Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

[Robert Patrician]

@CashmanLawFirm (good lord, spambot or serious I can't tell)

Your analogy is flawed in that you are confusing the players. If a brain surgeon offers to cut your tumor out for $10,000, and I offer you a picture of a brain and a scalpel for $10... the doctor can't then sue me for "Loss of business".

The people who purchased the $10 package of forms aren't suing the lawyer. They were happy with their product. It's the corporation that's suing the lawyer for making their lawyers actually work to rip people off.

 

[eljawa]

i dont care for pirates...but this is perfectly legal.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

So in other words, a burglar is suing a home security company for imposing perfectly legal obstacles on his quest to rob random people of piles of money.

Yeeeeaaaaaah. This lawyer's been doing the public a service. No way is this lawsuit going anywhere.

 

[JDKJ]

First of all, as an attorney, Syfert did not violate any rules by putting out the form. The issue is that selling a form, you get what you pay for! The issue is 1) his form was NOT EFFECTIVE, 2) it DID NOT WORK, and 3) it lulled his clients into believing it would work.

One issue that the plaintiffs brought up was that people submitting his form were not told about procedure, e.g., the court rule requiring that any pleading also be served on the opposing attorney. This is almost as if Syfert sold a surgical scalpel and a picture of the brain to a patient and said "cut your tumor out here."

In short, from a legal standpoint, I understand that Syfert should not and will not get sanctions. However, his customers should understand that what they are dealing with *is* COPYRIGHT VIOLATION which is a serious federal issue. They would be better off hiring an attorney.

That being said, our firm, the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has been helping internet users who have been accused of illegally downloading movies, films, and other copyrighted materials. Fighting such a case is not difficult; it is just important to understand where the defendant is in the legal process and moving forward and mounting a proper defense from there.

Rob Cashman, Attorney
Cashman Law Firm, PLLC
Website: http://federalcrimes.cashmanlawfirm.com
Blog: http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com
E-mail: [email protected]

If an attorney who advertises and sells self-help legal forms nationwide via a website is admitted to practice only in State X but sells those self-help legal forms to an individual in State Y, why is that not the unlicensed practice of law and therefore not only a violation of the ethical cannons governing practice of law but also most likely a criminal offense (unlicensed practice of law being a criminal offense in most all jurisdictions)? Hasn't the attorney committed the unlicensed practice of law in two ways: (1) by advertising the availability of his legal services in a jurisdiction to which they are not admitted and (2) by giving legal advice to a client in a jurisdiction to which they are not admitted?

 

[JDKJ]

So... apparently, they firmly believe it's illegal to sell people self-help stuff to defend yourself in court?

Can someone PM me when they start making sense and stop acting like assholes?

Actually, that's not at all what they're saying. What they are saying is that if you use a legal form to file a motion and you fail to include in that motion a part required of all motions and which therefore renders your motion defective, then you and the person who sold you the legal form and instructions to complete it should have to reimburse them for the cost of responding to your jenky-ass motion.

So, they're not being assholes, they're just being bureaucratic?

I pity those poor men.

No, they probably are being assholes and big ones, too. I'm just setting the record straight. They are not saying that to sell the form was illegal, just that its sale assisted in the filing of a frivolous motion. There's a subtle but important difference between the two statements.

 

[JDKJ]

@CashmanLawFirm (good lord, spambot or serious I can't tell)

Your analogy is flawed in that you are confusing the players. If a brain surgeon offers to cut your tumor out for $10,000, and I offer you a picture of a brain and a scalpel for $10... the doctor can't then sue me for "Loss of business".

The people who purchased the $10 package of forms aren't suing the lawyer. They were happy with their product. It's the corporation that's suing the lawyer for making their lawyers actually work to rip people off.

"spambot or serious"

It's about as close as you can come to spambot without it actually being spambot. It teeters so precariously on the line between the two that a strong gust of wind would blow it over into spambot territory.

