Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

[samsonguy920]

You would be amazed the things you don't have to do to be an attorney, or in this case, your own, in court for any kind of trial. I think this big firm is worried, no, scared, the secret is getting out that their services are redundant.
Their efforts won't fly as the law completely supports someone representing themselves for a penny. But we are dealing with people who are already subverting copyright law so why shouldn't they try to subvert other laws as well?

 

[JDKJ]

...
Ever heard of a Trustafarian? Trustafarians are these college-age kids who hang out in New York's Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, never cut or comb their hair, wear tatty clothes and worn-out sneakers, smoke copious amounts of skunky buds all day while listening to Bob Marley, and, when not smoking skunky bud, can usually be found riding a skateboard. To look at a Trustafarian, you'd automatically conclude that they're as poor as a church mouse. Wrong. Trustafarians have parents who work on Wall Street as investment bankers and make a gazillion dollars a year and have been kind enough to set up trust funds for the ne'er-do-well children and which finance the bohemian lifestyle of the Trustafarian (hence the "Trust" in "Trustafarian"). If a Trustafarian so chooses, they are independently wealthy enough (thanks to said trust fund) to wear Armani suits every day and drive a Mercedes Benz. Things are rarely what they appear to be.

If so, then the copyright attorneys who have their names and info should enlighten the judge about that fact, clearing out the general advance assumption - which would hold true in most cases - that the companies are significantly more capable in all respects than the defendant in this type of case.

If no quarter is given, and trying to exercise your complex legal rights might ruin you, then the system may not be played by miserly defendants, but it will for all practical purposes be played by wealthy clients who can afford copious legal council and repression of the other party's access. All justice systems are of course inevitably slanted towards those who can afford the best legal aid, but given the whole justice thing such advantages should be minimized as much as possible.

I'm not at all entirely disagreeing with you. Your arguments do, in theory, contain some valid suggestions as to how justice can be more fairly dispensed (despite in turn raising issues of how, as a practical matter, to effect the suggested changes). But, just to give you a dose of what academics refer to as "legal realism," here's the reality:

If, after having seen O.J. Simpson use the power of his financial resources to hire the Dream Team ("If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!") and, in so doing, beat a double homicide rap involving two white victims (one of them a white woman), America hasn't yet gotten around to doing something to ensure that greater financial resources can't affect legal outcomes, it's only because they can't and therefore never will.

"Run, O.J!! Run!!" -- shouted from a Los Angeles overpass during the infamous low-speed chase.

 

[Gigano]

...

I'm not at all entirely disagreeing with you. Your arguments do, in theory, contain some valid suggestions as to how justice can be more fairly dispensed (despite in turn raising issues of how, as a practical matter, to effect the suggested changes). But, just to give you a dose of what academics refer to as "legal realism," here's the reality:

If, after having seen O.J. Simpson use the power of his financial resources to hire the Dream Team ("If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!") and, in so doing, beat a double homicide rap involving two white victims (one of them a white woman), America hasn't yet gotten around to doing something to ensure that greater financial resources can't affect legal outcomes, it's only because they can't and therefore never will.

"Run, O.J!! Run!!" -- shouted from a Los Angeles overpass during the infamous low-speed chase.

Well, I admittedly wouldn't know much about the practical workings of the American legal system (apart from the odd rumour that money talks, and the punitive damages thing), but levelling out imbalances to some degree does seem to work out fairly well over here, so it's not an entirely theoretical possibility for a legal system.

Whether there's any actual will to it would be another matter entirely.

 

[RvLeshrac]

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.

And the plaintiffs involved should be disbarred.

 

[Plurralbles]

You can't sue someone for selling un copyrighted material.

Seriously, fuck them. I think I'll support this lawyer and buy the papers soon. I don't need them, but I want this guy to have my money a little bit.

 

[JDKJ]

...

I'm not at all entirely disagreeing with you. Your arguments do, in theory, contain some valid suggestions as to how justice can be more fairly dispensed (despite in turn raising issues of how, as a practical matter, to effect the suggested changes). But, just to give you a dose of what academics refer to as "legal realism," here's the reality:

If, after having seen O.J. Simpson use the power of his financial resources to hire the Dream Team ("If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!") and, in so doing, beat a double homicide rap involving two white victims (one of them a white woman), America hasn't yet gotten around to doing something to ensure that greater financial resources can't affect legal outcomes, it's only because they can't and therefore never will.

"Run, O.J!! Run!!" -- shouted from a Los Angeles overpass during the infamous low-speed chase.

Well, I admittedly wouldn't know much about the practical workings of the American legal system (apart from the odd rumour that money talks, and the punitive damages thing), but levelling out imbalances to some degree does seem to work out fairly well over here, so it's not an entirely theoretical possibility for a legal system.

Whether there's any actual will to it would be another matter entirely.

Perhaps the greatest single impediment is the bedrock principle of American justice that a litigant gets to choose their own counsel. Which, perhaps unfortunately, means that if they choose to represent themselves despite not knowing the difference between law and coleslaw, that is their right to do so and no one's gonna try to convince them to do otherwise. And if they end up suffering for that choice, that's part and parcel of the right to counsel of their own choice, too.

 

[Starke]

Strangely, this case makes sense to me.
One lawyer has effectively dismantled the main weapons used by an anti-piracy crusade, and they would rather he stop. He hasn't broken the law, so they must attack him legally with a civil suit.

In a bizarre twist of fate, this series of events isn't fueled entirely by stupidity.

Personally, I'd find it amusing if this guy would also write a series of motions to quash the bullshit legalese in shrink-wrap licenses.

Agreed. It isn't at all fueled by stupidity. There's much method to the seeming madness.

