Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

[8of9]

....On a lighter note

DISASTER!


just run out of popcorn

You can have some of mine. I've got loads

[jsx]

At the hearing this morning Counsel for some of the Defendants, Guy Tritton (sp) referred (when requesting an Order to Show Cause) to a 'revenue split' agreement between Skeppenhurst, Mediacat et.al which allocated 65% of 'revenues' to ACS Law. Is anyone able to post that? I seems to recall such a licence being mentioned but this will be a key document and I'd like to see a copy if it's online anywhere. The Order to Show cause might involve both Mediacat and ACS given that Mediacat may not have suffient assets on its balance sheet to meet cost liabilities.

Its Sheptonhurst I think, there is an email from Crossley in the leaks with subject "Sheptonhurst" on 19/11/2009 13:13 to Mike Wallace Mike@thamesroad.co.uk
with 2 Word Attachments, one of which is the License terms and conditions featuring the financial split and also interestingly a breakdown of any potential court costs.
If you haven't got access to the leaked emails I'll post it somewhere you can get hold of it.

OK, here are the documents and email in PDF format
http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... rst__1.pdf

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... erm_V7.pdf

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... nhurst.pdf

[wytey]

....On a lighter note

DISASTER!


just run out of popcorn

You can have some of mine. I've got loads

Hope you don't mind me 'nicking' some

Having a right good old read here and watching YouTube vids, especially the ones from the house of lords even they are slamming acs lol, now that has to say something about acs!

[concerned100]

At the hearing this morning Counsel for some of the Defendants, Guy Tritton (sp) referred (when requesting an Order to Show Cause) to a 'revenue split' agreement between Skeppenhurst, Mediacat et.al which allocated 65% of 'revenues' to ACS Law. Is anyone able to post that? I seems to recall such a licence being mentioned but this will be a key document and I'd like to see a copy if it's online anywhere. The Order to Show cause might involve both Mediacat and ACS given that Mediacat may not have suffient assets on its balance sheet to meet cost liabilities.

Its Sheptonhurst I think, there is an email from Crossley in the leaks with subject "Sheptonhurst" on 19/11/2009 13:13 to Mike Wallace Mike@thamesroad.co.uk
with 2 Word Attachments, one of which is the License terms and conditions featuring the financial split and also interestingly a breakdown of any potential court costs.
If you haven't got access to the leaked emails I'll post it somewhere you can get hold of it.

OK, here are the documents and email in PDF format
http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... rst__1.pdf

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... erm_V7.pdf

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... nhurst.pdf

Thanks. I'll have a look to see if these might be the ones referred to in Court this morning.

[MrFredPFL]

in retrospect, this is exactly what we should have expected. his moment of triumph arrives - his chance to show the world that he's not full of (use your imagination here) - and what does he say to demonstrate the righteous validity of his actions?

The dog ate my homework!

well done to all you guys and gals who have worked so hard to expose this game for what it is. forgive me if i don't list you all.

[lymmranger]

"kurvaface" has just posted the following on CAG

"GCB is no longer pursuing the matter stated in the letter"
followed by a second post

"I will brush up on my german because I have read somewhere that ACS was trying to hook up with some companies in germany and I believe Mr Michael Fischer does in fact own some Geman companies!"

CAG seems remarkably uninformed on goings on in court though

Edit to add a third post

"Disregard the letter" they say.

can someone tell me how to post up a voice memo from my ipod

[steveh]

Bit more of an update. I was there this morning but not able to make this afternoon's session - which primarily is for the counsels for MediaCat, Lawdit and Rali to agree a date with the judge on when this case should resume. Judge wants it within a week although MediaCats barrister - Tim Ludbrooke (sp?) would like a bit longer.

There were 3 counsel there - 1 for MediaCat, and 1 each for Rali's defendants (I think 4 of them) and Lawdits defendants (I think 5). Only one other non-represented defendant was in court and one other had written in a defence. The court had heard from one other that as he had received a discontinuance notice that he didn't think he needed to attend. The court had not heard from the rest of the defendants although he could understand if others had read the discontunance letter and assumed that they didn't have to attend/respond.

There were solicitors from Lawdit and Rali there, but noticeable was the absence from any solicitors for MediaCAT - the counsel just had an admin/paralegal with him.