 

[Starke]

And as I've said before, if a motion was in fact filed without containing the "meet and confer" statement, then that motion is, as a matter of law, a frivolous motion. We can debate all we want the "why" of how that happened and the "what" to be done in response, but the fact will still remain that a frivolous motion was filed. That the party forced to respond to the frivolous motion would seek to have the filing party sanctioned doesn't seem all that frivolous to me, certainly not if, as they claim, they're out $5000 as a result. And if it is frivolous, at least there's a good "You did it first!!" defense.

And, yes, to take a case on which the plaintiff ultimately prevails, no matter how ridiculous the underlying facts may appear, and call it a "frivolous" case is, as a matter of law, a legal non sequitor. If the case, as a matter of law, is frivolous, then you ain't gonna prevail and the fact that you did prevail forecloses the possibility that it was legally frivolous.

Sorry, I should have taken a hacksaw to the previous bit. I was responding to the claim that we live in a sue happy country. Not that a motion can't be completely frivolous. Though, generally speaking if you want to tie the other party up, the trick is to depose the living hell out of them.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

 

[JDKJ]

And as I've said before, if a motion was in fact filed without containing the "meet and confer" statement, then that motion is, as a matter of law, a frivolous motion. We can debate all we want the "why" of how that happened and the "what" to be done in response, but the fact will still remain that a frivolous motion was filed. That the party forced to respond to the frivolous motion would seek to have the filing party sanctioned doesn't seem all that frivolous to me, certainly not if, as they claim, they're out $5000 as a result. And if it is frivolous, at least there's a good "You did it first!!" defense.

And, yes, to take a case on which the plaintiff ultimately prevails, no matter how ridiculous the underlying facts may appear, and call it a "frivolous" case is, as a matter of law, a legal non sequitor. If the case, as a matter of law, is frivolous, then you ain't gonna prevail and the fact that you did prevail forecloses the possibility that it was legally frivolous.

Sorry, I should have taken a hacksaw to the previous bit. I was responding to the claim that we live in a sue happy country. Not that a motion can't be completely frivolous. Though, generally speaking if you want to tie the other party up, the trick is to depose the living hell out of them.

And I should have perhaps made clear that I was agreeing with you on the point.

But I will disagree with you that use of depositions is a cost-effective way to bog the other party down. Taking depositions can be extremely costly to the party taking them. You have to provide a place at which to take the deposition and take yourself to the place where the deponent is located, a court reporter to record the proceedings, pay for the transcripts thereof at $4.00 a page, etc., etc. If you can sit on your ass and blanket the other party with paper filings (interrogatories, requests for documents, motions, etc.) to which they'll have to respond at a cost and which ain't costing you much of anything to file, you're better off doing so, dollar for dollar.

 

[Starke]

And as I've said before, if a motion was in fact filed without containing the "meet and confer" statement, then that motion is, as a matter of law, a frivolous motion. We can debate all we want the "why" of how that happened and the "what" to be done in response, but the fact will still remain that a frivolous motion was filed. That the party forced to respond to the frivolous motion would seek to have the filing party sanctioned doesn't seem all that frivolous to me, certainly not if, as they claim, they're out $5000 as a result. And if it is frivolous, at least there's a good "You did it first!!" defense.

And, yes, to take a case on which the plaintiff ultimately prevails, no matter how ridiculous the underlying facts may appear, and call it a "frivolous" case is, as a matter of law, a legal non sequitor. If the case, as a matter of law, is frivolous, then you ain't gonna prevail and the fact that you did prevail forecloses the possibility that it was legally frivolous.

Sorry, I should have taken a hacksaw to the previous bit. I was responding to the claim that we live in a sue happy country. Not that a motion can't be completely frivolous. Though, generally speaking if you want to tie the other party up, the trick is to depose the living hell out of them.

And I should have perhaps made clear that I was agreeing with you on the point.

