Archive

Posts Tagged ‘amanda mitten’

Tilly Bailey Irvine accept paltry Fine handed to them for “Copyright Trolling” UPDATE 1

November 4, 2011 5 comments

Tilly Bailey Irvine (TBI) the Law Firm that jumped on the “Speculative Invoicing” bandwagon driven by ACS:LAW has “Agreed” to accept a monetary punishment of £2800. This is a sad sad day for those who followed this case and were expecting more from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

TBI launched their letter campaign in January 2010 and by April had had enough. They represented “Media & More GMBH” and also “Golden Eye International” sending out letters of claim to members of the general public that they claim were infringing the copyright of their clients.

Problem for TBI was that it was a deeply flawed system that rounded up far to many innocent people.

TBI like ACS:LAW and the law firm that followed Gallant Macmillan, never sought to go to court but relied heavily on the embarrassment of receiving one of these letters, and the assumption that no one would challenge them because of the damage to their reputation in doing so.

One of the more infamous titles represented by TBI was “Army Fu**ers”,  I cant publish the titles of the others as they are that bad (You can type in Media & More into a search engine to see what I mean)

Ironically TBI withdrew from the “Speculative Invoicing” plan, in a letter to the SRA TBI stated:

 “We have been surprised and disappointed at the amount of adverse publicity that our firm has attracted in relation to this work and the extra time and resources that have been required to deal solely with this issue.

We are concerned that the adverse publicity could affect other areas of our practice and therefore following discussions with our clients, we have reluctantly agreed that we will cease sending out further letters of claim.”

Hmmm well not as surprised and disappointed as a military man returning from service to one of their letters accusing him of downloading a porn film called “Army Fu*kers” but still.

TBI went on to try to eradicate all trace of their “Speculative Invoicing” actions by Vandalising” an entry on Wikipedia. This led to a rather amusing clash with one of the editors:

Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, as you did with TBI Solicitors — this is vandalism,” wrote a Wikipedia admin to Tilly Bailey & Irvine.

Furthermore, your IP address geolocates to ‘TILLY BAILEY & IRVINE’ which suggests that you have a conflict of interest in removing criticism of the firm from Wikipedia. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with that policy before editing this particular article any further,”

Oops.

They were slammed in the House of Lords and now have an entry in Hansard, describing them as “an embarrassment to the creative industry”  see 1:06 – 1:40

The Speculative Invoicing plan that TBI took wholesale from ACS:LAW as shown in the ACS leaked emails (And for which ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley originally threatened to report them to the SRA, but later relaxed and attempted to “Work together” when the SRA came down on them both), was also described in the House Of Lords as “no better than Legal blackmail” 

I attempted a satirical post regarding this comment, and TBI saw fit to threaten my Blog Host and also imply they would sue me for defamation.

In the end most people who read my Blog know that I seek only one thing from these Lawyers, and that is an apology, an apology for the pain they have caused in falsely accusing people who were left with a feeling of helplessness, and having no option but to pay up to avoid losing their homes or their jobs.

Did Tilly Bailey Irvine feel they could apologise? Well here is what one of their Bosses said,

TBI managing partner John Hall said the firm 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”.

He added: “We take pride in our reputation for fighting our clients’ corner to the best of our ability. Although on this occasion the SRA has ruled that we went too far – on their interpretation of the rules – we shall continue always to put the interests of clients first, as our clients and the public generally would expect.

“Copyright breaches cost business £200m per year. We hope that these cases will highlight the lack of clarity in the rules and ensure that, in future, criminal activities such as these can be dealt with by the legal process so that copyright is safeguarded and clients’ legitimate interests are protected.”

noting that the SRA ruled that the company went “too far”, that decision was based on “their (SRAs) interpretation of the rules”.

One wonders what on earth John Hall means by this, the SRA after all are the ones who MAKE THE RULES and regulate Solicitors, this is no apology, and I hope the SRA will reconsider referring Tilly Bailey Irvine to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which is independent, and where the likes of John Hall can argue the rules all he wants.

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley to face the SDT Jan 16th 2012

September 4, 2011 Leave a comment

It has been said the ACS:LAW “Speculative Invoicing” debacle wont be over till the Fat Lady sings, well, the date has now been set for the 16th January 2012.

In an email from the SDT, it says

I confirm that the substantive
hearing in relation to Mr Crossley and ACS:Law has been listed for the week
commencing January 16 2012.

