Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

[stormagnet]

I just bought a copy of the self-help documents. I initially made the purchase merely to show my support, but it turns out the documents were actually worth $20 to me as entertainment. They include a check-list of alibis which I will be treating as a to-do list.

 

[Starke]

You just so butchered the ruling in Ginsburg that I had to cringe.

Yay! Okay, seriously I knew there was something seriously fucked up in my post, I just couldn't put my finger on what.

Ginsburg applied the two-pronged rational basis test (i.e., (1) the State of New York have a legitimate interest in protecting minors from the harm of pornography and (2) its restrictive statute be rationally related to that interest). I suspect that you mistakenly describe and attribute to Ginsburg the three-pronged obscenity test articulated in Miller (a Court decision which had yet to be made at the time the Ginsburg decision was being made).

That is exactly what I did, probably.

Come on, man. You're making me work overtime keeping you honest.

*Munches on the unwary*

 

[demoman_chaos]

The Copyright Group will pay the judge to give them the victory, and it will be a sad day indeed. While this is just utter utter utter nonsense, money can make anyone change their mind about things.

 

[Sovvolf]

Well that is ridiculous. However, I've watched Judge Judy before so I'm prepared for anything when it comes to US law.

What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A damn good start.Not enough

Fixed it for you

 

[JDKJ]

You just so butchered the ruling in Ginsburg that I had to cringe.

Yay! Okay, seriously I knew there was something seriously fucked up in my post, I just couldn't put my finger on what.

Ginsburg applied the two-pronged rational basis test (i.e., (1) the State of New York have a legitimate interest in protecting minors from the harm of pornography and (2) its restrictive statute be rationally related to that interest). I suspect that you mistakenly describe and attribute to Ginsburg the three-pronged obscenity test articulated in Miller (a Court decision which had yet to be made at the time the Ginsburg decision was being made).

That is exactly what I did, probably.

Come on, man. You're making me work overtime keeping you honest.

*Munches on the unwary*

I wouldn't feel too awkward. It's difficult to read the Ginsburg opinion and clearly see that it applies the rational basis test (that they do so is kinda buried between the lines). You're not the first I've seen to misconstrue that opinion. Doubtful that you'll be the last. And at least you're smart enough to admit your errors. That is, after all, a hallmark of intelligence. I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

 

[Starke]

I wouldn't feel too awkward. It's difficult to read the Ginsburg opinion and clearly see that it applies the rational basis test (that they do so is kinda buried between the lines). You're not the first I've seen to misconstrue that opinion. Doubtful that you'll be the last. And at least you're smart enough to admit your errors. That is a hallmark of intelligence. I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

It also doesn't help that I've never read Ginsburg, I've read judgments and motions referencing and discussing Ginsburg, but not the original case.

EDIT: Which means there are lawyers who have passed the bar, and don't understand the difference.

 

[tigermilk]

So people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against legal proceedings unless they are wealthy enough to afford a lawyer?!

It would be hilarious if the documents turned up on a torrent site.

 

[JDKJ]

I wouldn't feel too awkward. It's difficult to read the Ginsburg opinion and clearly see that it applies the rational basis test (that they do so is kinda buried between the lines). You're not the first I've seen to misconstrue that opinion. Doubtful that you'll be the last. And at least you're smart enough to admit your errors. That is a hallmark of intelligence. I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

It also doesn't help that I've never read Ginsburg, I've read judgments and motions referencing and discussing Ginsburg, but not the original case.

Which may well explain how you got duped. As I said, it is a frequently misconstrued decision.

EDIT: A bar exam tests for minimal competency in the law sufficient for the actual practice of law. It doesn't set out to find the legal geniuses among us.

 

[Starke]

I wouldn't feel too awkward. It's difficult to read the Ginsburg opinion and clearly see that it applies the rational basis test (that they do so is kinda buried between the lines). You're not the first I've seen to misconstrue that opinion. Doubtful that you'll be the last. And at least you're smart enough to admit your errors. That is a hallmark of intelligence. I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

It also doesn't help that I've never read Ginsburg, I've read judgments and motions referencing and discussing Ginsburg, but not the original case.

Which may well explain how you got duped. As I said, it is a frequently misconstrued decision.

It is slightly more disturbing when people on the bench can't tell it's not bacon, however.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Is it my imagination or is the world getting more and more insane by the day?
$5000? Isn't that like their fees for like one case or something??

