On 30 Nov 12, Troll Goodhue responded to Mr. Harris? response to Plaintiff?s motion to show cause.?? GoodhueResp_02144(AZ)?? I think it is extremely funny that Mr. Harris has been able to get Troll Goodhue to play this game of name calling and dramatics.? It really shows the type of attorneys the Troll outsource their work to.? Troll Goodhue ? ?
The fact that many litigants must proceed pro se is, indeed, an unfortunate reality of our legal system; legal representation can be quite expensive. Basic decorum, however, is free, and so Plaintiff is deeply troubled as to why Defendant feels entitled to treat this Court as though it is a bar, and the officers of the Court as his drinking cohorts. He asserts that Honorable Judge Snow will ?be a laughing stock? if he grants Plaintiff?s Motion (Defendant?s Response to Motion for Order to Show Cause [Def. Resp.] at 1), and refers to Plaintiff?s counsel as ?the little cry baby? because of trying to comply with his court-ordered obligations (Def. Resp. at 2), as well as a ?delusional sociopath with a law degree? for no reason at all (See Plaintiff?s Motion for Order to Show Cause at Exhibit B.). The fact that Defendant is ?a lay person unschooled in the practice of law? (See Defendant?s Answer at 1) does not impede his ability to regard the Court with basic respect, and, additionally, to accord Plaintiff?s counsel at least a modicum of courtesy. These responsibilities were properly accorded to Defendant when he ?reached the age of majority.? Id.? {My emphasis}
Drinking Cohorts?!? Did somebody say John Steele was buying the first round?? 
Take a read and imagine the time and money Troll Goodhue is spending on this case.? Funny, because it will go nowhere in the end.? Mr. Harris is not going to give up and there is NO evidence beside the public IP address 6881 Forensics LLC?recorded on the date/time in question.? Peter Hansmeier?isn?t going to come to court to testify to this ?Evidence.?? The public IP address does not equal a person and Prenda?Law has admitted this in many other cases.? This case is bound to die one way or another.? Also please note the trouble Prenda Law Inc., is now facing in Florida ? Fightcopyrighttrolls article (5 Dec 12)?
As I suggested?would happen, on 4 Dec 12, the court denied Troll Goodhue?s motion to show cause and order both sides to meet during the week of 17 Dec 12, for a case management?conference (CMC).?? DeniedShowC_02144(AZ)?? I?m sure the CMC will take place, but I expect it will not be a smooth one.? Mr. Harris is not going to be a push over for Troll Goodhue.
Motion for Security
This is where it really gets interesting for Troll Goodhue and Prenda?Law.? On 30 Nov 12, Mr. Harris filed a motion for Security of Non-Resident Plaintiff.?? MotionSecurity_02144(AZ)???ProOrderSecurity_02144(AZ)??
This motion is similar to the one recently filed (and granted) by Nicholas Ranallo in AF Holdings LLC v. David Trinh, 3:12-cv-02393?(CA).? The motion for security uses AZ District Court?Local Rule 54.1 (c) {on page 84} as a justification for the security bond.
(c) Security. In every action in which the plaintiff was not a resident of the District of Arizona at the time suit was brought, or, having been so, afterwards removed from this District, an order for security for costs may be entered upon application therefor within a reasonable time upon notice. In default of the entry of such security at the time fixed by the Court, judgment of dismissal shall be entered on motion.
Mr. Harris asks the court to require Plaintiff to post a bond for $150,000 to guarantee its performance.? The AZ local rule differs from the California one, as it does not require Mr. Harris to show he has a reasonable possibility of obtaining a judgement in his favor.? Mr. Harris does explain to the?court how weak the public IP address is to linking him as ?defendant.??
Mr. Harris goes on to tell the court that Paul Duffy (Prenda Law) is responsible for criminal actions against him regarding this matter and he is almost ?giddy? that Duffy is going to have to explain himself and these law suits.
After this motion is ruled on, this as well as other key issues that are the foundational structure of Duffy?s artifice to appear as a legitimate litigant in a legitimate lawsuit(s) are going to be discussed in great detail and weighty evidence is going to be submitted?in my favor, I am almost giddy, as I have been hoping for almost a year, but not really believing this day would ever come?
I don?t think Mr. Harris?will get a $150,000 bond granted, but I cannot see it being denied outright either.? The judge will see the $48,000 bond in the CA case, as well as the sound justification that Mr. Ranallo?used in his motion.? This is going to cause Prenda?Law and troll Goodhue more problems than?they want right now.? I wouldn?t doubt that during the pending CMC, Prenda?broached?the topic of settling with Mr. Harris ? Paying Mr. Harris to ?Go Away.?? What will Prenda offer???? As the saying goes, ?Money Talks.?? BUT I really don?t see Mr. Harris open to that conversation right now.? Popcorn anyone?
DieTrollDie 
Previous Harris case update
About DieTrollDie
I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trollsWalmart.com detroit lions NFL.com Thanksgiving Day cooking a turkey toysrus nfl standings
No comments:
Post a Comment