This will be the THIRD time that Andrew Crossley has been hauled before the Tribunal, since he became a lawyer in 1991… Some record.

Whilst the US Copyright Group (Dunlap Grubb and Weaver) whom Crossley tried and failed to work with are now facing their own potential Waterloo, the previous Law Firm whom Crossley took the Shilling from (Davenport Lyons) has also just been found guilty at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, although they are of course appealing.

This news marks a remarkable fightback against these Law firms who seek to “….make up with the lost revenue by creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel” or in plain English “Rip off innocent people”.

It is not know yet wether the SRA are still investigating the other two Law Firms that tried to emulate ACS:LAWs model, Tilly Baily Irvine, and Gallant Macmillan, however they seem to have been “Collaborating” with each other in the emails that ACS:LAW leaked.

I will update as soon as I have the answer.

As things stand, I would say to ALL those wrongly accused by these Law Firms to have a thoroughly wonderful Christmas and New Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACS:LAW: The charge sheet from the SDT

July 13, 2011 6 comments

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has issued its “Charge Sheet” on ACS:LAW and it’s Supremo Andrew Crossley.

The hearing will take place on August 18th 2011  (The date of the hearing is yet to be set thanks to those eagle eyed readers who spotted the mistake.)

The allegations are or contain the following

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised

2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients

3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession

4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law

5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients

6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

We at ACS:BORE are pleased with these charges and think they largely cover what we and many others have been saying for the last two years.  We look forward to seeing the hearing in practice and feel sure that these allegation whilst unproven at the moment, will be thoroughly pursued with the full weight of the law.

This is not the first time that Andrew Crossley has appeared, this will be his THIRD time.  One has to ask how many times can a Solicitor be pulled in before the Disciplinary Tribunal and be allowed to continue.  We look forward to August and hope it will be a FULL vindication for all those innocent people affected by the actions of ACS:LAW and their cohorts.

Many of those who engaged with ACS:LAW in bringing this misery to the general public will NOT be tried, but for those who follow this Blog, we at least know who they are.

Back in March 2010 I wrote an open letter to Mr Crossley after he accused me of posting messages attacking him, he is yet to respond.  

Thanks to Enigmax!

ACS:LAWs File Sharing Campaign-The Bubble has Judge Birss-t

January 25, 2011 13 comments
 
 

The portly figure of Andrew Crossley leaving the hearing on 24_01_11

 

“I have ceased my work… I have been subject to criminal attack,”, “My emails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats,”

So said ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley’s in a statement read out in Court AFTER he had left.

And with that he was gone, the infamous Lawyer who has led his Law firm to destruction and many thousands of innocent people to despair, has seemingly given up.  The man whose lies have broken marriages and familys and lives, issued his statement, and went, didn’t even hang about to deliver it himself.  

I have no doubt however, he WILL be back, maybe as an “Advisor” or “Co-ordinator), his Ego will demand it.  But what of his claims of threats, against him?

Today the Metropolitan Police has said it had no knowledge of any bomb threat against Mr Crossley or ACS:Law. The US Company that Crossley claimed to be working with Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver (also known as United Copyright Group),  evacuated its offices after receiving a bomb threat via email last October.

As those who have been following this story for the last few years, will know, ACS:LAW are “not the best at getting things right, indeed they even attempted SUE a forum that had included that very statement.  And this is the kind of scenario that made ACS:LAW the most hated Law firm in the UK, and the most complained about, over 500 complaints had been received regarding their practice at the point that Andrew Crossley was referred to the “Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal”, for the THIRD time!

They threatened to sue the owner of a domain that was called “BeingScammed” a website that provided vital information and help in the early days, In a leaked Twitter conversation the Paralegal and EX Davenport Lyons employee Terence Tsang said of this incident

TezimondoYes but I decided to not pursue him for costs and damages. Was feeling nice.

BeingScammed rebranded and morphed into BeingThreatened arguably a far more powerful base alongside the Slyck forum  for those letter recipients that felt that the ACS:LAW model did not pass the “Smell test”.  Indeed this very Blog was setup as a repository for the background to these people behind the practice, there is lots of it.