Judge informed court that all cases had been served notice of discontinuance - 26 sent last Thursday and 1 where defendant was going to settle but they have now decided to send notice of discontinuance - therefore all 27 cases discontinued.

MediaCAT's counsel stated that on the basis of his Honours observation from previous hearing and faced with wholesale amendment to deal with the difficulties alterted by the court that they should discontinue these cases. Judge did comment that there is possibility of them reissusing new claims rather than trying to amend the existing ones. MediaCAT stated that they will pay all reasonable costs.

The court had received letters from a defendant and copies made available to MediaCat. There was also a letter from a D. S. (I'll await to see if his name is published in the official transcript) whose expertise ralates to the validity of using IP addresses - in summary the use of IP addresses is in doubt. Copies were passed to the 3 counsel.

Judge then said that he was not satisfied that MediaCAT had the right to discontinue with the cases and that he would be making a judgement on whether they could discontinue or they would have to continue with the cases. He then cited Section 102 of the Copyright Act - about copyright owner being a party to the case, and then refered to CPR 38.22. Basically he needed to go through licence agreements and a few other things to make a decision. It was then that the MediaCat counsel stated that there was one rather unfortunate difficulty and that he thought that it may be difficult to get instruction. One of the solicitors family had been involved in a traffic accident at the weekend and therefore not able to effectively give instruction. So if there was an accident did Andy run over one of his own family to make it real - or did his mistress chase him out of the house with a golf club and started smashing up his car.

The judge said that he will allow an adjournment for 20 minutes whilst Ludbrooke could see if he could get instruction.

Before that counsel for Rali (Mr Tritton?) stated that they were going to be seeking wasted costs (for pre-action as well as the claim) and giving notice to the judge that they would be applying for this (not today but sometime in the future). He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He (Tritton) said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy. In applying for an order for wasted costs, Tritton stated that these should be "off the scale". he then cited 45.412a - sacle costs not restricted where than has been abuse of court and 63.262 where parties had behaved unreasonably. Also concerned that MediaCat don't have the funds.

There was a disucssion on the use or abuser of the NPO - and the judge said that was an interlocutory (?) order and that copyright owners need not be a party and left it at that!

After adjounment MediaCat stated that he could not get any further instructions and would therefore have to seek an adjournment to a later date - judge told him that it will be sooner rather than later.

Judge says that he won't be making wasted costs order today as that is a big decision.

The way forward - get your diaries and bring them back at 2.00pm so we can determine a date when we reconvene - which should be no more than a week away (although MediaCat asked for longer). That hearing will determine whether they need the court's permission to discontinue.
Another hearing to make the opder to consider wasted costs.
Another subsequent hearing if the above order is granted to asses costs.


Also in attendance today - I think a lawyer from BT - not sure but thought I heard someone say he was from BT. A few journalists - BBC, Josh from The Guardian and some others from here that might correct and add to anything I've said. Definately no Andy or Bowden there.

The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

[DukePPUk]

Bit more of an update. I was there this morning but not able to make this afternoon's session - which primarily is for the counsels for MediaCat, Lawdit and Rali to agree a date with the judge on when this case should resume. Judge wants it within a week although MediaCats barrister - Tim Ludbrooke (sp?) would like a bit longer.
...
The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

Thank you for this - it seems that the hearing went about as well as could be expected - apparently the next hearing will be on the 24th according to this tweet.

[mrwhite2]

Thanks mate!

Great summary!

[lymmranger]

[wytey]

Cheers Steve

A good read

I wonder if the bookies are willing to take bets on whether Mr Crossley comes up with another excuse to not be present on the 24th?

[lymmranger]

"He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy."


Ooops - game set and match! - I do hope the SRA see this

[concerned100]

Bit more of an update. I was there this morning but not able to make this afternoon's session - which primarily is for the counsels for MediaCat, Lawdit and Rali to agree a date with the judge on when this case should resume. Judge wants it within a week although MediaCats barrister - Tim Ludbrooke (sp?) would like a bit longer.

There were 3 counsel there - 1 for MediaCat, and 1 each for Rali's defendants (I think 4 of them) and Lawdits defendants (I think 5). Only one other non-represented defendant was in court and one other had written in a defence. The court had not heard from the rest of the defendants.

