Elf-Man, Elf-Man, hold it a little while,

I think I see Chris Lynch coming, riding many a mile.

Led Zeppelin: Gallows Pole, paraphrased

A bit less than a month ago I covered a German-linked copyright trolls’ panic — an attempt to cut and run after the defense presented a damning evidence of champerty and fraud in Elf Man v. Lamberson (WAED 13-cv-00395). As predicted, the defendant wasn’t amused by the prospect of letting the plaintiff dismiss the case and call it quits without certain conditions (namely, paying $100,000 for the trouble):

[…] Mr. Lamberson requests the court condition the dismissal on payment in advance of $100,000 pul $154.50 in allowable costs for the deposition costs charged for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Elf-Man, LLC which was noted and held, but which neither Elf-Man, LLC, nor its counsel attended.

On 7/3/2014 the defendant’s attorney Chris Lynch filed 5 (!) documents:

Embrace for a thorough and intriguing read. Some interesting points:

The defendant asserts that the copyright certificate is incomplete: a critical second page with signatures is missing (probably stolen by the ghost of Alan Cooper). Notwithstanding, the plaintiff continues to cherish its entitlement to statutory damages.

Guardaley and its shells (APMC, IPP International, Crystal Bay Corporation… you name it) are undeniably the real party of interest, yet this fact was not disclosed in this case as required by law.

No admissible evidence of the defendant’s wrongdoing exists: despite the statement by German “experts,” no one actually “observed defendant infringing” at all. All these wannabe investigators have is a half-second piece of the movie allegedly shared by the defendant’s IP address.

While the estranged Elf-Man’s attorney Maureen VanderMay, despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, still claims that she sent documents to the defense before the deadline, Chris Lynch discovered that she blamed USPS in the past. Facepalm.

The transcript of the APMC Prezi presentation is filed as an exhibit, the most cynical parts are quoted. For example,

“APMC stays in the background where they are invisible, but we are the center (i.e. ‘we make things happen.’)” “We bring the clients to the law firms. We manage their legal strategy.”

There is much more in these documents, including well-described links between the parts of this German-centered racketeering organization (yes, including Lipscomb/Malibu Media/X-Art):

3. Anti-Piracy Management Company, LLC (“AMPC”) is incorporated in California, but using the address of 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor, Sacramento, CA 98514. That address belongs to the Weintraub Genshlea Chediak law firm. I called the Weintraub law firm to inquire about APMC and the Sacramento address. I was informed that the Weintraub law firm occupies the entire 11th floor of that building. The law firm receptionist had no contact information or forwarding information for APMC. 4. The Weintraub law firm has been a plaintiff’s attorney in other BitTorrent cases, including Camelot Distribution Group v. Does 1-5856 (not a typo), in the Central District of California, Case No. 11-cv-01949. That matter used Tobias Fieser as its witness wherein Mr. Fieser declared, ECF No. 22-1, that he was the “Technical Administrator of IPP International UG.” 5. Mr. Fieser also testified in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2013 in Case No. 2:12-cv-02078-MMB, ECF No. 205, where he testified beginning at page 91 about his responsibilities at IPP in Germany. At page 97, Mr. Fieser was asked: Q: Did anyone else at IPP, Limited verify that the movies were copies of Malibu Media’s works prior to filing the lawsuits? A: Yes, Dan Macek also verified the movies.



Remember that Daniel Macek is explicitly mentioned in the “Devil’s cookbook” (p. 36).

I’m sure that these findings will be discussed in the oncoming hearing in Maryland. The storm is coming.

Forget the “contingency fee agreement,” the fraud is deeper than it appears

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha

The most important piece of the new information in Chris Lynch’s filings is sealed and heavily redacted (Exhibit B), yet the following description is more than enough (emphasis is mine):

The explanation did include an April, 2012, agreement between APMC and Vision Films that Ms. VanderMay said was part of the explanation. That agreement is filed under seal and is designated as Exhibit B to Mr. Lynch’s Declaration. Lynch Decl. at ¶ 8. Page 7 of that agreement includes redacted portions, but does otherwise indicate that any recoveries from APMC’s enforcement campaign would be allocated first to APMC’s costs, and then “the remaining monies shall be distributed as follows: (a) The appointed Attorney’s and litigation [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], (b) The appointed forensic IT expert costs [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], (c) The RIGHTS OWNER shall receive [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL].” In other words, it appears that APMC as the investigator and financier of the litigation has a direct and contingent stake in it.

So this is the moment of truth: this is the answer to the question why Malibu Media and other Guardaley-affiliated trolls have been stonewalling discovery aimed at untangling the web of relationships between the Germans, their lawyers and plaintiffs. When the “oral contingency fee agreement” was inadvertently mentioned in an answer to interrogatories, it was bad enough, but the reality is even more shocking: the German “investigators” are not being paid on contingency; it is them who pay lawyers and plaintiffs a fraction of the settlement proceeds. Just think about it: all this copyright law abuse, fraud, misery, ruined families and careers, bankruptcies — this grim theater is run by a foreign racket with the help from greedy puppets — American lawyers.

I used the word “fraud” deliberately. In thousands of frivolous cases that have been plaguing this country for years, not a single time a real party of interest — Guardaley — was disclosed. This gross deception won’t stay hidden from the US judges for long.

Related: Redefinition of “Chutzpah”: the troll moves for default judgments

Make sure to read the latest DieTrollDie’s post on this topic: DTD analyses plaintiff’s questionable motion for default judgments against seven defendants in the Lamberson’s parent case (Elf-Man LLC v. Does, WAED 13-cv-00115), including the unbelievable two separate claims against a single married couple. Well, if Elf-Man’s new attorney David A. Lowe appeared on the case in this astonishingly douchy and sloppy way while even Mrs. VasderMay bailed out from the Bittorent cases citing ethical concerns, it doesn’t require a Ph.D. to deduce Mr. Lowe’s moral and professional qualities.