But I will disagree with you that use of depositions is a cost-effective way to bog the other party down. Taking depositions can be extremely costly to the party taking them. You have to provide a place at which to take the deposition, a court reporter to record the proceedings, pay for the transcripts thereof at $4.00 a page, etc., etc. If you can sit on your ass and blanket the other party with paper filings (interrogatories, requests for documents, motions, etc.) to which they'll have to respond at a cost and which ain't costing you much of anything to file, you're better off doing so, dollar for dollar.

Indeed, it was a brain flake out that when I went back to edit it, I found myself without internet access...

Depositions are a fantastic way to fuck someone over who's paying on a contingency fee basis because they don't have money, however.

 

[JDKJ]

And as I've said before, if a motion was in fact filed without containing the "meet and confer" statement, then that motion is, as a matter of law, a frivolous motion. We can debate all we want the "why" of how that happened and the "what" to be done in response, but the fact will still remain that a frivolous motion was filed. That the party forced to respond to the frivolous motion would seek to have the filing party sanctioned doesn't seem all that frivolous to me, certainly not if, as they claim, they're out $5000 as a result. And if it is frivolous, at least there's a good "You did it first!!" defense.

And, yes, to take a case on which the plaintiff ultimately prevails, no matter how ridiculous the underlying facts may appear, and call it a "frivolous" case is, as a matter of law, a legal non sequitor. If the case, as a matter of law, is frivolous, then you ain't gonna prevail and the fact that you did prevail forecloses the possibility that it was legally frivolous.

Sorry, I should have taken a hacksaw to the previous bit. I was responding to the claim that we live in a sue happy country. Not that a motion can't be completely frivolous. Though, generally speaking if you want to tie the other party up, the trick is to depose the living hell out of them.

And I should have perhaps made clear that I was agreeing with you on the point.

But I will disagree with you that use of depositions is a cost-effective way to bog the other party down. Taking depositions can be extremely costly to the party taking them. You have to provide a place at which to take the deposition, a court reporter to record the proceedings, pay for the transcripts thereof at $4.00 a page, etc., etc. If you can sit on your ass and blanket the other party with paper filings (interrogatories, requests for documents, motions, etc.) to which they'll have to respond at a cost and which ain't costing you much of anything to file, you're better off doing so, dollar for dollar.

Indeed, it was a brain flake out that when I went back to edit it, I found myself without internet access...

Depositions are a fantastic way to fuck someone over who's paying on a contingency fee basis because they don't have money, however.

How so when it's costing you more to take their deposition than it is for them to attend your deposition? And, FYI, I don't know many attorneys who defend clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingency fee game is almost exclusively reserved for plaintiff attorneys. There's nothing in it for defendant attorneys and therefore you ain't usually gonna find an attorney willing to defend you on a contingency basis. Not unless you've got a real good countersuit worth some substantial damages that they can file in the matter. Remember, 33.3% of nothing equals nothing.

 

[Prof21]

Not that i am saying go blow the freakin heads off you understand but will someone please go and insert so high speed lead into the heads of these freakin stupid frilly pink knicker wearing they have got to be joking

Sue a Lawyer because he is helping what are to all intents and purposes INNOCENT people they can go fuck as like if the judge dont toss this so far outta court and fine them immensley for wasting court time he also needs stringing up with his bit in the open for the birds to get at

the US legal system is total crap and now the tossers are trying to get our system down to the same crap level here go have a wank .

 

[Evilsanta]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.

 

[JDKJ]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.

Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?

 

[Evilsanta]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.

Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?

I really hope that is not possible...If it is I am going on a lawyer rampage, Who is with me?

Ah...USA the land of oppurtunitys indeed...

 

[JDKJ]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.

Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?

I really hope that is not possible...If it is I am going on a lawyer rampage, Who is with me?

Ah...USA the land of oppurtunitys indeed...

