Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of pornography, computer games and music. (Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)

Speculative invoicing and “pay up or else” schemes for copyright infringement - Citizen's Advice Bureau

Speculative Invoicing Handbook

I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby dream pinball 3d lol » Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:34 pm

hope you all had a nice day happy xmas,nice to see this still going, such a shame that the greedy fools will try this again in another form
dream pinball 3d lol
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:47 pm

To continue an evolutionary theme, I see the game -> music -> porn -> porn -> porn -> porn -> porn progression from these “rights holders” may have progressed with goldeneye to Jewellery and Fashion. From goldeneyeint website:

The jewellery and fashion industry is also seeing an increase in the number of breaches of copyright and Trade Mark infringement, both of which cause our clients financial loss. Another division of our business is to protect, via the most effective and efficient means, our clients' intellectual property rights. Enforcement means will include removal of infringing online sites or by taking immediate court action.

With the imminent demise of their moneyclaim online scam, it seems that they are / may / could go down the route of scouring websites for images they claim is their copyright. My experience with getty I posted shows that there is money to be made in this.

The p2p route has proved troublesome for them. The ben-dover.biz site is a generic magento e-commerce site tailored by vision2 to sell porn paraphernalia. What percentage of their turnover did they expect from on-line sales against out of Court settlements is conjecture. I guess the words on goldeneyeint website may give a hint:

While every attempt will be made to seek a settlement out of court we will not hesitate to enter into court proceeding with those who fail to acknowledge our intellectual property rights

“Every attempt” is money in the bank.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:22 am

Does anyone know if the DL two have appealed?
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:23 am

Hopefully a recipient of one of the TBI letters contacted the SRA re TBI's obvious breach of the SDT order.

'I don't want to write to the SRA as I'm only an interested bystander, but if I were to write, it would be along the following lines, in case anyone wants to write the the SRA along similar lines.

TO THE SRA

I am contacting you to request information regarding action you are taking relating to breach of the Regulatory Settlement Agreement of 13/19 October 2011 made by Tilly Bailey Irvine (TBI). Under that agreement, I see that TBI admitted, among other things, that:

‘[TBI] … allowed its independence to be compromised in breach of [the Solicitors Code of Conduct]… [by writing] letters of claim… which were inappropriately worded and pressurised individuals into settling a claim in circumstances where TBI’s arguments had not been established before the courts’

and TBI agreed not to:

‘act in any way inconsistent with [the] agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted …above’.

Despite TBI’s agreement not to deny misconduct, I’ve seen a recent press article in which the firm’s managing partner states:

[TBI] was “delighted to be able to dispose of this matter in a way that makes it clear that the firm has never acted with any conscious or deliberate impropriety”.

Surely this is denial of misconduct, in breach of the agreement, as TBI could not have written the letters of claim and pressurised individuals other than by conscious and deliberate acts which it knew or should have known were improper, and for which it was reprimanded by the SRA. It put forward mitigation, but was reprimanded nonetheless. In fact, I can see nothing in the judgment that 'makes it clear that the firm has never acted with any conscious or deliberate impropriety.' Quite the contrary.

Please supply me with information regarding the action the SRA is taking with regard to this breach of the agreement by TBI.[/quote]
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:59 pm

Someone has raised the issue of those comments with the SRA, but I don't know what, if any, response they got.

As to the DL pair, nothing appears to have emerged to suggest that they did appeal. Does anyone know when the suspensions would have expired as (at the time of posting this) there is still no David Gore on either the "find a solicitor" search on the Law Society web site, or the "our people" search on DL's site.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:36 pm

I have been casually following the john / jane doe happenings in the USA for months now.

