Looks like Judge Otis Wright is about to be pleasant and Brett Gibbs law Pledge / Investment AF / Force 13 continues legal asshattery LLC. In a lengthy order which reads more like a smackdown, Wright abuse Gibbs attacks the legal system and completely dismantle its "business model" called.

First, Wright assumed that these trials Act pledge, which is a "snapshot" of a possible violation

during . Note that a screenshot with a timecode makes little if the offense actually occurred.

This snapshot shows that the defendants were protected work unloading at least at this time. But downloading a large file like a video takes time, and depending on the connection speed to the Internet user, it can take some time. In fact, it can take as long as the user may have finished downloading. The user can also have completed the download for other reasons. any breach of copyright based on a snapshot is similar to the claims theft of intellectual property based on a surveillance camera filmed in one: a picture of a child with a candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole. No court would allow a lawsuit is filed on the basis of the amount of testing ...

And as part of its prima facie copyright claim, plaintiff must prove that defendants copied the protected work. Publ'ns Feist, Inc. v. Rural Tel Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). If the update is not completed, the plaintiff's claim can not be considered frivolous. In this case, the applicant's appeal in the instant proof to establish their claims for infringement of copyright is moved. Reasonable inquiry should include evidence that the defendants downloaded the copyright work, or at least a useful part of a protected work.

applicant has none of this, there is evidence that the accused completed downloading, and no evidence that it is substantially similar download a copy of the copyrighted work. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawyer has violated section 11 (b) (3) to present an argument that has no factual basis.

TorrentLawyer Wright summarizes first salvo as the two standards is the case, which affects copyright drag in California, which could procedures also affect:

RULE 1. CONTINUE TO ACCUSED OF VIOLATION OF HUMAN, TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT downloaded the full video copyright.

RULE 2. A "OBSERVATION SNAPSHOT" a dedicated IP address TO DOWNLOAD AT THAT TIME sufficient evidence VIOLATION OF HUMAN

such request is almost always based on a snapshot and more IP address as "evidence", the last of which was shot down by many courts for failing to correctly identify alleged offenders. now Wright launches package Gibb valuable insight as well.

Wright addresses the issue of the following IP address, under a heading entitled "

The absence of a reasonable investigation of the offender true identity

." notes above explanations provided by the applicant as to how they came to the identity of the alleged perpetrator, and also covers the "methodology". Ingenuity LLC Here are 13 of his deductive process explanation.

Although subscriber David Wagar, silent, the investigation established that the applicant resides Benjamin Wagar was likely to infringe copyright of the plaintiff . As such, the applicant filed its amended complaint in the Court of Benjamin Wagar names as a defendant in this action. (ECF No. 14, page 2.) ...

In case the subscriber is silent, the applicant conducts research to determine the likelihood of subscriber, or someone in your household, was the real author. . . . For example, if the subscriber is 75 years or subscriber is a woman, is statistically very unlikely that the subscriber is the author. In such cases, the applicant studied with the subscriber to determine if there is a copyright violator likely the applicant. . . . The applicant bases his choices on who to designate as the author of the analysis of facts. (ECF No. 15-24.)

"analysis of the facts?" Really? Wright called for what it is. The Court interprets this to mean: if the customer is 75 years or woman, then check if the applicant is a pubescent male in the house, and if so, is named as a defendant. plaintiff "objective analysis" can not be described as anything other than a hunch

Ingenuity LLC 13 Wright gives advice on how several narrow the list of suspects down as "wardriving" to check if the WiFi connection in question is open, several downloads took place on the same IP address, or simply a restatement of the old.

such research can not be perfect, but it reduces the potential offenders and is better than the current investigation of the applicant, the Court considers implies anything blindly choose a man from the house of the subscriber

This belief is sufficient, but tracking the assassin:

But this type of research takes time and effort, something that could destroy the business model of the plaintiff.

points Wright

the difference between criminal and civil proceedings that are based on IP address for identification. In criminal proceedings, the court can usually count on the fact that the current research took place before the indictment. In a civil case, the court does not have this guarantee, but it does not mean that the judiciary should be aware of these requests.

[W] hen do with the duty of a court to serve the public interest, the applicant can not release that you want to sue, the plaintiff must show really facts to support their allegations.

Back to TorrentLawyer with another addition to California law and the federal lawsuit another blow behind, as-business model.

RULE 3. Before you sue a defendant for violation of copyright, you must make a "reasonable investigation" to determine who was the defendant who made the DOWNLOAD identified, and no other person has access to your Internet connection.

However, this author will smackdown of a company in California drag quite profitable. Expect to see a place that changes in the future. Unfortunately for 13 Ingenuity LLC, which is rooted in a losing battle, and it will get worse. Wright also had some choice words for Brett Gibbs fault. Two counts stemming from his violation of court orders to stop discovery. Gibbs initially told the court that the plaintiffs not

obtained subscriber information in question before the court later fun with stories of his efforts to obtain the prohibited information to respond to orders of justification.

The third charge is more serious, alleging fraud in the field. These circles back to the mysterious "Cooper, Alan."

After examining the documents submitted by counsel for Morgan E. Pietz, the Court found that the applicant may have defrauded the Court. (ECF No. 23.) At the center of this issue is the identity of a person named Alan Cooper and validity of tasks corresponding copyright. Although the identity of Alan Cooper has been hijacked and copyright underlying allocations have been performed incorrectly using their identity, the applicant has to face some problems.

first with a valid assignment

applicant has no standing in these cases

. Second, to bring these cases, the applicant's conduct may be considered vexatious, as

these cases presented for an improper purpose facial

. And thirdly, the Court will not be slowed, while the applicant institution disappoint this

Wright Gibbs then ordered to show why they should not be punished for this misbehavior, while refusing to extend sanctions AF Holding LLC and Ingenuity - . "Devoid of Assets", based on "trust interest" Gibbs "in the complainants and the likelihood that applicants Wright gets in a little dig at the non-existent Alan Cooper again: If Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Pietz wish everyone can present the February 19, 2013, a brief discussion on the issue. The Court also welcome the appearance of Alan Cooper to confirm or deny the allegations of fraud.

Things

already looking bleak for Brett Gibbs, but the worst may still be on the near horizon:

based on the evidence presented at the 11 March 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions are appropriate and, if so, determine the appropriate sanction.

It can be a fine, imprisonment or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct

. The failure of Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions, and the

immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest for contempt

What began with Gibbs and company. as a means of easy money has become possible jail time and a weakening complete "business model" Law commitment, investment and Ingenuity LLC 13 AF hope they do, if real millionaires, at least a little more rich. And so another chapter in the saga Gibbs Law / AF Holdings / Turn concludes, leaving us with the kind of melodrama that only those whose names are not mentioned above will enjoy watching the game to its conclusion.

Smackdown commitment

document

Page

> Notes

text

ZOOM

CLOSE

previous

of " Next

Find best price for : --Morgan----California----Wagar----Benjamin----David----Prenda----Gibbs----Brett----Wright----Otis--