…the Northern District of Illinois is the clear leader in pornography related copyright trolling.

Illinois citizens are “blessed” with high taxes, high crime rate, and nasty winters. As it is not enough, Illinois is also a troll heaven. According to a recent paper by a law professor Matthew Sag

After Prenda’s spectacular downfall, currently the most brazen copyright troll Mafia is run by a Miami attorney Michael Keith Lipscomb and his “client,” a teen hardcore pornography producer X-Art / Malibu Media. Lipscomb’s tentacles reach many states — those states where he was able to hire some local attorneys with questionable reputations. Like Paul Nicoletti in Michigan or Mary K. Schulz in Illinois.

Thanks to Raul, who discovered the following astonishing douchebaggery: with so many abusive lawsuits going on concurrently, this despicable event managed to fly under our radar.

So, this is what happened on 10/17/2013 (Malibu Media v. John Doe, NDIL 13-cv-07136):

On 10/25/2013 Magistrate Jeffery Cole issued an order to show cause “why a recommendation should not be made to Judge Aspen that she be held in contempt for her use of an epithet directed at the court while she was still in the courtroom.“:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Mary Kay Schultz is ordered to appear at 8:00 a.m. 10/28/13 in courtroom 1003 and show cause why a recommendation should not be made to Judge Aspen that she be held in contempt for her use of an epithet directed at the court while she was still in the courtroom. The facts surrounding what occurred are set forth below. On 10/9/13 the plaintiff filed a motion in front of Judge Aspen for leave to file a third-party subpoena prior to a Rule 26 conference. [#3]. Judge Aspen referred the matter here. The motion was printed on both sides of the page and its 4 exhibits were not separated by protruding tabs. The double sided printing and the absence of protruding tabs were both violative of our Local Rules. Since the motion by its nature was unopposed and since the lawyer presenting the motion was from Geneva, Illinois, I chose to exercise my discretion and disregarded these Rule violations. Schlacher v. Law Offices of Phillip J. Rotche & Associates, P.C., 574 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2009). The motion did not have attached to it the proposed subpoena — an omission I did not notice at the time. The motion also provided that a proposed order was attached for the court’s convenience. No proposed order was attached as an exhibit to the materials sent down by Judge Aspen which presumably was the courtesy copy provided to Judge Aspen pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(f). If a courtesy copy was not provided that is a third Local Rule violation in connection with this motion. A review of the docket conducted after counsel left the courtroom revealed a proposed order which permits the plaintiff to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable requiring that the plaintiff be provided with the name, address, telephone number and email address of the defendant to whom the ISP address but does not have attached the proposed subpoena, itself. In any event, the motion was granted. The plaintiff then requested permission to provide a draft order — presumably the proposed order that was filed on the docket and that the motion represented was attached “for the court’s convenience” but which in fact was not attached to the motion. The plaintiff’s lawyer asked to submit a draft order and I expressed the view that the minute order granting the motion would suffice to enable her to obtain the information she wanted. It was apparent that the plaintiff’s lawyer didn’t agree with my conclusion. In any event, as she was gathering her belongings at the counsel table, mouthed or said sotto voce to a person in the courtroom,”What an asshole.” Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

Here is the minute entry from the show cause hearing held on 10/28/2014:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole:Show cause hearing held. Plaintiffs counsel appears pursuant to the order of 10/25/13 10 requiring that she show cause why she should not be held in contempt for the statement reflected in that order that was made in court on 10/25/13. When asked whether she denied making the statement reflected in the order of 10/25/13, she did not deny it, merely saying that she could not remember the exact words she used. But she went on to say that it was a comment made out of frustration that my mother would not approve of. (The lawyer was not content with my having merely entered a minute order granting her motion for leave to issue a subpoena to Comcast). When asked what her position was, plaintiffs counsel responded, whatever I said was not contempt. She was unapologetic in any way, insisting that I and my staff were out of the courtroom. That was not true. The statement was made to Paul Mosser, who was sitting in the front of the courtroom the entire time and was clearly in her line of sight. Mr. Mosser is a law student who is currently serving in my chambers as an extern. When asked if she thought that what she did in the courtroom in the presence of another person was appropriate, or whether she thought it was permissible to conduct herself as she did, her only response was that what she did was not contempt. At that point it was apparent that the plaintiffs lawyer had no contrition about her conduct and wanted to pursue the matter as a purely legal question of whether what she did constituted contempt. Consequently, plaintiffs lawyer is given 14 days to file a brief in response to the rule to show cause. The case is set for further status on 11/18/13 at 9:30 a.m.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

Subsequent hearing dates were postponed multiple times, and finally the entire lawsuit was dismissed with leave to reinstate by 5/6/14.

I really doubt that Schulz will re-file: she already ran like a petty thief from impending sanctions in Malibu Media v. John Doe, NDIL 13-cv-50286 (after two sanctions in Wisconsin, where, by the way, her license is invalid, and was invalid during her trolling there).

I just tried (and failed) to imagine if any defense attorney I communicate with could behave the same way. Unthinkable. Seemingly, it comes with the territory: if one is capable of participating in an extortion racket — wrestling money over illegally produced “barely legal” pornography, expect her to have a secret interpretation of the term “ethics,” an interpretation that would leave 99% of population speechless. And disgusted.

Poll!

Haven’t been conducted polls for a while. So,