Two sites are particularly interesting:

http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/
http://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/

One particular recent post from dietrolldie:

http://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/dtd-torpedo-hits-case-411-cv-00584-digital-sin-inc-v-does-1-145-fl-troll-terik-hashmi/

The scribd doc has many instances of proof of wifi abuse not necessarily related to copyright infringement. In fact, it quotes a case in July 2011 Barry Ardolf hacking a neighbours wifi threatening Vice President Joe Biden. He was eventually found out and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

I don’t recall a wifi hacking case in the UK where someone has been convicted. It seems that alleged copyright infringement isn’t that important. Maybe it will take someone here in the UK to hack a neighbours wifi and slag off Nick Clegg for being a lousy Liberal. Then the IP = Infringer case may be looked at differently.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Golden Eye Int abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

My wild goose chase regarding netcollex has just been answered with their filed accounts for FYE 31/12/10.

Seventeen pages, so won’t post for now. Basically they turned a £4.5m loss in to a £1m loss.

Mr Rogers & Mr Johnson signed them off by announcing a restructuring of the company 13/12/11 by changing their holding company from Sport Media Group to J2 World Limited:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07830925

I did see this company created 01/11/11 by Mr Dissolver Mr Johnson, but didn’t realise that it was created to be taking over to-be-liquidated Sport Media Group as holding company.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:18 am

bpaw wrote:Golden Eye Int abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

My wild goose chase regarding netcollex has just been answered with their filed accounts for FYE 31/12/10.

Seventeen pages, so won’t post for now. Basically they turned a £4.5m loss in to a £1m loss.

Mr Rogers & Mr Johnson signed them off by announcing a restructuring of the company 13/12/11 by changing their holding company from Sport Media Group to J2 World Limited:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07830925

I did see this company created 01/11/11 by Mr Dissolver Mr Johnson, but didn’t realise that it was created to be taking over to-be-liquidated Sport Media Group as holding company.


I imagine that they are suffering from the glut of that sort of material that is freely available on the internet rather than from infringement of their particular copyrights. Also, I doubt if the adventure with MediaCAT was embarked upon on the back of proper legal advice to the organisation at senior level.

As to wifi hacking, the cases (such as Ardolf) tend to all involve some sort of activity which itself leaves evidence in addition to the basic hacking itself. An investigation into p2p sharing can, at best, associate an IP address with an alleged infringement, and absent any further evidence, no more. For example, in Ardolf, the hacker was using the access to perpetrate traffic to the victims employer, a law firm, and the employer hired experts to monitor the employee's home network. This revealed unauthorised access, and after the security services became involved with the threats, information in other traffic generated by the hacker gave away who he was. But had the access been a "drive by" attack purely for the purposes of p2p sharing (in circumstances that left no other evidence), then that sort of outcome would not arise.

There have been UK cases involving unauthorised access to wi-fi networks, but they all involve some sort of additional features as above, which do not normally arise in simple sharing type hacking.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:14 pm

Mullard47 wrote:I imagine that they are suffering from the glut of that sort of material that is freely available on the internet rather than from infringement of their particular copyrights. Also, I doubt if the adventure with MediaCAT was embarked upon on the back of proper legal advice to the organisation at senior level.

As to wifi hacking, the cases (such as Ardolf) tend to all involve some sort of activity which itself leaves evidence in addition to the basic hacking itself. An investigation into p2p sharing can, at best, associate an IP address with an alleged infringement, and absent any further evidence, no more. For example, in Ardolf, the hacker was using the access to perpetrate traffic to the victims employer, a law firm, and the employer hired experts to monitor the employee's home network. This revealed unauthorised access, and after the security services became involved with the threats, information in other traffic generated by the hacker gave away who he was. But had the access been a "drive by" attack purely for the purposes of p2p sharing (in circumstances that left no other evidence), then that sort of outcome would not arise.

There have been UK cases involving unauthorised access to wi-fi networks, but they all involve some sort of additional features as above, which do not normally arise in simple sharing type hacking.

The £4.5m loss they had in their previous accounts they attributed to the free (With advertisements) material available on the internet.

