cv-00417, 4:17-cv-00418, 4:17-cv-00420, 4:17-cv-00421, 4:17-cv-00422, 4:17-cv-00423, 4:17-cv-00424, 4:17-cv-00425, 4:17-cv-00465, 4:17-cv-00466, 4:17-cv-00468, 4:17-cv-00469, 4:17-cv-00470, 4:17-cv-00471, 4:17-cv-00472, 4:17-cv-00473, 4:17-cv-00474, 4:17-cv-00475, 4:17-cv-00476, 4:17-cv-00477,  4:17-cv-00478, 4:17-cv-00479, 4:17-cv-00480, 4:17-cv-00481, 4:17-cv-00482, 4:17-cv-00483, 4:17-cv-00484, 4:17-cv-00485, 4:17-cv-00486, 4:17-cv-00487, 4:17-cv-00488, 4:17-cv-00489, 4:17-cv-00490, 4:17-cv-00491, 4:17-cv-00492, 4:17-cv-00493, 4:17-cv-00494, 4:17-cv-00495, 4:17-cv-00497, and 4:17-cv-00498.)

    Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (3)
    Attorney: John Carlin Decker, II (“John Decker”) of the Law Office of John C. Decker II
    5207 Dalby Lane, Burke, VA 22015 (John is still using his Verizon e-mail when he files the lawsuits — [email protected])

    Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00192, 1:17-cv-00193, 1:17-cv-00194)


    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 I Believe MPAA/RIAA in a Scheme to Break Copyright Law

      Analyzing the relationship between MPAA/RIAA and the adult film industry lawsuits (via Guardaley).

      Yesterday, I spent most of the day writing articles for the blog.  My two priorities for the day were 1) to get articles out on RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (focusing on how they differ from what I wrote about CEG-TEK), and 2) to write about the great merging of the porn and movie industry to break copyright law.

      THE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ARTICLES FOCUSED ON HOW THEY DIFFER FROM CEG-TEK.

      Getting articles out on RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was my first priority, specifically, because so many people were going to the old CEG-TEK articles, and I did not want to give my readers a false sense of security based on what I wrote about those same topics as they applied to the CEG-TEK entity.

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT should be considered a hostile copyright troll (analogous to a John Steele / Prenda-level troll because their beliefs about law and ‘pirates’ mirror each other).  I have abstained from commenting on the personality of Carl Crowell (the owner of RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and the likely puppet master behind all of the adult film and movie “John Doe” bittorrent lawsuits filed across the US).  However, I meant it when I said that one should expect tactics of using very illegal, but untraceable means to violate the security of your computer when you log into his site in order to gain leverage over you and scare you into paying a settlement.

      Why do I think Crowell would break the law just as John Steele did to achieve his goals?  Attorneys that powerful (if not already corrupt) become corrupted, and I have too often seen them develop a sense of invincibility to the law.  After crossing one grey line after another, they ultimately end up breaking the law thinking that they will never be caught.  This is what happened to John Steele, and this is what I am guessing will eventually happen to the Carl Crowell.

      HERE IS WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CASES.  ALL ARTICLES POSTED WERE OFFSHOOTS OF TOPICS FROM THIS ARTICLE.

      You should expect that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT will likely be treating cases differently than CEG-TEK did, so I did not want people to get the wrong impression that they were harmless, as CEG-TEK was (in comparison).

      WHY I NOW BELIEVE THAT THE MPAA/RIAA COLLUDED WITH THE PORN COMPANIES TO CREATE CASE LAW IN ORDER TO BREAK COPYRIGHT LAW.

      The more important topic I wrote about yesterday got shadowed by my other articles.  That topic was how the MPAA/RIAA appears to have colluded with the adult film / porn companies with the intent of breaking copyright law.

      HERE IS WHY I THINK THAT THE MPAA/RIAA IS BEHIND THE ADULT FILM LAWSUITS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

      I started the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC in 2010, just as the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits became quiet. I always wondered where they went, and why they stopped suing defendants.

      Now based upon the explicit ‘coming together’ of the adult film companies, the movie companies (MPAA), and now Rightscorp (RIAA) under the leadership of Carl Crowell, his network of attorneys filing Guardaley-backed bittorrent lawsuits across the US, and now the appearance of his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT company, the merging of what were thought to be separate entities demonstrates that perhaps they weren’t so separate as we thought they were.

