Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page ejb
CLERK, US. DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | SANZ 201

DISTRICT COURT |
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIF ORNIA p=
BY_(

INGENUITY 13, LLC, CASE No. 2:12-CV-08333 —~ OV
Plaintiff,

JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

DECLARATION TO REFUTE INF ORMATION PROVIDED BY PLAINTIFEF’S
COUNSEL, BRETT GIBBS, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOCUMENT 22)

I, an anonymous John Doe, do hereby declare:

Ly . I’m over 18 years of age and competent to make this declaration.

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this declaration and the information provided by
Plaintiff's counsel, Brett Gibbs, in his ‘Motion For Sanctions Against Attorney Morgan Pietz’
(Document #22). Note: This declaration addresses issues not covered by the courts denial of
sanctions against Mr. Pietz (Document #31).

3. Ihave also sent eight previous declarations and memorandums (October 2011 — June 2012)
for copyright infringement cases for various courts: Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond
Division), 3:11-cv-00531-JAG (Patrick Collins v. Does 1-58), 3:11-cv-00469-JAG (K-Beech
v. Does 1-85), District of Arizona, 2:11-cv-01602-GMS (Patrick Collins v. Does 1-54), the
Northern District of Florida, 4:1/-CV-00584 (Digital Sin, Inc., v. Does 1-145), Northern
District of Illinois, 1:1/-CV-09064 (Pacific Century International v. Does 1-31), District of

‘Columbia, /:/ 2-cv-00048 (AF Holdings, LLC, v. Does 1-1058), Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, 2:12-CV-02084 (Malibu Media, LLC, v. John Does 1-14), and the District of

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 . Filed 01/23/13 Page 2o0f 7 Page ID #:584

lar)
-
ut
_
~

Colorado, 1:12-ev-00656 (Sunlust Pictures, LLC, v. Willaim Cisa). Note: six o
declarations/memorandums were accepted by the courts.

4. I’m filing this declaration sncawiously as I’m one of the 200,000+ John Doe defendants in
the multitude of copyright infringement cases filed throughout the U.S. If I were to file this
declaration under true name, I feel I would be singled out for vindictive prosecution by my
Plaintiff and the network of copyright infringement lawyers that file these types of cases.

The case I was under has been sicmiresct but like many other Doe defendants, Pm waiting
for the statute of limitation to expire. The declarations/memorandums I have previously |
filed, and information I provide to Doe defendants on my Web site (hitp-//dietrolldie.com/),
have caused copyright infringement lawyers and Plaintiffs more work and the doubtless loss -
of settlement fees. This is plainly apparent as Plaintiff’s counsel inaccurately labeled my
Web site as being “anti-copyright enforcement” (Pages 3 & 6 of Document #22). Plaintiffs
counsel is obviously hostile to personnel with a differing view on how matters of copyright
infringement should be handled in the courts. To prevent identification and possible
malicious actions against me, I will mail this declaration to the court and Plaintiff from a
‘State other than my own.

5. Plaintiff will likely claim I have no standing to make this declaration, as I’m not the
defendant in this case. I have standing and information countering Mr. Gibbs statements, his
possible bad faith efforts as noted by another California judge, and that he has likely violated
a Colorado court order in pursuing bis company’s business model in a California copyright —
infringement case. My standing is based on my direct knowledge of these types of cases and
the operations of computer networks, to include small home/office networks, most (if not all)

are what Plaintiff listed as defendants. I have gathered this knowledge first hand by working

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3of 7 Page ID #:585

as a certified Information Technology Specialist, as a Doe defendant, and by running a Web
site dedicated to posting news and views concerning sopveetl infringement lawyers (AKA: —
‘Copyright Trolls) and John/Jane Does (http://dietrolldie.com/). While running my site, I
have corresponded with many Doe defendants who like myself, are being abused by
Plaintiffs and copyright infringement lawyers who follow this business model. Some of the
Doe defendants I have interacted with have been pressured to settle with clients of Mr. Gibbs
for cases filed in the Central District of California.
6. I hope my declaration will aid the Court in understanding the questionable practices of
Plaintiff, copyright infringement lawyers, as well as show Mr. Gibbs is the one who acts is
‘ bad faith in pursuing these actions. The anonymous nature of this declaration does not
detract from its truthfulness and I thank the court for indulging this John Doe.
7. Inaccurate Statements by Mr. Gibbs
In Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanfions against Mr. Pietz, Mr. Gibbs spuriously claims
my Web site, dietrolldie.com is ile enforcement,” (Pages 3 & 6, Document #22)
for no other reason than try to bolster his baseless claim that Mr. Pietz is acting in bad faith.
This unsubstantiated claim reeks of bad faith on the part of Mr. Gibbs. I believe copyright
owners should be able to seek redress for infringement and have stated such on my Web site
and while corresponding with multiple Doe defendants. I have repeatedly told people that if
they. have done this (or are currently doing this), to stop. Where I and others (Doe
Defendants, Citizens, Attorneys, and Judges) disagree is how Prenda Law Inc. (Plaintiff’s
counsel), and other eapqiili infringement attorneys are pursuing their agenda. I will
continue to write articles on the ‘aug of copyright trolling to get information out to the

public, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and copyright infringement attorneys involved. This free

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page 4of7 Page ID #:586

and open discussion does nothing to impede any of Plaintiff’s copyright enforcement efforts.
The only way it could impede them is if there is no reliable evidence to support a finding in
favor of Plaintiff. As no copyiicli infringement case of Plaintiff’s has ever been judged on
its merits, this may be the truth of the matter. Note: Plaintiff has a well established history of
dicailesiag settling and non-settling defendants and only seeks default judgments on
personnel who fail to respond to a summons. If anything, the purported confidential emails
posted to fightcopyrighttrolls.com, only go towards showing people what to expect when
dealing with Mr. Gibbs. The suggestion of bad faith on the part of Mr. Gibbs recently came
to light in another California copyright infringement case.
8. Suggestions Of Bad Faith, Case 4:12-cv-02049