There were solicitors from Lawdit and Rali there, but noticeable was the absence from any solicitors for MediaCAT - the counsel just had an admin/paralegal with him.

Judge informed court that all cases had been served notice of discontinuance - 26 sent last Thursday and 1 where defendant was going to settle but they have now decided to send notice of discontinuance - therefore all 27 cases discontinued.

MediaCAT's counsel stated that on the basis of his Honours observation from previous hearing and faced with wholesale amendment to deal with the difficulties alterted by the court that they should discontinue these cases. Judge did comment that there is possibility of them reissusing new claims rather than trying to amend the existing ones. MediaCAT stated that they will pay all reasonable costs.

The court had received letters from a defendant and copies made available to MediaCat. There was also a letter from a D. S. (I'll await to see if his name is published in the official transcript) whose expertise ralates to the validity of using IP addresses - in summary the use of IP addresses is in doubt. Copies were passed to the 3 counsel.

Judge then said that he was not satisfied that MediaCAT had the right to discontinue with the cases and that he would be making a judgement on whether they could discontinue or they would have to continue with the cases. He then cited Section 102 of the Copyright Act - about copyright owner being a party to the case, and then refered to CPR 38.22. Basically he needed to go through licence agreements and a few other things to make a decision. It was then that the MediaCat counsel stated that there was one rather unfortunate difficulty and that he thought that it may be difficult to get instruction. One of the solicitors family had been involved in a traffic accident at the weekend and therefore not able to effectively give instruction. So if there was an accident did Andy run over one of his own family to make it real - or did his mistress chase him out of the house with a golf club and started smashing up his car.

The judge said that he will allow an adjournment for 20 minutes whilst Ludbrooke could see if he could get instruction.

Before that counsel for Rali (Mr Tritton?) stated that they were going to be seeking wasted costs (for pre-action as well as the claim) and giving notice to the judge that they would be applying for this (not today but sometime in the future). He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy. In applying for an order for wasted costs, Tritton stated that these should be "off the scale". he then cited 45.412a - sacle costs not restricted where than has been abuse of court and 63.262 where parties had behaved unreasonably. Also concerned that MediaCat don't have the funds.

There was a disucssion on the use or abuser of the NPO - and the judge said that was an interlocutory (?) order and that copyright owners need not be a party and left it at that!

After adjounment MediaCat stated that he could not get any further instructions and would therefore have to seek an adjournment to a later date - judge told him that it will be sooner rather than later.

Judge says that he won't be making wasted costs order today as that is a big decision.

The way forward - get your diaries and bring them back at 2.00pm so we can determine a date when we reconvene - which should be no more than a week away (although MediaCat asked for longer). That hearing will determine whether they need the court's permission to discontinue.
Another hearing to make the opder to consider wasted costs.
Another subsequent hearing if the above order is granted to asses costs.


Also in attendance today - I think a lawyer from BT - not sure but thought I heard someone say he was from BT. A few journalists - BBC, Josh from The Guardian and some others from here that might correct and add to anything I've said. Definately no Andy or Bowden there.

The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

I think the point about Mediacat not being exclusive licencee was part of Davey's wider point the time had been wasted with
defective pleadings. Counsel agreed that both solicitors and Mediacat should be part of any Order to Show Cause given that Mediacat may not have suffiecient balance sheet assets to meet any cost liabilities. It's true to say that Counsel for Mediacat said that Crossley was not there as a member of his family had had a serious traffic accident. The agreement re 65% 'revenue sharing' is posted above.

[wytey]

"He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy."


Ooops - game set and match! - I do hope the SRA see this

Http://www.sra.org.UK/contact-us/

Could always pop them a msg with a link to it

[ralphmilne1992]

The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

Thank you for this - it seems that the hearing went about as well as could be expected - apparently the next hearing will be on the 24th according to this tweet.

"Judge Birss conclusion damning"
Great quote from that tweet, can't wait to see what he said.

[notapenny]

I was looking forward to today and the outcome, if any, of the case and what's waiting on the mat?

A letter from GCB. They can go swing for it.

Is anyone else even replying to these chancing b*stards?

Also, vis-a-vis court today - get that right round you ley, your house of cards is falling down, falling down, falling down...