      WHY I THINK THAT THE MOVIE INDUSTRY AND THE PORN INDUSTRY WERE IN COLLUSION

      With the appearance of the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity, I couldn’t help but to think that 1) EITHER CARL CROWELL IS A GENIUS ATTORNEY WHO HAS MERGED THE TWO VERY SEPARATE FACTIONS — MOVIE-BASED COPYRIGHT TROLLS, and PORNOGRAPHY-BASED COPYRIGHT TROLLS, or 2) CARL CROWELL IS MERELY A FIGUREHEAD, A PATSY.

      Reading what I have learned about this man, I cannot believe that he is a genius who has united the separate entities of movie lawsuits and porn lawsuits.  This is just too big of a project for one man.  Rather, I think Carl Crowell is the figurehead replaced by some entity behind the scenes when the relationship between this Guardaley-backed ‘investor’ and Keith Lipscomb soured in April of 2016.

      REMEMBER — WHEN LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA LLC PARTED WAYS, LIPSCOMB AND GUARDALEY ALSO PARTED WAYS.  MALIBU MEDIA LLC CONTINUED FILING LAWSUITS WITH THEIR GUARDALEY-BACKED ENTITY AS THE BOSS, CLAIMING, “WE HAVE A NEW INVESTOR.”  ONLY THEN WAS CARL CROWELL INSTALLED AS THE HEAD OF THE GUARDALEY-BACKED SET OF LAWSUITS.

      Thus, it occurred to me that Carl Crowell is not the one behind everything, but he is merely their “figurehead / fall guy” answering to some higher entity (just as Lipscomb was the “figurehead / fall guy” to some higher entity for all of the porn-based lawsuits filed since 2010, and just as Paul Duffy of Prenda Law Inc. (R.I.P.) was the “figurehead / fall guy” installed by John Steele).  [It would be interesting to learn whether John Steele TOO answered to some higher entity, because he too fits the profile I am about to describe.]  Each of these guys came out of nowhere into positions of extreme power, and with the exception of Lipscomb, each of these guys reminded me of drunk fraternity guys who showed up to work in a stretched and torn football jersey, shorts, and a hangover.

      HOW I ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MOVIE AND PORN INDUSTRY ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO BREAK COPYRIGHT LAW

      In the context of researching the ME2 cases (already noting that there was a connection between a number of movie cases [ME2/COOK/CELL/SEPTEMBER/I.T.], specifically, that the same attorneys were filing the same set of lawsuits across the US), I wrote a side article explaining “the evolution of piracy,” (an innocuous post).  In that post, it occurred to me that “it would be just too terrible” if there was collusion between the movie industry and the porn industry.

      A few days later, I noticed in my website’s analytics that people were rushing to view my CEG-TEK articles, and I could not figure out why (CEG-TEK was no longer sending out letter to John Doe Defendants).  From there, I learned about Carl Crowell (who I previously ignored as being a nobody) and his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity, which demonstrated that there was a connection between the movie industry and the porn industry.

      It was then when I saw that Carl Crowell’s RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity represented both the mainstream movie companies (the ME2 / COOK PRODUCTIONS / I.T. PRODUCTIONS connection I was already looking for), and from my own website analytics and follow-up research, learning that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was also sending out notices for CEG-TEK’s old porn company clients that I made the connection that perhaps there was a relationship between the porn and movie industry.

      Then I remembered the Guardaley connection years back when representing clients in the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases, and it occurred to me that some entity connected with Guardaley is behind both the porn-based lawsuits AND the movie-based lawsuits, but why?  That is where I learned that Rightscorp (the MPAA/RIAA also joined with Carl Crowell), and the connection made sense.  Through some common entity or ‘investor’, both the movie companies and the adult film companies are having their lawsuits funded.  Then it occurred to me how convenient it would have been for that investor to be the MPAA/RIAA, especially considering the millions they are pouring into Rightscorp (a sinking ship), just as they spent [I believe] hundreds of millions on lawsuits for copyright infringement shortly before I started my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC in 2010.

      I always wondered why all of a sudden in 2010, the MPAA/RIAA stopped filing the copyright infringement lawsuits.  Now, I am starting to understand that if I am correct about the MPAA/RIAA being the entity behind the adult film lawsuits, they never did stop their activities.  Rather, they just devised a clever scheme to get the porn industry to file lawsuits and blaze the trail to create case law across the US (because most pornography-based defendants do not fight back, and judges laugh when they see the explicit porn titles sued upon, and through this uncomfortable laugh, judges undermine their legal sense and allow the ‘repressed, stigma-based industry’ to proceed with protecting their rights to sue “just like everyone else.”).  As a result of having the porn companies file the lawsuits across the US, IF what is unfolding ends up being true, then the MPAA/RIAA schemed to break copyright infringement law so that they can come back seven years later and start filing lawsuits, but now, with a “lower bar” and relaxed legal standards.


