The most shocking discovery for me was the fact that The Sunday Times is a paywalled paper. Apparently there are many people out there who are not only happy to submissively open their skulls to be brainwashed, but also eager to pay for the bleach.
Tim, this is a very good research and an excellent summary, yet IMO you missed one interesting development involving this "plaintiff" — Leaverson v Killer Joe Nevada appeal pending in the 8th Circuit (see DieTrollDie's post).
What's interesting about this appeal is that the Darren Griffin fraud is brought up, and this issue will hopefully get more deserved traction.
(For those who are not aware, in 2012/2013 Guardaley/Voltage filed around 200 declarations signed by some Darren Griffin, a person who most certainly never existed — on behalf of a fake "Crystal Bay Corporation." This is a Prenda grade shit...)
In addition to gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces there is one even stronger: the one that draws the three stooges (Hansmeier, Steele, Duffy) together.
John Steele is about to start the same line of "business" in Chicago. He setup a firm "The Accessibility Law Group" and solicits disabled people to become instruments in his get-rich-quick scheme. The website clearly violates the IARDC Rule 7.2(c).
I already tipped Steele that Old Neighborhood Italian American Club doesn't have proper wheelchair access. You may want to add your two cents too.
Duffy is rumored to be involved in The Accessibility Law Group too: this information is currently being verified.
The following day, Friday, March 13, 2015, was my birthday. I was distracted and in a hurry and filed the documents erroneously.
(While I say "he," the text is most like written in Miami: I don't believe the Troll Center would let an inexperienced stooge handle such a serious situation unsupervised.)
Beside attacking Jason Sweet ("Defense counsel is a well-known anti-copyright lawyer" — this is funny!), our drama queen claims that it was him who notified the clerk. I would take it with a grain of salt given the way how he described a similar "mistake" in the Bellwether case:
Once Plaintiff and its counsel were made aware of the mistake, the clerk was immediately contacted and the problem was resolved
I know the circumstances of that event: it wasn't plaintiff's counsel who contacted the clerk.
While I don't claim that the defendant's name exposure was a deliberate action and not a blooper, the results of the poll above are telling: even given that the sample is admittedly biased, it's obvious that there is zero trust in what copyright extortionists say. And plenty of disgust of what they do.