As for wifi hacking, the quoted case shows a need to pursue additional expert monitoring to gain the evidence needed for conviction. Obviously it was a different arena than the PCC, with a different requirement to prove beyond doubt the actions that were taken. It just seems a flaw with the PCC that it is a case of probabilities that would decide a judgement. To think that it could be decided that you are 51% likely to have done something wrong, so therefore you did something wrong, without further evidence.

In the words of Bart Simpson, it's amazing how something can suck and blow at the same time!
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:59 am

Keep popping in occasionaly to keep up with progress. Some further excellent work still being persued.

On this occasion may I wish Mullard - bpaw - and everyone else all the very best for the new year.

Cheers mates :toast:
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:54 pm

Lawdits Michael Coyle asks the question is ACS:Law on the way back:

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/1517-ACS-Law-on-the-way-back.htm

A link to his interview on radio cornwall this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00mfpzr

The story about cornwall people receiving LoCs, along with his interview starts about 1hr 33mins in.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:48 pm

bpaw wrote:Lawdits Michael Coyle asks the question is ACS:Law on the way back:

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/1517-ACS-Law-on-the-way-back.htm

A link to his interview on radio cornwall this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00mfpzr

The story about cornwall people receiving LoCs, along with his interview starts about 1hr 33mins in.



From the Lawdit article (although not clear from the recording), it looks like something similar to the bogus letters that were sent to people in Greece last year.

Actually, if Crossley did make a come-back, and it was subsequently dramatised into a television series, I wonder if the opening of each episode would run anything like THIS?.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:47 pm

Hi Guys and gals, hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year.

Just got some emails through from one of you on here (You know who you are so claim credit), pointing out to me some of the activities of a Leyla Mehru Ex of ACS:LAW.

What I did not realise was is that she tweeted me a while ago, I cannot believe the temerity of her words.

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal 'definition of apology- repentence for wrongdoing...since when were you the british legal system
23 Aug Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
Retweeted by @acs_law_illegal »

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal yes itsamazing that people get married isnt it - you obviously are not as you are obsessed with me and my past jobs


The F%$£ing nerve of it.

I am so pissed, my blood is boiling. I am kickstarted.
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:12 am

Mullard47 wrote:
bpaw wrote:Lawdits Michael Coyle asks the question is ACS:Law on the way back:

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/1517-ACS-Law-on-the-way-back.htm

A link to his interview on radio cornwall this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00mfpzr

The story about cornwall people receiving LoCs, along with his interview starts about 1hr 33mins in.



From the Lawdit article (although not clear from the recording), it looks like something similar to the bogus letters that were sent to people in Greece last year.

Actually, if Crossley did make a come-back, and it was subsequently dramatised into a television series, I wonder if the opening of each episode would run anything like THIS?.

:lookup:
I was wondering about what association there was with ACS:Law, and I find it interesting that the Greek scam you mention created major headlines and a denial of involvement from Crossley. I couldn't find anything on the cornwall scam anywhere else.

No doubt if it was a scam under the name of ACS:Law (The original scam artists), any victim googling it will find slyck.com.

@Hickster

It seems that Crossley taught his students everything he knows about being obnoxious and full of themselves.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby factual » Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:29 am

ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley faces the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal at his substantive hearing:

Now scheduled for Monday 16th January at 10am.


Note that this is a revised date from that previously circulated.

Expected to just be the one day according to the SDT offices.

If planning to attend (as any members of the public are welcome to) location detials can be found at: http://willgilmour.blogspot.com/2011/06 ... inary.html

(Note: link is to an artcle for the Davenport Lyons hearing - but venue is the same)
factual
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby jsx » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:25 am

Golden Eye Drops "Fancy an Indian ?" Case.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/0 ... iracy.html

A very recent article about Golden Eye and Ralli.
jsx
jsx
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:44 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:48 am

jsx wrote:Golden Eye Drops "Fancy an Indian ?" Case.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/0 ... iracy.html

A very recent article about Golden Eye and Ralli.



There is actually a news item on Ralli's web site HERE.