      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.

        The Great MPAA Scheme to Defraud Copyright Law.

        Analyzing the relationship between MPAA/RIAA and the adult film industry lawsuits (via Guardaley).

        Is it possible that the MPAA & RIAA created a scheme with the porn-based companies to break copyright law?

        On 3/3, I wrote the article entitled, “THE EVOLUTION OF PIRACY AND THE ‘COINCIDENCE’ THAT EARLY COPYRIGHT CASES WERE ROOTED IN PORNOGRAPHY-BASED CONTENT.

        In that article, I suggested in a joking, conspiratorial way that “it was probably the plan of the MPAA / RIAA movie industry to sit back and let the porn industry file lawsuits across the US.”

        Why? Because what individual “John Doe” defendant accused of downloading pornography would destroy their reputation by fighting back against those lawsuits?  What individual would allow his reputation to be destroyed where by doing so, he would allow the porn companies to expose that not only did he downloaded porn, but they would expose his personal sexual addictions and sexual preferences (and sometimes based on the title of the infringed video, his secret fetishes) to the public record for all to see?? Thus, the porn cases were a perfect test subject to blaze the courts to create new case law on copyright infringement cases using bittorrent, because accused defendants as a general rule would not fight back.

        At first, I gave the movie industry the benefit of the doubt that they were separate and apart from the porn lawsuits, namely, that they were merely sitting back and watching the lawsuits while the porn companies made case law for them. I even referred to them as “the Sleeping Dog.”  When there was a good ruling, they would say nothing, and when there was a bad ruling, they would write articles and scream, “the evil porn companies are ruining the copyright laws for all of us!”

        MPAA/RIAA “HYPOCRITES”

        A while ago, I started noticing that the same Guardaley entity that was filing the porn lawsuits were also filing the movie lawsuits. Specifically, I heard about this when representing clients accused of downloading the Dallas Buyers Club movie, but I could not believe that legitimate movie companies were the same corporate entities behind the scenes as those who were filing porn lawsuits — it just didn’t make sense to me.

        But now I’m learning that the same Guardaley / IPP / Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) entity that is behind the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits across the US appears to be the same entity who is also filing lawsuits for legitimate movies. For example, I am told that Paul Nicoletti filed cases for both Voltage Pictures, Inc. and for Malibu Media, LLC.  Same attorney, same clients… but this is not my evidence.

        (NOTE: In a previous version of this article in the above paragraph, I used the example of Keith Vogt filing for both Dallas Buyers Club and Malibu Media, LLC.  This was in error.  However, I used his lawsuits to show how the same attorney was filing for both movie companies who have been known to license the rights to enforce copyrights and for the adult-film Malibu Media, LLC client, both Guardaley-linked.  Remember, there was a point that I believed that Voltage Pictures was that Guardaley-linked movie company, however, I’m told they were sold so they are not likely the ones behind the movie lawsuits.)  

        We also recently learned that Carl Crowell is now having ISPs send out DMCA notices demanding $300 settlements for each instance of infringement; he is sending the accused subscribers to his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT website (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com) in order to facilitate the payment of these settlement demands under a threat that if they do not pay him, he will file a lawsuit to uncover their real identity so that he can sue them for copyright infringement (statutory damages of $150,000) under the copyright laws.

        I can now confirm based on the search engine searches that are coming to my website that the nature of the DMCA notices are for pornographic films allegedly downloaded by bittorrent. Further, I compared some of those names of the porn companies, and it not only seems as if RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is a knock-off of CEG-TEK’s DMCA notice system, but that Crowell has also ‘stolen’ the clients of CEG-TEK. I know this because the titles of the alleged infringing adult films correlate almost exactly to CEG-TEK’s client list, as I exposed them in 2014.

        But if you dig further into the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT website, you’ll find that their client list includes MAINSTREAM MOVIES. Thus, the connection between the movie industry and the adult film industry is strengthened.