[8of9]

Cheers Steve

A good read

I wonder if the bookies are willing to take bets on whether Mr Crossley comes up with another excuse to not be present on the 24th?

Depends on how many family members are left

[steveh]

"He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy."

Ooops - game set and match! - I do hope the SRA see this

To be clear - all the above was said by Tritton - so Tritton said that such an agreement was contrary to Solictors Code -this wasn't the judge making a comment.

[bpaw]

Got a great product for Bowden....



Edit: Eventually got the image working!

[lymmranger]

thanks for the clarification Steve!

surely the other side and/or the judge would have objected if it was inaccurate???

lets hope it is correct, cos that would be absolutely hilarious

[wytey]

Accident at weekend.... Court case Monday..... Hmz..... So he couldn't visit his family member at the weekend and had to wait till Monday, the same day as the court case......

[concerned100]

thanks for the clarification Steve!

surely the other side and/or the judge would have objected if it was inaccurate???

lets hope it is correct, cos that would be absolutely hilarious

Of course, after Tritton and Davey had spoken about wasted costs, the judge gave Mediacat's Counsel his say and needless to say, he objected in general terms to what had been said, but the detail will be for another day.

[verycrossley]

So one of the ers Family was in an accident is that an excuse not to be there ? well going by his own morales against other people I would have expected him to turn up piss poor/convenient excuse if you ask me, suppose he's now going to set up an Ambulance chasing firm now Probably touting for business at funerals.
Judge Briss if you read this for all of the tens of thousands of people this er has upset stressed out with worry and conned out of money for fucks sake throw the Book at this fat C U Next Tuesday.....P.S also take a look at some of those leaked E-mails and see what a tosser this bloke really is.

And everyone else on this site God Bless ya for the good help and advice and keep it up untill this is Done Cheers

[jsx]

Below is the text from section 6 of the Agreement between ACS:Law, MediaCAT and Sheptonhurst which appears to have been presented to the court today. I remembered the name Sheptonhurst and soon found the relative email in Thunderbird Portable. I posted the link to the complete files earlier, but I'm now wondering about this high percentage take for ACS:Law and I'm wondering if there's probably a kick back to MediaCAT supposed to happen too, the copyright license holders are getting peanuts compared to ACS:LAW and I can't see MediaCAT doing such a deal without Crossley topping up their share at some stage..... just a thought but we know how dirty these people are. The Inland Revenue might like to take a good hard look at this deal.

LICENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS from 31st May 2009_15% to licensee_ 1 year term V7
6. Revenues
6.1. All revenues generated by reason of the rights granted to the Licensee
under this Agreement shall be collected in the first instance by the
Licensee and accounted for on a monthly basis
6.2. Gross revenues (“the Gross Revenues”) collected shall be the subject of the
following initial (or top line) deductions (“the Top Line Deductions”) prior to
distribution between interested parties:-
6.2.1. ISP charges (for providing the names and addresses of the IP
address owners)
6.2.2. Paper, photocopying and postage
6.2.3. Court fees and out of pocket legal costs (such as counsel’s fees,
but not solicitor’s costs)
6.2.4. Legal costs agreed to be paid or awarded by court in respect of
a third party in connection with an application to court (typically
some ISPs incur legal expense in connection with the application
for the IP address owners’ details)
6.3. The revenues collected after deduction of the top line expenses are the
net revenues (“the Net Revenues”) which shall be distributed as follows:-

6.3.1. To the Licensor: thirty percent (20%);
6.3.2. To the Licensee: five percent (15%)
6.3.3. To the Retained Lawyer in respect of Net Revenues (including
covering the cost of the Data Supplier any agents instructed
and/or Foreign Legal Counsel): sixty-five percent (65%)
6.3.4. No agreement with Foreign Legal Counsel will be allowed
whereby the Foreign Legal Counsel’s fees equate to more than
fifteen percent (15%) of Net Revenues

[concerned100]

One interesting point: the judge did refer to info received from an what must be an outside observer with IT expertise relating to IP addresses and their weaknesses as evidence. This shows that this judge will at least take account of such submissions. So if anyone has such credible 'expert opinions' it might be worth submitting them to the judge. Of course, credible expert opinions only so that he's not bombarded with irrelevancies!