What would be recommendations then? I want to stay relatively anonymous: I don't hide from authorities, but from dirtbags that are capable of turning my life to hell. I want a registrar that doesn't honor US civil court subpoenas, or, at least gives a fight.
Since the majority of readers didn't scroll down Chris Lynch's declaration that far, I thought I'd post his email to VanderMay (Exhibit B). I think that all the points are pretty damning.
[...]please consider this information:
Mr. Lamberson didn’t copy the work.
Your client has no admissible evidence that Mr. Lamberson copied anything. For example, we think the response to RFP#12 is a hoot: Apparently, Mr. Lamberson copied thousands of works from 11/25/12 to 12/23/12 — apparently, he volitionally sought and copied numerous works in German, and Dutch, and Mandarin, and French, and Korean, and Russian, and Spanish, and Italian, and Greek, and Japanese. Mr. Lamberson is an interesting person, but is not multilingual. We told you about Mr. Lamberson’s computer in discovery, so it should come as no surprise that it lacks the storage capacity to handle even one day of the copying alleged in response to RFP#12 at an alleged rate of over 100 Gb per day. Another amusing example, the geolocation of the PCAP data you gave us indicates the request by the “investigator” for the packet from the IP address associated with Mr. Lamberson shows that the investigator’s request came from an office building in Amsterdam, and the list of works allegedly infringed includes “Netherlands Top 40.” Mr. Lamberson loves music, but does not listen to the Netherlands Top 40 — but may be the APMC person in Amsterdam does.
You don’t know what was captured by the one second upload — it might be the disclaimed portions of the work.
Vision Films appears to own the exclusive distribution rights — the right implicated by the investigator uploading the one bit. But the time to amend to add parties is passed.
Vision Films appears to be seeding its own work. Each (unknown, unpopular) work on Schedule A was uploaded by the same person (HeroMaster) prior to its public release. We will undertake discovery as to This HeroMaster once we see how Vision Films intends to comply with our first subpoena.
APMC is not “retaining” CBC under a paperless/termless relationship. The explanation makes no sense as our 4/16 letter demonstrates.
APMC may not have US licensed counsel preparing its pleadings.
APMC is selling testimony on a contingency that you say is “withdrawn” but without any explanation of what the relationship is or was.
We think the judge will force your client to present its witnesses in Spokane for deposition, and we cannot imagine the judge requiring us to pay these witnesses anything. Even if we ne ver depose them, we cannot imagine how Messrs Patzer and/or Macek could ever offer any admissible evidence to our court when they do come to Spokane in the summer of 2015 for the jury trial.
Does your client(s) understand the risk of Fogerty v. Fantasy? We must admit we werea little worried at first when considering a money judgment against Elf Man LLC that might not get paid, but now we see APMC behind the scenes. For example, we see APMC/ New Alchemy has over 25 posted job listings in Cebu for technicians and administrative staff and the like, so it must have some resources to meet the in evitable defense attorneys fees and sanctions judgments it will face in this case.
Does your client(s) really want to undertake discovery on all of these entirely relevant points? I am certain you can sense our tenacity and that we have no reason to back down. Or we complete discovery, go to trial and win the fees. Why would your client choose the latter?
We could go on. If for some reason this “information” is not enough h to help you formulate a settlement recommendation — just let us know and we can provide more.
Kind of. The liars fought tooth and nail to keep their lies under seal. Judge was not happy (to put it mildly). She denied their motion to seal once, they submitted the same shitty arguments. So she denied the second one for good, and you can see her opinion on the Malibu gang seeping between the lines.
Malibu asserts that Section E of its motion for a protective order and the corresponding portion of the table of contents in the motion are protected by the attorney-client privilege because they mention “future legal actions that [Malibu] intends to bring.” [...] That argument borders on frivolous.
The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to protect confidential communications with one’s own attorney.
Almost none of the accusations are based on facts (you know the proper term for it, do you?). I'll only provide a single example. Judge yourselves. At this moment I don’t have any intention to go over all the twists and sleazes. As Mark Twain said,
“Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Name : "On Amendments to the Federal Law " On advertising " restrictions on the spread of the negative impact of the activities of astrologers, fortune-tellers, magicians, spiritualists , psychics and other persons engaged in similar actions under different names (witch doctor, wizard, psychic, seer, judge, specialist, consultant, etc.)"
Date of application: 29.01.2014
Stage: a preliminary examination by the State Duma. Date of Event : 04/09/2014