        Then, to make the connection even stronger, I recently learned that Carl Crowell (the apparent puppet master behind all of the Guardaley-based ‘John Doe’ movie lawsuits across the US) is also in contract with RightsCorp, who has been sending notices to Internet Subscribers the same was CEG-TEK used to, but their methods of tracking and harassing defendants is different from CEG-TEK’s. At one time, I was even so certain of the differences between them [based on how they operated and knowing the fight that CEG-TEK used to have with the Guardaley entity in their bittorrent tracking methods] that I wrote an article claiming that “CEG-TEK and RightsCorp are different animals.”  Point being, at the time, I did not understand the nature of RightsCorp (they were always the bastard child of the copyright infringement issues), but all I knew at the time were that those at Rightscorp were spending millions of dollars on a failing business model, and because they were so loudly representing the MPAA/RIAA in this failing venture, I never thought to look whether the porn industry lawsuits and the traditional movie lawsuits were somehow related.

        Well, zoom to 2017, and now we learn that the entity behind RightsCorp is also working with Carl Crowell to enforce their copyrights claiming infringement for the download of network TV shows, and most frequently, music downloaded via bittorrent.

        In my “Evolution of Piracy” article, I wrote:

        “It would be a huge scandal if one set of masters [MPAA/RIAA] planned the pornography-based bittorrent ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits for the purpose of later giving credibility to real-movie lawsuits when they stepped in place of the porn lawsuits and made the same filings… I don’t want to connect the dots because I do not want to notice that perhaps the same entities behind the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC movies were the same entities behind the Patrick Collins… Malibu Media, LLC cases. THAT WOULD BE JUST TOO HORRIBLE.” (emphasis added)

        Well, as the veil of secrecy is unraveling between the porn industry and the movie / radio industry, we are seeing that these apparently separate entities are not only in cahoots with one another, but that they are all using ONE AND THE SAME ENTITY (Guardaley) to commit fraud upon the US copyright law system.

        “NO, HE DID NOT JUST SCREAM FRAUD.” Yes, I did.  Here is why.

        In my understanding, having the movie industry (MPAA/RIAA) collude with the porn industry and PLAN to have the porn cases blaze through the courts (where those defendants as a general rule do not fight back) and create what we now call “bittorrent law,” only to NOW have the mainstream media step back in and file those same lawsuits using the porn cases as “case law” to legally support their movie-based bittorrent lawsuits, well, that’s a scam. Why? BECAUSE THE MPAA/RIAA BROKE COPYRIGHT LAW BY USING PORNOGRAPHY CASES TO CREATE THE LAW TO SUPPORT THE CASES THEY ARE NOW FILING.

        “But haven’t the porn cases also created ‘bad law’ for the movie companies?” You might think so, and in some courts, the answer is absolutely, yes.  But let’s look at the developments of what is now considered “normal” in a bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit BECAUSE OF the porn-based copyright infringement lawsuits.

        WHAT IS NOW CONSIDERED ‘NORMAL’ IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

        1) Judges now regularly rubber-stamp “expedited discovery” requests allowing copyright holders to send subpoenas to internet providers, forcing the ISPs to unclothe the identities of the account holders who are accused of copyright infringement.  These identities are provided directly to the plaintiffs (not to the court) to allow the plaintiff attorney to use and misuse that sensitive and private information.

        2) Judges allow the copyright holders to solicit settlements, sometimes in the amounts of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, with ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT of the plaintiff attorney’s activities, or how many settlements that attorney has brought in for his client.

        3) Judges regularly pretend that bittorrent-based cases are ‘regular’ copyright infringement lawsuits, but they ignore the fact that bittorrent-based copyright holders have CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM with any certainty that the account holder is the accused “John Doe” Defendant, when at best, this is at most a circumstantial connection which is not researched by the judge or the plaintiff attorney before the judge allows the lawsuit to proceed.  According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “failure to state a claim” SHOULD prevent the case from proceeding.  The plaintiff copyright holders do not have the evidence to proceed with a lawsuit, yet judges close their eyes to this fact and allow them to proceed anyway.

        In sum, the pornography cases have caused judges to fudge (think, “run their finger through melted chocolate”) what used to be firm principles of copyright infringement law, and because of the porn cases, the result is that judges now regularly allow copyright holders to get away with things that in the past, would have barred them from filing the lawsuit or getting access to the identities of John Doe Defendants in the first place.