But Crossley is a consummate liar, a man who is VERY slippery indeed.  Many times he has been caught out and changed his now defunct website to suit the fact he had been found out.  The different Law Firms that cropped up alongside ACS:LAW (Tilly Bailey Irvine, Gallant Macmillan)  seemingly linked by a common purpose of “Copyright enforcement” were later exposed by the release of ACS:LAW of their email database to be linked also by Crossley as well, sharing letter templates and other ideas,  whilst the others though fell by the wayside, TBI first then Gallant Macmillan due to negative publicity, ACS:LAW had no such reputation that could be harmed so Crossley ploughed on.

An interview with Crossley by the Telegraph highlights the type of person that the public have been exposed to for nearly TWO years. 

When we spoke he had portrayed himself as a pauper, telling me that ‘less than a month ago’ he had been wandering around an air show with no money in his pocket and not a ‘penny to my name’. The leaked data painted a very different picture.

‘Hi Paul,’ he said, a few days later in an email to me. ‘One thing I wanted to scratch from the interview was I said I had no money recently. That was not an accurate reflection of the position.’

No not accurate at all, Crossley expected to make over THREE MILLION POUNDS himself (2010-2011) that would have been Crossleys cut, the GROSS revenue was to be a whopping TEN MILLION POUNDS.  That after all was what this tawdry mess was all about all along.

The excellent Torrentfreak posted an article regarding his attitudes to those less fortuate.

The story he trolls about regarding his “emails being hacked” is not true either, he was a target of a ddos, but he had the arrogance to mock that, it was AFTER this that his site was overwhelmed and in rebuilding his website the plank exposed his email backup to the World in the root Directory.  Why he had the WHOLE archive in such a place is still a mystery.  He has still not apologised to the public for exposing their details to the world.

Crossley is quoted from his emails to have attempted to “Sidefoot” the SRA investigation.

This year the Company GCB LTD seemed to have also joined the fray but the moment they started they were crushed by an outpouring of scorn and derision.  It turned out that a Paralegal from ACS:LAW had taken over GCB LTD, but Crossley denied ANY knowledge, this again was a lie exposed at the second Court hearing where Crossley let slip that in addition to Jonathan Miller there was an unnamed SECOND ex employee.

At the Court hearing it was disclosed by Crossley that GCB LTD had been planned in September, interestingly the same time period as the “Email leak”

The links to his friend Lee Bowden owner of Media C.A.T I believe are well established and have been reported on already.  Bowden is the Managing Director of “Piri Ltd”, and the “Text Works” in addition to Media C.A.T

Many people mainly those who stood up and refused to pay up, and some of the Media have come out of this well, a few have not.  Sky has still not even reported on their “Breaking News” Channel the fact of the ACS:LAW email leak, there is suspicion regarding Sky and ACS:LAW and the silence that SKY has tried to bring to this in light of them being the biggest ISP to let down their subscribers it is SHAMEFUL of them.  8000 of their subscribers linked forever with appallingly titled Pornography that is linked to their address and credit card details and SKY says……NOTHING

I believe, I really HOPE this is the end for this horrid “Speculative Invoicing”, only time will tell.

Gallant Macmillan and Ministry of Sound part ways

December 22, 2010 Leave a comment
Click for full size

 

It was rumoured in the forums but now it is official,  Gallant Macmillan are no longer representing Ministry of Sound.

In a terse letter to a person accused, Gallant Macmillan the controversial Law firm with links to the Infamous ACS:LAW has announced that it is no longer being instructed by Ministry of Sound, ALTHOUGH it also states that Ministry of Sound are in the process of instructing another firm and that the recipient would  “likely to hear from in due course”

Although this sounds rather sinister, it may well be bluster, it is hard to think of what Law firm would pick up the Poison Chalice of further “Speculative Invoicing” cases.

Davenport Lyons fell by the wayside in May 2009, the firm who gained the paralegals from Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW are still struggling with the legal issues that they have brought on themselves what with the email leak that is being investigated by the ICO and the SRA referring their Principal Andrew  Crossley to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of sending out these letters.

Tilly Bailey Irvine attempted these “Speculative invoicing” for a short time, but long enough to also attract the attention of the SRA who are investigating them for the same reasons.  Their reputation was further damaged whenthey were caught “vandalising” their page on Wikipedia in an attempt to  erase all mention of their actions.

Terence Tsang the paralegal who left Davenport Lyons for ACS:LAW, left them for Cramer Pelmont.  Cramer Pelmont announced that they would start issuing letters in the same model.   This did not actually come to fruition though as the ACS:LAW email leaks showed that Tsang has also been working for ACS:LAW whilst at Cramer Pelmont, an accusation that Cramer Pelmonts head honcho Alex Brassey had denied just a week previous.