...oh and the US Copyright Group, otherwise known as the Copyright Gestapo.

 

[dickseverywhere]

there's no way this can be legit. when someone goes nuts with a gun they converted to full-auto the person who sold the FA conversion instructions doesn't get sued.

 

[dickseverywhere]

hmm some kind of double post glitch.

 

[JDKJ]

Is it my imagination or is the world getting more and more insane by the day?
$5000? Isn't that like their fees for like one case or something??

...oh and the US Copyright Group, otherwise known as the Copyright Gestapo.

If you get a quote from an experienced civil litigation attorney for less than $300 - $400 per billable hour, you may want keep looking for an attorney that isn't pricing themselves below the market (or at least try to determine why that one's willing to sell themselves so cheap). And that's at best an average rate. There are many who can command $800 - $1000 per hour. So, even at the more average rate, it don't take too much of an attorney's time to rack up $5000 in fees.

 

[JDKJ]

I wouldn't feel too awkward. It's difficult to read the Ginsburg opinion and clearly see that it applies the rational basis test (that they do so is kinda buried between the lines). You're not the first I've seen to misconstrue that opinion. Doubtful that you'll be the last. And at least you're smart enough to admit your errors. That is a hallmark of intelligence. I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

It also doesn't help that I've never read Ginsburg, I've read judgments and motions referencing and discussing Ginsburg, but not the original case.

Which may well explain how you got duped. As I said, it is a frequently misconstrued decision.

It is slightly more disturbing when people on the bench can't tell it's not bacon, however.

Are you aware that in many jurisdictions (e.g., California) there is no requirement that a candidate for an elected position on the bench be graduated from a law school much less has passed the bar? And because most voters, by the time they work their way down a ballot to the judicial candidates, have no clue who they're voting for, they start voting on the basis of names and party affiliation? There's a candidate who was elected to the Superior Court bench in California who, immediately before winning election, was a bagel shop owner.

Matter of fact, there's no such requirement, not as a constitutional matter, for the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, either. It wouldn't happen now but it has happened in the distant past that non-lawyers were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

So it's illegal to sell people the means to defend themselves? This lawsuit is just a immature revenge attempt and should be thrown out.

The fuckwits in charge should be sued back and then disbarred for life.

Why is it always the victims who get punished? If anything, this DIY thing cuts costs and time, and it stops wrongful suing. Not that it's going to help so much now since the fuckwits in charge can't take a hint by retracting their self-righteous lawsuit.

Every day I'm so happy I don't live in America where everyone is free to sue everyone for the littlest thing.

 

[UberNoodle]

It'd be a pretty f**ed up legal system if you could be punished for trying to make it fair. What's the rationale here? That only one verdict is acceptable - a guilty one? Clearly the legal threats are scare tactics, which is why there is an upset. And to double the settlement offer if somebody fights back! Americans have already lost respect for their police. Now they have to lose respect for their lawyers too? Or perhaps they already have.

 

[Exile714]

I'm not seeing why you're so absolutely sure that counsel for Plaintiff isn't trying to stick both the Doe Defendants and Syfert with $5,000 in attorney's fees. I read the court filings you linked and, particularly, the one entitled "Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions" states verbatim at page 7 thereof that:

"Further, the Court should order that the Doe Defendants, who have already used these form motions, and the attorney responsible for selling them, should reimburse Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel for the time and expense associated with opposing them. Plaintiff estimates that it will incur at least $5,000 in attorney's fees and other expenses related to these Doe Defendants, and, should the Court require, will submit evidence to support the fee and cost incurred."

Coupled with the fact that the statute upon which Plaintiff's counsel seeks the imposition of sanctions (28 USC Sec. 1927) states that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct," for the Life of me I cannot see why you are "absolutely not wrong that ethics sanctions [sought by Plaintiff's counsel] do not go to [Plaintiff's counsel]." You'll notice, I hope, that Plaintiff's counsel seeks an order requiring reimbursement from both the Doe Defendants and Syfert. Certainly the $5,000 in attorney's fees, if granted, will end up in the pocket of Plaintiff's counsel. And I can't imagine that counsel much cares from whom they get their $5,000 in fees -- be it the Does or Syfert or a combination of the two -- just so long as they somehow get them. There is, I think, no other reasonable construction.

