Are you ready for a little more fun courtesy of collateral law? Although there are many stray trolls copyright of the judiciary, some were more entertaining than Pledge Act and its partners in the frivolity besides AF Holdings, John Steele and Brett SuperLawyer Gibbs.



Brett Gibbs is at the center (again) on a claim of copyright infringement is currently winding through the courts since last May. Again, Gibbs felt he had found evidence of something like (Joe Navasca) Defendant hard and brought a little outside "expertise" to support its claim of "looting". More specifically, Gibbs felt a registry cleaner is the hard drive Navasca was proof that he had removed all traces of files and download uTorrent.

Navasca

lawyer pulled a letter of challenge Gibbs emergency motion to force any argument regarding the motion was severely ignorant. The dispute eventually centers around instant discovery of some software in particular that the defendant had run on your computer - C-Cleaner. The plaintiff alleges, without further support a submission "EHow.com" user, the use of C-Cleaner is a "proof" that the defendant was to destroy evidence.

Let us pause a moment in the assessment of technical origin Gibbs eHow. Although, in general, is a great improvement over Yahoo Answers, not the kind of place that the lawyer should go for technical advice, especially when it above his head in a legal battle farce, but

especially / when

submission of a single user

. I guess there is simply no time to seek a second opinion when the Act pledge. These holes are not going to dig!

Navasca lawyer, however, decided to quote Current
expert.
As described in the attached statement of a certified examiner computer, C-Cleaner default features (those used by the defendant) does not permanently delete the data, and affects only the data that the average user does not even know exists
own site
CCleaner describes what the utility does.:

removes unused files from your system - allowing Windows to run faster and freeing up valuable hard disk space. It also cleans traces of your online activities such as your Internet history. In addition, it contains some good options presented registry cleaner.

And so it is that the current team examination certificate describes the functions of CCleaner

under penalty of perjury in the federal public action

the lawyer Navasca attached as Annex A.

9. CCleaner

not

a "cleaning program" and does not "permanently delete information from a computer." By default, CCleaner removes temporary Internet files and system files.

10 .... For the most part, these are the files that the user means do not even know exist and can not even be seen by most users.

None of CCleaner deletes files would be in the context of discovery requests or considered "reasonably available" under FRCP 26

24. The mere existence of a program like CCleaner is not sufficient to support a claim that a party has committed a mistake or deliberately tried to destroy data. I have examined hundreds of hard drives and a large part of the content of the program CCleaner ... can be seen as a program useful.

25 .... I have worked in many other cases in the various programs were used to delete data - programs specifically designed for this purpose, such as "Evidence Eliminator". Unlike CCleaner, Evidence Eliminator wipe the free space on your hard disk by default.

And in all these cases, the programs were uninstalled before imaging the hard drive for the exam

Thus, the" strength "of a unique presentation eHow, Gibbs waited ignore concerns about the privacy or privilege, noting Navasca as an infringer of author covering their tracks with a program that a.) not even fill this specific function and b.) that I downloaded years before the complaint was filed.

It are more, but. When asked the name of someone impartial to conduct an inspection on the hard disk, the applicant named Peter HansMeier a "person having family ties to the Act and pledge its predecessor in interest, HansMeier Steele. " Not only that, but HansMeier "links with the case." So much for "unbiased".

Navasca representative also noted that, if the defendant was disposed to the inspection unit I could hardly give permission for all other same at home. As stated in the letter rather scathing, most (if not all) vendors e-discovery

necessary

certification that the owner or the court itself ( by a court order) granted permission.

Three days later, Judge Vadas added to the Pledge problems, offering a terse denial of motion to compel Gibbs. After instruction Navasca stop running CCleaner on your computer (s), Vadas gives this advice to Gibbs.

In addition, reports of looting are very serious, and the applicant asked the Court to examine the facts carefully before using this means an article based solely on eHow. com. In particular, the applicant must review the statement of experts Navasca presented with his short letter, understand the purpose and effect of CCleaner

As if it was not quite clear on this point AF Holdings Act engagement and his staff are grasping at straws, hoping somehow to dig their way into a payday and burn reputation while collective lands, salting the earth and fire salt.

Letter defendant

 document 

Page

> Notes

text

ZOOM

CLOSE

previous

of "

Next

p. 4

Loading

Loading

p. 5

Loading

Loading

p. 3

Loading Loading

Aa> Table of Contents

original document (PDF) "

Related articles ? Written by: Tim Cushing, Techdirt

Find best price for : --eHow----Prenda----Vadas----Navasca----Windows----Gibbs----Brett--