So just who WILL take instructions from the Ministry of Sound?  I would like to think that no one would, but I have underestimated ACS:LAW before…..

Just also want ot say, HAVE A GREAT CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR….PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO RUIN YOUR HOLIDAYS.

ACS:LAW “We can’t prove damages beyond a SINGLE copy”

October 24, 2010 2 comments

For all those receiving a letter from ACS:LAW

ACS:LAW in one of their emails show SERIOUS doubts about their ability to prove the amount of damages they are seeking.  This email has already been released by better blogs than this, HOWEVER in light of ACS:LAW sending out BRAND NEW LETTERS OF CLAIM I though it only right to highlight this scandal further.

In an email from Adam Glenn to Andrew Crossley on the 19th August 2010, Glenn expresses his deep reservations regarding the actual proving of an “infringer” making the “Works” available to ANYONE else.

As far as I am aware there areNO academic studies which have evaluated how many people the average participant in aP2P session shares a file with. To empirically establish that it would be necessary to eithermonitor the packet level inbound and outbound transmissions of an infringer (an action whichis against the law) or have permission from the participants to record such information.Without some level of direction on quantification it would be impossible, as Newzbin found,to determine the degree of sharing.

This statement alone should prove encouraging for those innocent people caught up in this scandal.  ACS:LAW has been crowing about its bullet proof system for well over a year now, and yet here less than a month before the devastating release of their emails into the wild by either sheer incompetence or wilful sabotage by one of their employees sickened by their business practices. we have Adam Glenn raising questions about the very foundation upon which ACS:LAW had built it’s House of Cards.

Glenn goes on to dismiss Davenport Lyons infamous “Barwinska” case with a brutal assessment.

The Davenport Lyons model, in my opinion, failed to apply accepted and fundamentalmathematical principals in its calculation, including queuing theory, and would havedifficulty in passing an applied mathematics assessment if submitted in an “A level” statisticspaper.

And then a classic

Barwinska might make nice headline reading but it has, in my opinion, about as much legalforce as a Sun newspaper headline regarding the licentious behaviour of a D list celebrity

Remember ACS:LAW waving the Barwinska case around like a flag at the beginning of their campaign back in May 2009 ? how the Mainstream Media did NO investigating but took Davenport Lyons at its word ?, now ACS:LAW are laid bare, the Emperor really is wearing no clothes, he has no evidence, this is, as we always thought it was,  a barely legal “Shakedown”.

One wonders if Glenn had in mind the “D List Celebrity” as opposed to the Z List clients that ACS:LAW represents.  The pitiful stream of nobodies out to make a quick buck, whose so called “works” are so worthless you wouldn’t even find them in a bargain bin at the local market.

Please DOWNLOAD the email here it is long but worth a read

Or read it online here!

Please see TorrentFreak and Slyck Forums for more info and support

Musically – Speculate to accumulate: Mass lawsuits and p2p

October 22, 2010 Leave a comment

This is an article from MusicAlly, an industry site.

This article includes contributions from the excellent Beingthreatened.com and your favourite “amateurish shouty, unprofessional” Blog  ACS:BORE

Please download the musically Article

Musically is a subscription based website aimed at the industry, but they have kindly released this part of the article.

Thanks also to Enigmax at Torrentfreak

EDIT: Link is now fixed

ACS:LAW “Davenport Lyons were rubbish and arrogant”

September 27, 2010 1 comment

In a startling email between Andrew Crossley and Andrew Hopper QC (concerning collaborating with Tilly Bailey and Irvine), Andrew Crossley dismisses Davenport Lyons efforts (Which he based his whole practice on) as “.. a little bit rubbish at doing this work” and adds “….to arrogant”

What is really interesting is that it appears that Andrew Hopper QC is actually working with ACS:LAW and also Tilly Bailey and Irvine by advising them how best to deal with the SRA.

In the email Crossley continues regarding Davenport Lyons arrogance by stating “…not like me, TBI or the latest brigand Gallant Macmillan”

The link with Gallant Macmillan is unfortunate timing  for them in light of the email leak.  Gallant Macmillan are back in Court on 4th October to contest the release of an NPO which will give them permission to get lots of further names from the IP addresses they already hold (for the Ministry of Sound).