If we can get past this most basic of issues, we can then perhaps turn our attention to the gravamen of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions, but if I can't get you to abandon your "I am absolutely not wrong" position and to see what is clearly obvious, I'm fearful that a discussion of the more subtle issues will prove a complete waste of our time.

OK, so "absolutely sure" was a bit much. There are no damages to parties suggesting ethics violations to a court, but 28 USC 1927 is a cause of action separate from ethics violations and the lawyer could be held liable under that statute. Honestly, I didn't look into it that closely, as I was just trying to explain the basis of the claim against him and focused on the ethics portion.

Anyway, I don't really have time to be wasting on these boards, so I'll be back maybe tomorrow or something. I saw that you were being impatient, like I was ignoring your response. This isn't that big of a deal to me, I just wanted people to stop saying things like "you can sue anyone for anything in the US" because they didn't get the basics of the case.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not seeing why you're so absolutely sure that counsel for Plaintiff isn't trying to stick both the Doe Defendants and Syfert with $5,000 in attorney's fees. I read the court filings you linked and, particularly, the one entitled "Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions" states verbatim at page 7 thereof that:

"Further, the Court should order that the Doe Defendants, who have already used these form motions, and the attorney responsible for selling them, should reimburse Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel for the time and expense associated with opposing them. Plaintiff estimates that it will incur at least $5,000 in attorney's fees and other expenses related to these Doe Defendants, and, should the Court require, will submit evidence to support the fee and cost incurred."

Coupled with the fact that the statute upon which Plaintiff's counsel seeks the imposition of sanctions (28 USC Sec. 1927) states that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct," for the Life of me I cannot see why you are "absolutely not wrong that ethics sanctions [sought by Plaintiff's counsel] do not go to [Plaintiff's counsel]." You'll notice, I hope, that Plaintiff's counsel seeks an order requiring reimbursement from both the Doe Defendants and Syfert. Certainly the $5,000 in attorney's fees, if granted, will end up in the pocket of Plaintiff's counsel. And I can't imagine that counsel much cares from whom they get their $5,000 in fees -- be it the Does or Syfert or a combination of the two -- just so long as they somehow get them. There is, I think, no other reasonable construction.

If we can get past this most basic of issues, we can then perhaps turn our attention to the gravamen of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions, but if I can't get you to abandon your "I am absolutely not wrong" position and to see what is clearly obvious, I'm fearful that a discussion of the more subtle issues will prove a complete waste of our time.

OK, so "absolutely sure" was a bit much. There are no damages to parties suggesting ethics violations to a court, but 28 USC 1927 is a cause of action separate from ethics violations and the lawyer could be held liable under that statute. Honestly, I didn't look into it that closely, as I was just trying to explain the basis of the claim against him and focused on the ethics portion.

Anyway, I don't really have time to be wasting on these boards, so I'll be back maybe tomorrow or something. I saw that you were being impatient, like I was ignoring your response. This isn't that big of a deal to me, I just wanted people to stop saying things like "you can sue anyone for anything in the US" because they didn't get the basics of the case.

28 USC 1927 is not a cause of action separate from the allegations of sanctionable conduct in this case. Rather, it is the statute that actually allows for the request for sanctions and upon which Plaintiff's counsel relies. Therefore, to speak of "damages" resulting from 28 USC 1927 is a misnomer. The $5000 in attorney's fee sought isn't "damages." It's in fact part of the actual sanctions being sought. Having to reimburse the opposing party for their resources (costs and attorney's fees) spent responding to the frivolous motions is the sanction that may be imposed for filing those frivolous motions.

And while I appreciate your exasperation with those who make the knee-jerk statement that "you can sue anyone for anything in the U.S.," the statement is, as a general rule, mostly correct. The U.S. legal system, in comparison to some others, is structured in such a way as to make it relatively easy for litigants to get past the courthouse doors. But I can't see what's so condemnable about that. I think that's a good approach. It's also structured so that those who file frivolous cases will, sooner or later, usually get bounced outta the courthouse on their asses. Of course, there's an argument to be made that there's a societal cost to be paid for back-loading the winnowing process (i.e., the inefficiencies of winnowing frivolous cases after they've been filed instead of before they've been filed) but I think the more liberal approach tends to ensure a more equitable distribution of justice. It's a fair price to pay, I think.

 

[KDR_11k]

That law company needs to be tarred, feathered and thrown out of town.