Justice Everywhere | Vengeance-a-love-story subpoena lawsuit

I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC (a.k.a. the “Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)”) movie lawsuit cases.  The goal here 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, or you hear that a Justice Everywhere Productions subpoena has been issued to an ISP, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01363) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio”).  

Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

Justice Everywhere | Vengeance-a-love-story subpoena lawsuit

Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Does Lawsuits

Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the “Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)” movie, starring Nicolas Cage.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

Accused internet users [in receipt of Justice Everywhere subpoenas] are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., CenturyLink, Comcast, Hawaii Telecom, Verizon Fios, Time Warner Cable, etc.), which informs them:

1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and

2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection to the Justice Everywhere Productions subpoena with the court (referring to a “motion to quash“).

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

Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

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


Justice Everywhere ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts:
Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 4:17-cv-01363)
Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00219)
Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)

Justice Everywhere ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court:
Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Doe-
(Case No. 3:17-cv-00758)
Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Doe-
(Case No. 3:17-cv-00757)

Justice Everywhere Productions subpoena case in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:

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

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


Article(s) Written on the Vengeance: A Love Story (2017) / Justice Everywhere Productions subpoenas:

Everything you need to know in one page about your Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC (“Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)”) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” written on 7/30/2017


Because IP address-based copyright infringement cases appear to be similar, I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.  (Look here for an article on when to hire an attorney, and at what point does it become too late to hire an attorney.)

Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf.


Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.


Carl Crowell and his local counsel across the US (here in Texas, Gary Fischman) appear to be researching the claims and linking the accused IP addresses to determine whether that accused defendant has been involved in the download of other copyrighted films.  

They appear to be watching the activity of the IP address (specifically, before and after the date the ISP sends the subpoena notice to the account holders) to see if there is a change in the downloading activity of the accused subscriber.

It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates.  The plaintiff attorneys have data that they rely on, but their reliance on that data is based on a STORY which may or may not have an alternative explanation.  

Obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims in order to refute their story without admitting guilt on your behalf.


Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, an IP address-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

The “no settlement” letter option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download, or the plaintiff attorney was unwilling to come to an amicable arrangement.

Obviously if neither side can agree on an early solution to the problem, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.


Many accused defendants downloaded the copyrighted movie not realizing that the download was illegal.  This is because there is software (e.g., [SOMETHING] Time) which, on its face, appears to be legitimate.  

However, unbeknownst to the end user, [SOMETHING] Time uses a “share by IP address” backbone in order to acquire the file for the end user.  It is here that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the [SOMETHING] Time software joins one or more online swarms in order to acquire the video.


Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a software source is legitimate or not.  

For example, as far as I understand, the videos presented on the [SOMETHING] Time software are usually pirated, and downloading the videos or viewing the videos can get the end user sued for copyright infringement. Contrast this with other movie sources, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc., these are legitimate.  

However, there are many “in between” software platforms and websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.  Most notoriously – Crackle.  

So far, to me it looks as if Crackle movies are legitimate and can be viewed without being sued for copyright infringement, but I could easily be wrong and we will not know this until the lawsuits start flying.

Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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


Obviously this is not a preferred outcome, but it still must be considered.  If an attorney is unwilling to settle (or if he or she is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, e.g., asking for too much money, or requiring the client to take some action outside negotiating a settlement agreement), there is another alternative strategy.  

Have your attorney file an answer on your behalf, admit guilt to the claims of copyright infringement, and argue for what is called “minimum statutory damages” of $750 plus the other side’s attorney fees (which at this point would be minimal).  

While not a preferred alternative, it is a method of forcing a reasonable settlement amount upon the plaintiff attorney if the download actually occurred.


The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable.  

The terms should not ‘admit guilt’ on behalf of the client, and the scope of the contract should include not only the accused defendant (the account holder), but also the household and/or family members.

There are other crucial elements to have in a settlement agreement (e.g., attorney fee shifting specific to copyright infringement lawsuits), but the above should be sufficient.


This is self explanatory. Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent).

Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received.

These (above) are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.


Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit (assuming the John Doe Defendant signed first), the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

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

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


Any Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC “copyright troll” IP address-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the Justice Everywhere subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  

Tracking a Justice Everywhere Productions subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own article, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the Justice Everywhere Productions / “Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)” movie cases.