The original hearing was on the 20th September 2010 but was adjourned as Chief Master Winegarten the presiding Judge had reservations about granting the NPO.  This was covered in an article by Torrentfreak

It will be a VERY interesting October 4th when Simon Gallant walks through the door and has to put his case before the Judge, in light of ACS:LAW releasing their emails to the public

To write to Chief Master Winegarten  CHANCERY DIVISION, ROOM TM 7.08, THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, STRAND, LONDON, WC2A 2LL

For continuing coverage of the email leak please see TorrentFreak and Slyck

The full email is here

ACS:LAW Suffers massive Email leak to the net (SRA REPORT Included)

September 25, 2010 3 comments

ACS:LAW have been dealt a catastrophic blow to their “Speculative Invoicing” Business Model.  A staggering amount of emails both internal and external have been released onto the Web for all to see.  The leak is allegedto be from a DDos carried out by 4Chan

The leak confirms lots of things that we only thought before but that is for a later post.  What is of interest here is the SRA Report and the response from Andrew Crossley.  The Report includes a breakdown of money he has taken so far.

SRA Final Report ACS Law

acs law response to SRA

An online version of the email leak is available here. http://ueof.co.uk/acslaw/?_task=login (This will be up and down due to traffic)

ALWAYS check Torrentfreak for further developments and of course Slyck to debate the issues

Updates to come

ACS LAW Chief Andrew Crossley sent for discipline by the SRA

August 23, 2010 2 comments

It is the news that thousands of people have been waiting to hear.  It has been a long time coming but finally the authority that regulates Solicitors in the UK the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has finally referred Andrew Crossley head of ACS:LAW to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Crossley is no stranger to the Tribunal he has already appeared TWICE before (http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/Crossley%209346.05_0206.pdf)

From this Transcript of his SECOND appearance on  2nd February 2006  it can be seen in the summary

“At a hearing on 31st October 2002 the allegation that the Respondent had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor because he failed to file with the Law Society his Accountant’s Reports for the periods ending 31st December 1999 and 31st December 2000 was substantiated.”

One has to wonder if a Solicitor who has appeared what will be THREE times can possibly continue in his position.  This all follows on from the Davenport Lyons people being referred to the same Tribunal for the same “Speculative Invoicing”  plan.

Tilly Bailey Irvine are no longer under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority(SRA), after they quit the “Speculative Invoicing” that their were doing.

A new business called Gallant Macmillan has recently started the same kind of plan, representing the Ministry of Sound”.  It would seem on the balance of probability Gallant Macmillan, will  face the same fate that has befallen the previous companies that they sought to emulate in the near future. Unless of course Gallant Macmillan take the course of Tilly Baily and Irvine and quit to salvage some vestige of their reputation.

Andrew Crossley has been bragging recently that he has reclaimed a “million pounds for my clients”, a Lawyer with Zuxxez has told ACS BORE “If Andrew Crossley has recouped a million pounds it certainly wasn’t with us”.

It seems the Brains of the operation Terence Tsang has escaped any recriminations maybe as he was just the Para-Legal, but it is strange that he left ACS:LAW to go to Cramer Pelmont shortly after acquiring a “new Monitoring Software” the software that ACS:LAW claims uncovers file sharers and is NOT compromised by anything such as spoofing or cloning. (If it was so perfect as Crossley claims why then the new software acquired by Tsang).

Which? Consumer group have been a major force in this coming to a conclusion and their excellent posts and appearances in the media have been invaluable in keeping this in the spotlight.  Indeed such has been their high profile that Andrew Crossley himself wrote a Press Release called “Which? Hunt” which bemoaned what he saw as Which? attempting to hassle the SRA into action.  Nothing of the sort of course it was not just Which? but just typing ACS LAW into google will uncover 100′s of links to forums that contain thousands of posts.

Only FIVE Months ago I posted a piece on here regarding the “Davenport TWO” and speculated that it would not be long before Crossley followed in their footsteps, I wonder now how long for the others operating this ghastly method of protecting “rights”

Of course the time taken to deal with this is a joke, as it was with Davenport Lyons, all I can say though is IF the time taken has been because it is a THOROUGH investigation that will result in the STRONGEST possible punishment for these people, then all I can say is it is time well spent.

Of course Andrew Crossley is one of those people who would not smell smoke if his hair was on fire.  We await with anticipation what will happen now with the SDT.  Exciting times….

For more on this story see the Excellent Torrentfreak Article http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-lawyers-to-face-disciplinary-tribunal-100823/
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 294 other followers