So what are you saying? That the City should be free to ignore its responsibility to properly maintain the sidewalks (a responsibility paid for in advance by collecting taxes from the hard-working citizens of New York) and if injuries are caused by that failure, that's not the City's fault and they shouldn't be held responsible? If you live in a city where your local government is free to leave a huge pothole in the sidewalk deep enough for you to have to be rescued from it like a Chilean miner should you happen to fall into it and you don't get to sue for the time spent waiting to be rescued, then I'm wondering why you'd ever want to go anywhere near those sidewalks.

Where do you live? In Sweden? The Land of Jenky-Ass Sidewalks with Potholes a Mile Deep and Where You Can't Sue Your Own Goverment?

 

[Starke]

How so when it it's costing you more to take their deposition than it is for them to attend your deposition? And, FYI, I don't know many attorneys who defend clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingency fee game is almost exclusively reserved for plaintiff attorneys. There's nothing in it for defendant attorneys and therefore you ain't usually gonna find an attorney willing to defend you on a contingency basis. Not unless you've got a real good countersuit worth some substantial damages that they can file in the matter. Remember, 33.3% of nothing equals nothing.

I think the parts of my brain that make sense just hung themselves. It still makes sense in my headmeats, but I'm going to go to sleep before I make more of a fool of myself.

 

[JDKJ]

How so when it it's costing you more to take their deposition than it is for them to attend your deposition? And, FYI, I don't know many attorneys who defend clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingency fee game is almost exclusively reserved for plaintiff attorneys. There's nothing in it for defendant attorneys and therefore you ain't usually gonna find an attorney willing to defend you on a contingency basis. Not unless you've got a real good countersuit worth some substantial damages that they can file in the matter. Remember, 33.3% of nothing equals nothing.

I think the parts of my brain that make sense just hung themselves. It still makes sense in my headmeats, but I'm going to go to sleep before I make more of a fool of myself.

Happens to the best of us. A thought that pops into our head makes perfect sense at the time it pops. But if we pause and think that thought through just a teensy-weensy bit . . .

 

[Evilsanta]

..So basically:

USCG: "Damn you, we're losing now! We're going to sue you for making the people we legally prey on smart enough to hand us our asses. That was our job, jerk!"

..?

U.S., your legal system fails. Hard.

This.

OT: So helping people stand up to the big evil corporation is bad for their buissnes and now they are suing him...What the fuck is wrong with the US legal system...Not that ours in Sweden is any better but it seems that you can sue anyone for anything in the US.

An example:If i hit my toe on sidewalk in New York, Can i sue the city? Because sometimes it sure looks like you can do that.

Of course you can. And if the City was somehow negligent in its maintainance of the sidewalk and that's caused you injury and financial loss (e.g., the City failed to promptly fix a big-ass and obvious crack in that sidewalk on which you stubbed your toe, breaking it and causing you to a trip to the emergency room and to miss 3 days from your paying job), why shouldn't you sue the City? And why shouldn't the City be made to set you back in the position you were before you stubbed your toe on their jenky-ass sidewalk?

I really hope that is not possible...If it is I am going on a lawyer rampage, Who is with me?

Ah...USA the land of oppurtunitys indeed...

So what are you saying? That the City should be free to ignore its responsibility to properly maintain the sidewalks (a responsibility paid for in advance by collecting taxes from the hard-working citizens of New York) and if injuries are caused by that failure, that's not the City's fault and they shouldn't be held responsible? If you live in a city where your local government is free to leave a huge pothole in the sidewalk deep enough for you to have to be rescued from it like a Chilean miner should you happen to fall into it and you don't get to sue for the time spent waiting to be rescued, then I'm wondering why you'd ever want to go anywhere near those sidewalks.

Where do you live? In Sweden? The Land of Jenky-Ass Sidewalks with Potholes a Mile Deep and Where You Can't Sue Your Own Goverment?

Hmm...I think i missunderstod you. Or you me. Anyways i was talking more about if i tripped on the sidewalk and sueing the city for that. Not big cracks or potholes. That is something the goverment can be sued by over here. I think. And there arent any here...The only thing that is annoying here now is the god damn snow.