Golden Eye International: The “EXPERT WITNESS” UPDATE 1

Clem Vogler requested his image removed by DMCA

By Bpaw/Hickster

Here on this blog, much justified attention has been assigned to the “Speculative Invoice” participants.  Although these rogue characters (Which we all know!) justify their acknowledgement here, they owe their unsuccessful efforts to their “legitimate” seal of approval by an “Expert Witness”.  This “Expert Witness” has effectively swayed every Judge in the High Court to grant every Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) that has appeared before them.

So who is this “Expert Witness”?????  Step forward Mr Clement Charles Vogler.

Clem Vogler has in the past provided “Expert Witness” reports for Law Firms practising what is commonly known as “Speculative Invoicing”, what has been declared in the House of Lords as “Legal Blackmail”.  The Law firms, Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW are listed on his website, but now so are Golden Eye International (GEIL).  GEIL however are NOT a law firm, they were however represented by one of the Law Firms that practiced “Speculative Invoicing”.

Vogler gives the “ok” to the monitoring software that is used to identify the IP addresses of alleged copyright Infringers.  The problem is the software has never been scrutinised by a Court of Law and its inner workings are not public knowledge.

In this post we will look at Clem Vogler in more detail.  He is after all the man who puts the seal of approval on the software that has identified tens of thousands of alleged infringers.  Of course the fact that all the Law Firms involved have had their fingers burnt with heavy fines or Solicitors being suspended (one Law Practice actually went bankrupt and its head was suspended for TWO years), has not stopped Mr Vogler from continuing doing what he does.

Clement Charles Vogler could be regarded as a Walter Mitty character.  The self-declared computer expert, expert witness, Chartered Physicist, Technical Partner in Ad Litem, Database writer, Runner, Local Councillor……the list goes on.

For reference, see http://www.adlitem.co.uk

So what can be said about him that’s true?

Well NOT that he is a Computer Expert!

A Computer Expert: (The following statements link to the individual posts)

“The messaging interface has returned an unknown error” It says, helpfully.It leaves emails still sitting in the Inbox that I want to consign to the delete box. Oddly enough, if I go to another folder and delete something there, it will sometimes work – and then even allow me to delete a message or two from the Inbox before reverting to the error message. I’ve removed Outlook and re-installed it, with no improvement. No idea why this problem has arisen – it was fine till yesterday and I’ve not altered anything in the meantime. Any ideas?

I don’t seem able to prevent another pc on my network from connecting to the
internet through my host pc.

I used to print single address labels on my Epson LX300 dot matrix – using MS Word (envelopes and labels). That was with W95 and W98 Now I have XP, it doesn’t work. Instead of printing  one label and advancing obediently to the top of the next, it puts in a form feed and runs through six or seven rows of blank labels. I assume this has something to do with XP not being DOS based. I don’t mind buying a new printer,  if I could find one that behaved itself under XP and Word. Anyone else grappled with this problem?

I can’t really see the computer expert in the above.  Of course he could have become a computer expert in recent years but he says on his website that he published articles on technical aspects of computing in magazines between 1990 and 1996 (Maybe he took a break from being a computer expert for a little while!).  To not be able to prevent a PC connecting to his own host PC seems laughable, for a man of his supposed qualifications.

Now let’s look at what we do know………..

From his own website:

I am listed (under ad Litem) as a checked expert on computer systems in the Expert Witness Directory (formerly, the Law Society Directory of Expert Witnesses). This register operates vetting procedures to ensure that persons registered are suitably qualified and experienced

So where is Clem or Ad Litem when you do a search here:

http://www.legalhub.co.uk/legalhub/app/main?ao=o.Ie2a652a002c711db85b9d734e660a063&rs=BOL1.0&vr=1.0&bctocguid=I369f4260639711dba7e5e11db8d74eba&ststate=S;S&linktype=toc

Still declaring yourself as a certified expert witness on your website whilst you’re not listed on the legal hub website is wrong.