Regular patrons of this thread will recall a property for sale - details HERE and HERE. That property did sell - details HERE - but that address is still to be found HERE. In the interests of keeping everything up to date and tickety boo, I wonder if anyone ought to be alerted, although I suppose that it possibly is still the relevant address for that US legal purpose.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:17 pm

Hickster wrote:Hi Guys and gals, hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year.

Just got some emails through from one of you on here (You know who you are so claim credit), pointing out to me some of the activities of a Leyla Mehru Ex of ACS:LAW.

What I did not realise was is that she tweeted me a while ago, I cannot believe the temerity of her words.

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal 'definition of apology- repentence for wrongdoing...since when were you the british legal system
23 Aug Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
Retweeted by @acs_law_illegal »

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal yes itsamazing that people get married isnt it - you obviously are not as you are obsessed with me and my past jobs


As I said before, I think TBI are the ones who seem to have got away with murder, brazenly breaching the terms of the SDT order in public. I'm amazed if no one has managed to get a response from the SRA/SDT one way or the other about this.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:33 pm

Seems that Clem has eventually expertly witnessed his websites went down.

A new registration request is being processed:

Domain name:
adlitem.co.uk

Registrant:
Clem Vogler

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrar:
Fibranet Services Ltd [Tag = FIBRANET]
URL: http://www.freeparking.co.uk

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 28-Dec-2011
Renewal date: 28-Dec-2013
Last updated: 31-Dec-2011

Registration status:
Registration request being processed.

Name servers:
ns3.ukdnsservers.co.uk 72.1.201.151
ns4.ukdnsservers.co.uk 72.1.216.99

Seems that Clem is not so dormant after all.

(mod comment - details of Kate Vogler removed, she is at least 2 steps removed from the subject of the thread and her address has little/no relevance to the discussion. Whatever your opinion on Clem Vogler, he was contracted as an expert witness and was probably just after cash. I don't see what value publishing the address gives anyone.)

Edit:
My interest with Mr Vogler and his prospective resurrected adlitem.co.uk website is the content. The old website was on IP address 72.1.216.19 and the new IP address is on 72.1.201.151, which signifies a different virtual server.

For what reason has he re-registered his domain? Is it to re-instate his old website? Or will it be a new website? If it’s the old website, then what is the motive in doing this? Could it be an entirely different website to tell everyone that his expert knowledge of IP monitoring is still available for hire, at the right price? If you’re looking at this Mr Vulgar, then please remember that goldeneyeint.com has your link to "http://adlitem.co.uk/index.asp".
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:35 am

bpaw wrote:Seems that Clem has eventually expertly witnessed his websites went down.

A new registration request is being processed:

Domain name:
adlitem.co.uk

Registrant:
Clem Vogler

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrar:
Fibranet Services Ltd [Tag = FIBRANET]
URL: http://www.freeparking.co.uk

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 28-Dec-2011
Renewal date: 28-Dec-2013
Last updated: 31-Dec-2011

Registration status:
Registration request being processed.

Name servers:
ns3.ukdnsservers.co.uk 72.1.201.151
ns4.ukdnsservers.co.uk 72.1.216.99

Seems that Clem is not so dormant after all.

(mod comment - details of Kate Vogler removed, she is at least 2 steps removed from the subject of the thread and her address has little/no relevance to the discussion. Whatever your opinion on Clem Vogler, he was contracted as an expert witness and was probably just after cash. I don't see what value publishing the address gives anyone.)

Edit:
My interest with Mr Vogler and his prospective resurrected adlitem.co.uk website is the content. The old website was on IP address 72.1.216.19 and the new IP address is on 72.1.201.151, which signifies a different virtual server.

For what reason has he re-registered his domain? Is it to re-instate his old website? Or will it be a new website? If it’s the old website, then what is the motive in doing this? Could it be an entirely different website to tell everyone that his expert knowledge of IP monitoring is still available for hire, at the right price? If you’re looking at this Mr Vulgar, then please remember that goldeneyeint.com has your link to "http://adlitem.co.uk/index.asp".