        And if this was their plan all along, well, that’s just too horrible…

        Honestly, judges should reverse and overrule practices and case law established by the porn-based lawsuits, and they should revert to holding movie companies (AND porn companies) to the standard of law they used to adhere to before the mass onslaught of cases began to burden the courts from 2010 and on. In my opinion, bittorrent cases are nothing but sloppy copyright cases, and judges use sloppy law to allow copyright holders to abuse the copyright system and extort millions of hard-earned dollars from the public.  Years from now, people will look back and wonder how judges allowed these lawsuits to proceed.

        MY FINAL POINT

        I started the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC in 2010, just as the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits became quiet. I always wondered where they went, and why they stopped suing defendants. Now I am starting to understand that they never did stop their activities; rather, they just devised a clever scheme to get the porn industry to file lawsuits and blaze the trail to create case law across the US (because most pornography-based defendants do not fight back, and judges laugh when they see the titles sued upon, they undermine their legal sense and allow the ‘repressed, stigma-based industry to proceed with protecting their rights to sue “just like everyone else.”).  As a result of having the porn companies file the lawsuits across the US, what is unfolding to be the MPAA/RIAA plan broke copyright infringement law so that they can come back seven years later and start filing lawsuits, but now, with a “lower bar” and relaxed legal standards.


        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.

          Did ME2 Attorney Fischman disclose real Interested Parties?

          UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 Settlement Letters Sent by Todd Zenger

          In the Texas Federal District Court (as of 2017), I am working on defense research for five (5) copyright infringement / bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuits affiliated with the Guardaley / Carl Crowell.  In a ME2 case, ME2’s local counsel Gary Fischman was ordered by Judge Keith P. Ellison to disclose “all interested parties” to the lawsuit, and this is the subject of this article.

          Texas cases I am actively working on (filed after 1/1/2017):
          ME2 Productions, Inc. v DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00695)
          ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275)
          ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501)
          ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404)
          I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)
          and, the Siemens PLM v. Does 1-100 software piracy case and multiple Malibu Media, LLC cases (both outside the scope of this article).

          WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT?

          The reason it is important to know who has a financial interest in these lawsuits is because I need to know 1) whether the corporate entity that is suing has the authority to sue, and 2) whether the corporate entity filing the lawsuit is the same entity that holds the copyright to the movie allegedly infringed in the lawsuit.

          If the corporate entity (here, ME2 Productions, Inc.) does not have the authority to sue, or if it is not the true copyright holder (but some entity that licensed the rights to make money for the copyright holder based on the copyright rights granted to the true copyright holder to the “Mechanic:Ressurection” movie), the plaintiff might lose the lawsuit or even get sanctioned for not disclosing the true parties who are interested in the outcome of the lawsuit by alleging in a document like this one (link) that they had the right to sue when in fact they did not.

          WHY AM I SUSPECT THAT MAYBE THE PARTY SUING MIGHT NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT RIGHTS TO SUE?

          The only way a plaintiff can sue for STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is if they have a valid copyright to the movie title allegedly being infringed (or, downloaded using bittorrent or Popcorn Time).  If they do not own the copyright but only the right to monetize, the plaintiff may only be entitled to ACTUAL DAMAGES, NOT STATUTORY DAMAGES.

          In a bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuit, the actual damages are really the cost to purchase a copy of the infringed movie (~$30 for the DVD), or perhaps $8 for the movie ticket if the movie is still in theaters.  The law only gives STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 to plaintiffs who have a valid copyright at the time of the lawsuit.

          So here is why I am suspect that maybe ME2 Productions, Inc. might not be the holder of a valid copyright:  We know from the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits (when the real Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder sued Voltage Pictures, Inc. for not paying settlement moneys owed to them) that there was an entity (Voltage Pictures) that purchased the rights to monetize Dallas Buyer’s Club’s intellectual property (the right to use the Dallas Buyer’s Club name, the right to sue, etc.)  Voltage then turned around and set up an entity called “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC” and sued hundreds of John Doe Defendants using that name.

          Little did we know at the time that the Dallas Buyer’s Club plaintiff was not the Dallas Buyer’s Club copyright holder, and the copyright troll plaintiff entity was merely masquerading as the Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder.

          WHY ARE THE DALLAS BUYERS CLUB LAWSUITS RELEVANT TO ME2 PRODUCTIONS CASES?

          The common thread behind the Dallas Buyer’s Club lawsuits and most copyright infringement lawsuits filed today is a german company called Guardaley (a.k.a. IPP).  It is not relevant that Guardaley’s bittorrent tracking methods have been ruled not credible by the German courts; they have been wreaking havoc on US courts since 2012.  Guardaley (as far as I understand) has been behind the scenes of each and every ‘copyright troll’ lawsuit filed in the federal courts.  And, after April 2016, they have reportedly signed an agreement with Carl Crowell (a known copyright troll attorney, but more importantly, likely the mastermind behind each of the ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits filed by local attorneys across the US).