Email from Adam Glen to Andrew Crossley dated 20/08/2010 15:29:

Whilst I have been unable to establish or find a standard for the protection of evidence in civil cases I am concerned that I have not seen any statement from an expert witness that the evidence cannot be altered or modified in any manner.

Clem Vogler was the “Expert Witness” for Davenport Lyons AND ACS:Law, and it must be that his test on the software was clearly inadequate.

Adam Glen didn’t seem to like Clem Vogler really, including getting his surname wrong with this email to Andrew Crossley dated 24/08/2010 09:15:

You know my view on the quality of Clem Vogeler’s expert witness statement and what I perceive as the opportunity it provides to serious challenge.

This all points to some major concerns by Adam Glen that Clem Vogler is not a good “Expert Wiitness”.

From the GEIL Court case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

Both Mr Vogler and Mr Torabi have qualifications in information technology, and both give evidence about the operation of software used to monitor P2P filesharing, which is clearly a field requiring technical expertise.

Remember the above statement, it will be important later!

Mr Vogler explains he did not have Xtrack installed on his computer, and did not concern himself with how it worked, but treated it as a “black box”. He simply presented it with inputs, namely his test files, and examined the outputs to see if they corresponded to his inputs. He was satisfied that they did correspond.

What on earth does that statement say about how you perform your duty as an expert witness?  You do not install the software.  You do not concern yourself with how it works.  Could that be considered enough of a test to show that a true test has been done to verify that the software does what it should do?

Now for a real look at real evidence that Clem Vogler is no “expert witness”.  The following paragraphs and snippets are taken from a Google-translated German website that relates to Clem Vogler providing an expert witness statement for Guardaley GmbH (Yep the very people that ACS:LAWs Terence Tsang was setting up to replace…Ali Torabi) (The translation is not perfect, but is easily understood):

In essence, Mr. Clement Charles Vogler has carried out only a few functional tests, and not even these independent, but always in very close cooperation of the client. The results of these tests, he arrives at conclusions that seemed logical to him, without him being an expert in the relevant field. Even these few test cases were carried out according to his statements with “very small files”, which of course is extremely unrealistic and not even close to a real-mode, the software will meet.

“I’m not an expert in this field”

“Under these assumptions specified by him, the statement of his report, however, is not seriously usable”

In essence, Mr. Clement Charles Vogler has only performed a few functional tests, and this is not even independent, but always in very close cooperation of the client.

The results of these tests, he arrives at conclusions that seemed logical to him, that he was no expert in the relevant field.

Even these few test cases were carried out, according to his statements with “very small files”, which is extremely unrealistic, of course, and not approach a real operation of your software needs.

The questions put to him were answered only partially. Much remains open.

“Overall, his “investigations” totally unfit to occupy a general accuracy of the disputed software.  They could, if they had been since conducted independently and correctly, the correct functioning of the software THAN find in this particular case tests.  Since these test cases, however, does not approach the real conditions comply, they were not conducted independently and not with the necessary expertise, even this statement is not tenable.”

It is interesting that Mr. Clement Charles Vogler notes in his few test cases and constant participation of the client for a time difference of up to 2 seconds

To paraphrase a quote attributed to Clem Vogler by a Judge, I like the way this article put it!

We have found ONE directory that lists Vogler as an “Expert Witness”, however it is for “Construction Issues”, specifically, “Electrical and electronic engineering” Hmmmm,

Mr Vogler is a diverse character, although we have found no evidence of him being a “Sweet and Maxwell” certified “Expert Witness” as he claims, he most certainly is a long distance runner, he seems to also specialise in books with regard to “Fine Printing, Intaglio And Relief Engraving, Non-Photographic Illustration, Private Press”  in the guise of an online bookshop,  through newsgroups and even contributing to the merits of nuclear risks of contaminating sea water, with sodium coolant (Not kidding) and vivisection…. As well as reviewing Microphones! Phew!