In the circumstances, he would have had to allow adlitem.co.uk to be cancelled and then buy it from scratch. The other domain name could have been claimed (because the site was not that of the registrant) but it is cheaper to allow it to progress to cancellation and then start again. They might use the domain names for email purposes, and may have no intention of putting up web sites.

I would be surprised if he were to make a come-back as a file-sharing expert witness. My perception is that the proper appraisal of monitoring software would be an extremely difficult and expensive undertaking. I doubt very much if that has ever been done by anyone, and that such expert reports as have been produced fall within the ambit of those described by Consumer Focus as generalised explanations of principles, rather than objective, practical and proven research and analysis of the systems involved. This business of lack of proper research and peer review is now well documented and I suspect that any newcomers trying GEIL type claims would find that they might have to produce technical evidence etc. in court which they do not have and which they have no way of producing

Biblio appear to have pulled him up on his details on their site as it now shows as "Adlitem" with a proper address. I wonder if business ownership disclosure rules would require a real name there, but someone that knows about the intricacies of that sort of thing would have to look into it.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:04 pm

concerned100 wrote:
Hickster wrote:Hi Guys and gals, hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year.

Just got some emails through from one of you on here (You know who you are so claim credit), pointing out to me some of the activities of a Leyla Mehru Ex of ACS:LAW.

What I did not realise was is that she tweeted me a while ago, I cannot believe the temerity of her words.

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal 'definition of apology- repentence for wrongdoing...since when were you the british legal system
23 Aug Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
Retweeted by @acs_law_illegal »

leylashahin leyla shahin
@ @acs_law_illegal yes itsamazing that people get married isnt it - you obviously are not as you are obsessed with me and my past jobs


As I said before, I think TBI are the ones who seem to have got away with murder, brazenly breaching the terms of the SDT order in public. I'm amazed if no one has managed to get a response from the SRA/SDT one way or the other about this.


I am told that (a) a reply was received from the SRA which was not one way or the other and was of the form of an acknowledgement which provided no information at all as to whether or not the SRA was the correct body to raise the matter with, or (if not) whether it was being passed on to anyone else, and (b) that the SDT have now been asked what the correct procedure is for making a complaint about something like that (including specifying whom the complaint should be made to), and a reply is awaited.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:08 pm

(mod comment - details of Kate Vogler removed, she is at least 2 steps removed from the subject of the thread and her address has little/no relevance to the discussion. Whatever your opinion on Clem Vogler, he was contracted as an expert witness and was probably just after cash. I don't see what value publishing the address gives anyone.)

Comment noted.

I have in the past removed personal details in posts. This was a copy and paste oversight, and I apologise.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:34 pm

Mullard47 wrote:
I am told that (a) a reply was received from the SRA which was not one way or the other and was of the form of an acknowledgement which provided no information at all as to whether or not the SRA was the correct body to raise the matter with, or (if not) whether it was being passed on to anyone else, and (b) that the SDT have now been asked what the correct procedure is for making a complaint about something like that (including specifying whom the complaint should be made to), and a reply is awaited.


Thanks. Fast work on the part of the SRA/SDT no doubt. I hope somebody keeps after them until they make a substantive response. If people want to spend time pursuing info on 'experts' etc. that's up to them, but firms like TBI are at the core of this and shouldn't get away with this blatant breach. Or at least we should be told why the SDT don't consider it a breach. Not much point going thru proceedings if firms are going to be allowed to cover their reputation with quotes like the one I referred to. I can see that quote going into a letter to a potential new client who had seen the judgment and was concerned. I thought TBI's letters were particularly bad: I think they were the ones who made some statement about judgments being enforced against people's property ie. attempting to frighten recipients into believing they'd better pay up or they lose their property/home.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:59 pm

It is a problem that you get precious little real detail with announcements of settlements. The ISP Review announcement regarding Goldeneye states:

Solicitors at Ralli, a national UK law firm, have successfully managed to get porn lawyers Golden Eye International to drop their London Patents County Court case against a woman accused of using her broadband ISP connection to share copyright material (piracy) online (adult video 'Fancy an Indian?').