On 7 Jan 13, the honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, Northern District of California,
denied a request by Mr. Gibbs for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), case
4:12-cy-02049, AF Holdings LLC, v. John Doe, et, al.; Mr. Gibbs is attorney for this Plaintiff
(Document #45, 4:12-cv-02049). It should also be noted the CEO for AF Holdings LLC, a
Mr. Alan Cooper, is the same CEO for the Plaintiff in this case and the subject of court
approved interrogatories seeking clarification on if Mr. Cooper (CEO for Plaintiff) actually

| | exists (Document # 23 & 32).
In her denial of the request to file a SAC, Judge Hamilton stated the new allegations
in the SAC are “vague and speculative” and did not show any diligence on the part of

Plaintiff. The court also found that AF Holdings delved unduly in seeking leave to amend,
and its conduct “is at least suggestive of bad faith.” (Pages 10-11, Document #45, 4:12-cv-
02049) A review of the proposed SAC submitted by Mr. Gibbs is shocking in its attempt to

use irrelevant facts and innuendos to try to persuade the court to grant its request.

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page 5of7 Page ID #:587

9. Possible Violation of Colorado Court Order

On 19 Oct 12, the honorable Kathleen Tafoya, District of Colorado, issued an order
(Document #94), in Sunlust Pictures LLC, v. Willaim Cisa, case 1:12-cv-00656. Note: Sunlust
Pictures LLC, is a client of Prenda Law Inc. The order vacated the previous order granting
discovery of ISP subscriber information for the 1385 joint-tortfeasor in the case. The order also
said? “Insofar as any personal identifying information of the non-party “joint tortfeasors” has
already been provided to Plaintiff from the “joint tortfeasors” ISPs, Plaintiff is prohibited from
further communicating with these subscribers.” Note: case 1:12-cv-00656 (Cisa) was voluntarily
dismissed by Plaintiff 11 days after I sent a memorandum (Document # 98, 1:12-cv-00656) to the
Colorado court detailing the violation of the joint tortfeasor no-contact order on multiple joint
tortfeasors living in Virginia. Prior to the dismissal, Plaintiff had shown the court due diligence
in attempting to serve Mr. Cisa and were likely moving forward with a motion for a default
judgment.

On 13 Nov 12, Mr. Gibbs filed the following case in the Northern District of
California, Sunlust Pictures LLC, v. Theodore Hutcherson, 4:12-cv-05833. This case against Mr.
Hutcherson is a direct spin-off from case 1:12-cv-00656 (Cisa), as the public IP address,
date/time of alleged copyright infringement, and Plaintiff’s movie (“Sunny Leone - Goddess”)
are the same. In case 1:12-cv-00656 (Cisa), the public IP address 74.51.159.77, date/time: 3 Mar
2012, 06:44:38, is found at the bottom of page 23 of Exhibit A to the complaint (Document #1-
1). In case 4:12-cv-05833 (Hutcherson), public IP address 74.51.159,77, date/time: 3 Mar 2012,
06:44:38, in found on pages 5 and 6. As Mr. Gibbs filed the case with the name of Mr.
Hutcherson, he had obviously received the information from Plaintiff. On 27 Nov 12, the court

issued a summons for Mr. Hutcherson. On 6 Dec 12, Mr. Gibbs motioned the court to

| Case 2:1 2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:588
voluntarily dismiss the case against Mr. Hutcherson, with prejudice, “In accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the Defendant in this case has neither filed an answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor a ouon for summary judgment. Dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate.” As Mr. Gibbs stated Mr. Hutcherson has not
answered the complaint or motioned for a summary judgment, it is evident the summons was
delivered to him. The delivery of the summons to Mr. Hutcherson is in direct violation of the 19
Oct 12, Colorado order prohibiting any contact with joint tortfeasors. Based on my knowledge
of these cases and in particular Prenda Law Inc., I believe Mr. Gibbs, may have also sent
settlement demand letters to Mr. Hutchinson or even had his office telephone him. This apparent
violation of a Colorado court order adds additional weight to ieclatin that Mr. Gibbs is the one
who continues to act in bad faith in pursuing these cases.
10. Conclusion
Mr. Gibbs spurious comments regarding my Web site and predisposition are nothing
more than a smoke screen to try and hide his firm’s unethical pursuit of profits under the guise of
_ protecting Plaintiff’s rights. His recent behavior has been cited by a California court as to having
the suggestion of bad faith, in addition to an apparent violation of a Colorado court order in
pursuing an alleged infringer in California. I ask the court to take note of these factors in
handling this case, as well as any response it deems appropriate. I thank the court for hearing

this declaration.

Dated: 1/16/2013 Respectfully submitted,

“Ooh, Moe

John Doe, AKA: DieTrollDie

Web site: hitp://dietrolldie.com
Doerayme2011@hotmail.com |

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC “Document 42 Filed 01/23/13 Page 7of7 Page ID #:589

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 1/16/2013, I served a copy of the foregoing document, via US
’ Mail, on:

Brett Gibbs

Of Counsel for Prenda Law Inc.
38 Miller Avenue, #263

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Dated: 1/16/2013 . Respectfully submitted,

John Doe, AKA: DieTrollDie

Blog: hittp.//dietrolldie.com
Doerayme2011@hotmail.com