Besides, it reflects a general opposition among many legal professionals to those who make legal forms available to the public at low cost. There was a time in which it was possible to buy simple legal forms (e.g., estate wills, power of attorney grants, landlord-tenant agreements, etc.) at a local Walgreen's. Those time no longer exist in several states because several bar associations filed suit to prohibit those sales, successfully arguing that they amounted to the unauthorized and unlicensed practice of law. And if you're a member of one of those bar associations and in the business of drafting wills and landlord-tenant agreements, etc., at $1000 a pop, then I imagine you'd be fully behind the effort to stamp out self-help legal forms at $9.99 a pop. Bad for business.

To an extent, this was also behind the formation of state bars in the first place. It's a little different, in that the early state bars were simply moving to improve the quality of legally practicing attorneys. But, the immediate economic benefit was to the attorneys, limiting the pool of lawyers, effectively raising their scarcity and, with it, their value.

I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

Good luck on that front. I'm still waiting for a lot of people, like that kid who insisted you could dodge a bullet, to admit that they were wrong.

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.

I'm going to drop in here for a moment with an observation. It is very easy to portray a case as frivolous to the general population, when in fact the case itself is quite solid. For example: A woman sued McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and won (I think it was) two million. Clearly the American Legal system is insane.

In point of fact, she was seriously injured by the coffee (second degree burns IIRC), and the store had been repeatedly warned about the temperature of their coffee in the past, the two million was the punitive award from the jury. So the actual suit was to recover losses, medical expenses and compensation for lost time from work while she was recovering. The case wasn't actually frivolous, but it became a poster-child for most of the early nineties of frivolous suits.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This all smacks of the horrible side of the law system which seems to say 'if you can't afford a lawyer, you're guilty'.

You can't just spam thousands of people with some suit and say 'We think you might have been in the IP area where something bad happened therefore pay us or you're guilty.'

The law needs to change, sure, but the law doesn't mean you can just bully people into handing over cash, because they can't afford to defend themselves.

I'll personally support any lawyer who can bring some kind of legal defense to people for $10 tho.

There's no reason 'guilty or innocent' should cost tens of thousands or even millions, especially when very few cases have detectives, forensic teams, juries of twelve honest men, etc.

 

[Ashendarei]

This is absolutely retarded. Here's hoping the defendant wins and the judge penalizes the offending company a significant chunk of change for wasting the court's time.

 

[JDKJ]

Strangely, this case makes sense to me.
One lawyer has effectively dismantled the main weapons used by an anti-piracy crusade, and they would rather he stop. He hasn't broken the law, so they must attack him legally with a civil suit.

In a bizarre twist of fate, this series of events isn't fueled entirely by stupidity.

Personally, I'd find it amusing if this guy would also write a series of motions to quash the bullshit legalese in shrink-wrap licenses.

Agreed. It isn't at all fueled by stupidity. There's much method to the seeming madness.

Besides, it reflects a general opposition among many legal professionals to those who make legal forms available to the public at low cost. There was a time in which it was possible to buy simple legal forms (e.g., estate wills, power of attorney grants, landlord-tenant agreements, etc.) at a local Walgreen's. Those time no longer exist in several states because several bar associations filed suit to prohibit those sales, successfully arguing that they amounted to the unauthorized and unlicensed practice of law. And if you're a member of one of those bar associations and in the business of drafting wills and landlord-tenant agreements, etc., at $1000 a pop, then I imagine you'd be fully behind the effort to stamp out self-help legal forms at $9.99 a pop. Bad for business.

To an extent, this was also behind the formation of state bars in the first place. It's a little different, in that the early state bars were simply moving to improve the quality of legally practicing attorneys. But, the immediate economic benefit was to the attorneys, limiting the pool of lawyers, effectively raising their scarcity and, with it, their value.

I'm still waiting on Exile 714 to 'fess up to his.

Good luck on that front. I'm still waiting for a lot of people, like that kid who insisted you could dodge a bullet, to admit that they were wrong.

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.

I'm going to drop in here for a moment with an observation. It is very easy to portray a case as frivolous to the general population, when in fact the case itself is quite solid. For example: A woman sued McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and won (I think it was) two million. Clearly the American Legal system is insane.

In point of fact, she was seriously injured by the coffee (second degree burns IIRC), and the store had been repeatedly warned about the temperature of their coffee in the past, the two million was the punitive award from the jury. So the actual suit was to recover losses, medical expenses and compensation for lost time from work while she was recovering. The case wasn't actually frivolous, but it became a poster-child for most of the early nineties of frivolous suits.

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.

 

[Double A]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Next the USCG will be suing people for having to audacity to even try to defend themselves. I guess it hurts when you cant just steamroll over those with less power than you with your mountains of money.

Get real, this is just a massive breach of defendant rights and I hope a counter-suit bleeds USCG dry.

 

[Double A]

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.

 

[senataur]

Graham Syfert, making lawyer jokes harder to make, I human at a time.

I salute you sir.

 

[BlackWidower]

So they are suing him for doing his job. I mean true, a cheaper and more effective way then lawyers normally do their job. But it's still his job. Helping his clients.

They do know they are suing a lawyer right? I mean it doesn't take a Supreme Court Justice to see this case is the definition of frivolous. I guess they're hoping the judge they get is a partisan hack.

 

[CashmanLawFirm.com]

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]

 

[Robert Patrician]

Judge to US Copyright Corp: Your lawyers have brought a frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to intimidate a lawyer defending those you are seeking damages from. As such, I hereby declare all of the lawsuits your company filed on this issue to also be frivolous and thus thrown out. Anyone you sued may now sue you back for damages, and may quote this ruling for all the proof they need. Chapter 11 filing is down the hall.