Since when were Golden Eye Int Lawyers?

The Ralli announcement equally gave no information as regards real detail, which is for very obvious reasons.

The PCC cases relate to a Mr X and Mrs Y. One may assume the Mrs Y case is resolved. What happens with the Mr X case still has to be resolved or heard about.

My feeling is that all the NPOs that were approved by the High Court were completely reliant on the expert witness statements from Mr Clem Vogler. The subsequent ACS:Law leaked spreadsheets suggest that the IP monitoring has flaws that put in to question the witness statements.

Any innocent person (Which evidence has proven to be many) who has been a recipient of an LoC, with the threats that it contains, must surely be unhappy with Mr Vogler.

It is also a serious question to say if TBI obtained an independent report from Mr Vogler regarding their involvement with Goldeneye Int, or did they use a previous statement?

Is it so easy for me to think that if no reputable expert could be found to agree to be a witness to these scam lawyers and their protected monitoring associates, then DL / ACS / GM / TBI would not be a topic of this discussion?
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:40 am

bpaw wrote:It is a problem that you get precious little real detail with announcements of settlements. The ISP Review announcement regarding Goldeneye states:

Solicitors at Ralli, a national UK law firm, have successfully managed to get porn lawyers Golden Eye International to drop their London Patents County Court case against a woman accused of using her broadband ISP connection to share copyright material (piracy) online (adult video 'Fancy an Indian?').

Since when were Golden Eye Int Lawyers?

The Ralli announcement equally gave no information as regards real detail, which is for very obvious reasons.

The PCC cases relate to a Mr X and Mrs Y. One may assume the Mrs Y case is resolved. What happens with the Mr X case still has to be resolved or heard about.

My feeling is that all the NPOs that were approved by the High Court were completely reliant on the expert witness statements from Mr Clem Vogler. The subsequent ACS:Law leaked spreadsheets suggest that the IP monitoring has flaws that put in to question the witness statements.

Any innocent person (Which evidence has proven to be many) who has been a recipient of an LoC, with the threats that it contains, must surely be unhappy with Mr Vogler.

It is also a serious question to say if TBI obtained an independent report from Mr Vogler regarding their involvement with Goldeneye Int, or did they use a previous statement?

Is it so easy for me to think that if no reputable expert could be found to agree to be a witness to these scam lawyers and their protected monitoring associates, then DL / ACS / GM / TBI would not be a topic of this discussion?


In the "Mr" case, the claimant joined the copyright owner under s102 of the 1988 Act and then discontinued. See HERE.

The position of the "expert report" that GEIL have is not clear. There was no reference to TBI on CV's web site.

My perception is that the perpetrators of these monitoring methods are not prepared for whatever they are doing to be properly scrutinised and that if that means claims having to be dropped if push comes to shove, then so be it. Consumer Focus looked into the issue of "expert reports" and they said the following:-

With regard to copyright infringement disputes relating to peer-to-peer file-sharing the allocated judge will need to have a good degree of technical knowledge to guard against the claimants dazzling the court with irrelevant "evidence" and to guard against claimants' own lack of technical expertise. In instances where the reliability of the evidence is disputed, it is important that claimants do not, at great cost, produce general expert witness reports on the process they have used to collect the evidence which are not suitable to establish whether in the particular case the evidence is reliable.

Their report then goes on to show that a number of statements made in the Particulars of Claim in the Polydor case are just plainly wrong. For example, Polydor's Particulars of Claim described the connection subscriber as the registered account holder with an internet service provider in relation to a particular computer. That statement is just meaningless rubbish, and with all due respect to the judge in that case (where the defendant was not represented), the fact that a statement like that was accepted at face value discloses a level of ignorance about the issues which supports the opinion of Consumer Focus as to judges having appropriate technical knowledge.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com