Justice Everywhere Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

A Justice Everywhere subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading Justice Everywhere Productions LLC’s “Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)” movie.

Justice Everywhere Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

The federal judge approves the Justice Everywhere subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the Justice Everywhere subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the Justice Everywhere subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  

They send a notice to the account holder that a Justice Everywhere subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the Justice Everywhere subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

The ISP forwards the Justice Everywhere Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the Justice Everywhere subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC v. Does lawsuit.  

At this point, you are still anonymous.

The ISP complies with the Justice Everywhere Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the Justice Everywhere subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

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

The exact moment your anonymity expires.

At this point, the life of the Justice Everywhere subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  

At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  

Nevertheless, YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

Your anonymity expires once the Justice Everywhere plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Vengeance: A Love Story (2017)” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.

 At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  

You need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

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

In sum, about this article.

In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit.

For this reason, I wrote this article:

1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly,

2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Justice Everywhere Productions, 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.

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (New MPAA Movies Gone Copyright Troll)


    RightsEnforcement.com (Carl Crowell and his ilk) have been quiet lately as far as the DMCA notices go, but the movie lawsuits press on. Now they have NEW MOVIE TITLES that they will be suing on in the coming weeks and months.  It is worth mentioning that since I began writing about RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (I have to put their name in caps since it just looks awkward when writing it out), the company got quiet — not because of me or anything I wrote on the topic — but now I understand that they were spending their time continuing the Voltage Pictures business model and obtaining new contracts with new movie companies with the intent of ‘enforcing’ or suing John Doe Defendants who download those films (and as always, recruiting new ISPs to send their DMCA notices, whether by force or by ‘carrot and stick’).

    JULY, 2017 –UPDATE– : Carl Crowell’s Rights Enforcement client list is growing.  New RightsEnforcement Movie Clients for Future Copyright Lawsuits as of July, 2017 have now been posted here.

    Also, to learn more about RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and everything I know about them to date, click here.

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 1

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT represents a ‘common troll’ entity which enforces the copyright rights of other companies who contract with it.


    How I understand this works (source: Dallas Buyers Club lawsuit against copyright trolls Voltage Pictures, Inc., a.k.a., Dallas Buyers Club, LLC).  A common troll entity (e.g., Voltage Pictures, Guardaley, MPAA, whoever) contacts the production company for some failed movie that did not make expected profits in the theater.  They license the rights to enforce the copyright owned by that movie company.  This “common troll” entity would then set up shell entities masquerading as the movie company.  These shell entities are LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, which means that if there is a lawsuit against them, or if they get hit for damages, the damages are limited to the limited liability company itself, and not the criminals ‘behind the veil’ of these companies.

    This shell entity files multiple “John Doe” lawsuits across the US using German Company Guardaley (and it’s US shell company counterparts) to provide “expert evidence” that copyright infringement happened via the bittorrent networks.  They ask the federal judges to unmask the identities of the ISP subscribers who were assigned the IP address which was involved in the bittorrent lawsuit, and they contact that defendant and ask for a multi-thousand dollar settlement for the ‘loss’ they suffered because of their download.

    What movies will this ‘common troll’ sue for in the future?

    Some of the new movies on the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT Client List are:

    • Larceny (with Dolph Lundgren, “I will break you.”)
    • I Am Wrath (with John Travolta)
    • Vengeance (with Nicolas Cage)
    • USS Indianapolis (with Nicolas Cage)
    • Rage
    • Rumble
    • Undisputed 4
    • A Tale of Love and Darkness

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 2

    • Bedeviled
    • Christmas All Over Again
    • Killer Joe
    • Lady Bloodfight
    • Maximum Conviction
    • Navy Seals: The Battle For New Orleans
    • Playing Cool
    • The Company You Keep

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | wwe-studios-finance-corp-eliminators-movie-lawsuit

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | me2-mechanic-resurrection-lawsuit

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 5 | salt-and-fire | cook-productions-mr.-church

    • The Humbling
    • Salt and Fire
    • Queen of the Desert
    • Close Range

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 6

    • Good Kill
    • Charlie Countryman
    • Sniper: Special Ops
    • Life on the Line
    • Cabin Fever Reboot
    • Return to Sender

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 7

    • Countdown
    • Blunt Force Trauma, and
    • Wild Horses

    Are these famous actors or producers involved in the copyright trolling scheme?