          Carl Crowell’s connection to ME2 Productions, Inc. is that they are his client.  I can demonstrate this connection by looking at his new DMCA scare letter scheme entity, “Rights Enforcement”.  If you look at the Crowell’s client list (as described by Torrentfreak), you will see that Mechanic:Resurrection (the movie behind the ME2 lawsuits) is one of Carl Crowell’s clients.  (Carl Crowell himself is also a known ‘copyright troll’ where he has filed ME2 lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in Oregon.)

          RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com screenshot with ME2 outlined.
          Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

          Thus, naturally, I am suspect to each of ME2 Productions, Inc.’s other lawsuits in other states, here, Texas, because as the apparent puppetmaster behind the various ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits filed across the US, I must assume he has a financial interest in the outcome of this Texas lawsuit filed by Gary Fischman.

          WHO DID ATTORNEY FISCHMAN SAY HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE ME2 BITTORRENT LAWSUITS?

          In the filing, Gary Fischman noted that the following three entities has a financial interest in the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases:

          • ME2 Productions, Inc.
          • A&T IP, Inc., and
          • Fischman Law, PLLC

          ME2 Productions, Inc. might be the actual copyright owner, or it is possible that they are an entity that was set up for the purpose of monetizing the copyright rights granted to the actual copyright holder, the owner of the Mechanic:Resurrection movie.

          A&T IP, Inc. is an enigma to me.  I do not know who they are, where they are incorporated, and who the beneficiaries are of this entity.

          UPDATE: DieTrollDie suggests that perhaps A&T IP, Inc. is actually the Anti-Piracy Management Co (APMC).

          DTD Twitter Screenshot Suggesting A&T IP, Inc. is APMC.
          DieTrollDie suspects that A&T IP, Inc. is really the Anti-Piracy Management Co. (APMC).

          Fischman Law, PLLC is curious in and of itself for reasons outside the scope of this article.  Naturally, it could be explained that Gary Fischman as the attorney suing on behalf of ME2 will benefit (e.g., commissions from settlements received, possibly fees from the copyright holder or the Crowell / Guardaley entity itself for time spent prosecuting these cases).  However, I suspect the link goes slightly deeper, as his partner for a number of the Guardaley lawsuits, Joshua Wyde, listed himself as a witness in the lawsuit (something that is generally not done).  So there may be more to the eye here, but not relevant to this article.

          Here is a link to the actual document filed with the court:

          021017 ME2 417-cv-00404 – Doc6 – Certificate of Interested Parties by ME2

          MY FINAL QUESTIONS

          Looking at all of this information together, I am left with the following questions.

          1. WHERE IS GUARDALEY (IPP) AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE?
          2. WHY IS CARL CROWELL NOT LISTED AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE, OR IS HE [AND GUARDALEY] SOMEHOW WRAPPED UP IN THAT “A&T IP, INC” ENTITY?
          3. IS ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. THE SAME LEGAL ENTITY THAT OWNS THE COPYRIGHT TO THE MECHANIC:RESURRECTION MOVIE, OR ARE THEY SOME OTHER ENTITY THAT IS MERELY MASQUERADING AS THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS / COPYRIGHT HOLDER UNDER SOME LICENSE TO MONETIZE THEIR COPYRIGHT RIGHTS?

          Your thoughts and feedback are obviously welcome.


          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.

            Judge rules (Guardaley) German evidence is insufficient.

            malibu-media-case-consolidations

            This is too important of a case not to mention, but I simply have not had the time to write it up (nor do I think that I could have done a better job than what was written up here). Read this article and understand that with a fight, Malibu Media LLC cases can and do crumble.

            The most fascinating part about this Colorado federal court ruling is that it came from US Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty (who has been a thorn in the side of us defense attorneys because his rulings have until now been consistently pro-copyright troll). This is a fascinating revelation which will perhaps smother the Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe cases filed across the U.S.

            [HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE:) LITTLE DID I KNOW AT THE TIME THAT GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT ALL OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S. (PRESUMABLY WITH THE MPAA / RIAA AS THE INVESTOR BACKING THE LAWSUITS).]


            FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

            FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, 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.

              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.

              shalta boook now cta

              Skip to content