    Likely not.  It has become apparent that the actors in the movie have absolutely nothing to do with RIGHTSENFORCEMENT, or the copyright trolling that the production company has chosen as their alternate path to making money from the film (their primary method of selling movie tickets flopped).  In fact, the actors are usually the victims of both the piracy and the lawsuit, as they benefit from NEITHER.

    Is Carl Crowell (the figurehead of RIGHTSENFORCEMENT) behind these lawsuits?

    Again, likely not.  It is also now apparent that Carl Crowell alone (the ‘owner’ of RIGHTSENFORCEMENT and the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website) is likely not the businessman / entrepreneur behind the acquisition of the movie titles.  Rather, he and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT company are most logically patsy figureheads, as was Keith Lipscomb and his now defunct law firm.  (On a side note, after all the years we thought that Lipscomb was the villain for the Malibu website, I wonder if he feels like a patsy as well — used and abused by the more powerful copyright trolls, or did Lipscomb make out with windfall profits?  It would be interesting to speak to him and have him give his side of the story to ‘spill the guts’ of who these guys behind the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT company and actually are.)

    So as much as that was ‘tongue in cheek’ (cliche which has a different meaning if you knew anything about the Malibu lawsuits Lipscomb was filing), realistically Lipscomb is bound by a number of strong contracts where he could probably lose his law license for breach of attorney-client privilege if he disclosed the identity of his ‘client’ — the one who has been filing all of these lawsuits.

    If not him, then who? (think, “who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?”)

    We don’t need Lipscomb to see who is actually behind these lawsuits.  It is becoming apparent (at least in my observation) that the entity behind Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT organization is none other than the MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MPAA) and their lobbyists.

    I laugh at myself whenever I say this out loud because the idea that such an apparent ‘legitimate’ organization would engage in such banal legal tactics to monetize their copyrights to compensate for having made failed movies (“floppers”) in the theaters makes me just shake my head in disgust.  Then, having learned over the last two years that the same organization is affiliated with OR HAS DIRECTED the pornography lawsuits across the US since 2012 just makes me cringe.  “It is just too horrible.”

    Why I believe the MPAA/RIAA are behind the movie lawsuits.

    I covered why I actually think the MPAA and RIAA are behind the movie lawsuits in depth here, but I’ll quickly recap.

    Look at the evidence.  The RIAA (a similar but very related organization) was involved in so many lawsuits prior to 2010.  They sued and sued, and then all of a sudden in 2010, they went SILENT.  The MPAA also sued, my best understanding is using Voltage Pictures, and a bunch of other companies with The Expendables lawsuits, etc., all using the law firm Dunlap Grubb, & Weaver, LLC to file their lawsuit.  When those mass bittorrent lawsuits failed, it appears to me (based on the fact that the same Guardaley company was involved in both the movie AND porn lawsuits) that the MPAA and RIAA then encouraged the pornography industry to file lawsuits on their behalf to make headway in the court system to change or break copyright.

    I know I wrote “break” copyright, but I have had some time to think about it, and while I am still befuddled by the thought that the MPAA would scheme to have the porn companies file lawsuits for their own benefit to change copyright law, I wonder if they did so because they wanted to create change in the courts because they couldn’t get it done in an ineffective lame Congress.

    Anyway, this is still a mystery to me, and it is bigger than me, and I am not the one with authority or power to break the story, expose the MPAA, or investigate the MPAA or the RIAA with any credibility other than my best guesses based on what I see come out in the lawsuit filings and disclosures.  It simply must be noted that with the exodus of Lipscomb from the adult film lawsuits and the merging of the RIAA (now embodied in Rightscorp) and the MPAA (with the movie titles) all coming together in Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity (which is growing in power and in licenses to movie production companies who have signed on with them), I must assume legitimately that there must be a REASON why these movie companies are obediently ‘falling in line’ and signing up with Crowell’s organization.  That reason cannot be that there are so many greedy movie production companies in Hollywood who have all of a sudden embraced copyright trolling as a legitimate copyright monetization business strategy. Rather, I believe that reason is that THE RIGHTSENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION AND ITS MOVIE COMPANY CONTRACT DOES NOT BELONG TO CARL CROWELL, BUT TO THE MPAA/RIAA ENTITIES.