A Chartered Physicist:

Your interesting news story about the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear site in Scotland (May pp12–13) noted that the liquid-sodium coolant was, (unsurprisingly), highly radioactive. But you go on to say that the metal is treated so that it can be safely disposed of into the sea as salt water. I am puzzled by this. Either the half-lives of the various isotopes present are short enough to ensure decay to safe levels before release, or they are not. In the former case, why dispose of a valuable metal for which there are various industrial uses? If the latter, then disposal as sea water will cause radiological contamination.
Clem Vogler

The liquid sodium–potassium (NaK) metal alloy from the reactor goes through a separation process that leaves us with some lightly contaminated liquid that can be discharged to sea, while the “filters” that have extracted much of the radioactivity are stored as radioactive waste. In technical terms, the NaK is reacted with water in a nitrogen atmosphere to produce a solution of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. This liquor also contains enormous levels of radioactive fission products, dominated by caesium-137 (many other fission products have now decayed away since the reactor has been shut down since 1977). The caustic solution is neutralized with nitric acid and passed through two custom-built ion-exchange columns to remove the radioactivity. The liquor is then discharged to sea as sodium nitride and potassium nitrate in water, while the ion-exchange columns concentrate the radioactivity for ultimate storage as intermediate-level solid waste. Radioactively contaminated NaK has no commercial value and the contamination cannot be readily removed until the material is in an aqueous phase.
Colin Punler, Dounreay Communications

Now I am no Chartered Physicist, but Clem questioned their story and the reply was enough for me to think that it was a silly question to ask!

Technical Partner at Ad Litem:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04354109

Ad Litem Ltd
Registration Date: 16/01/2002
Registration Number: 04354109
Type: Private Limited Company
Company Status: Dissolved

Technically speaking, you can’t be Technical Partner of a dissolved company.

Database Writer:

(See A Computer Expert above)

Runner:

http://reephamrunners.webs.com/apps/profile/81869688/

http://www.derehamrunners.co.uk/news/archive/the-year-to-date

We also had John Richardson in the V55 class placed 6th 25:37, in V60 an excellent run by Clem Vogler to finish 3rd in class 21:00, Tony Bastard 7th 23:28 and Ernie Bradshaw 8th 24:33

Too easy!!!!!

Expert Witness:

It would be difficult to verify all consultancies that are listed simply because of the number of years that have passed.  But finding any that can be verified is all too difficult!

GQS Solicitors (Birmingham) Dec 2006 Vehicle Fraud

Google “GQS Solicitors” “Vehicle Fraud” and you get one website, adlitem.co.uk.  Not one website anywhere that suggest that GQS has ever been involved in a vehicle fraud case.

David Phillips Solicitors (Manchester) Jun 2005 Immigration Fraud

Google “David Phillips Solicitors” “Immigration Fraud” and you get one relevant website, adlitem.co.uk.  Not one website anywhere that suggest that DPS has ever been involved in an immigration fraud case.

Rigby & Co Solicitors (Middlewich) Sept 2007 Software

Now what that means I don’t know and is meaningless to try and find anything about that case!

All of the above is questionable until evidence can back it up.

This rounds up what we know so far, It will be updated whenever it can be.

UPDATE 1: Clem Vogler requested that the image of himself taken from a WordPress.com Blog should be removed from this one using a DMCA takedown. we did not fight the decision, on the grounds that we believe his request has visually improved this particular post, and we thank him!

EDIT: If YOU receive a letter from Golden Eye International, then contact your local Citizens Advice Center.  Citizens Advice Consumer Service (08454 04 05 06) or your local Citizens Advice Bureau  And of course post comments here or on the Slyck forums!

Witholding the Truth with ACS:LAW

NO EVIDENCE

NO COURT CASES

NOTHING

ACS:LAW has not released ANY information past ambiguous statements regarding their “Willingness” to go to Court.  They are now the Record Holder for MOST amount of complaints received by the Solicitor Regulation Authority.

Now a number of Plusnet Subscribers targeted by ACS:LAW have politely asked and continued to ask WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? In regard to a section of the NPO order. Section 11 reads:

“Within six months of the date of disclosure referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued.”

Well so far NOTHING.  ACS:LAW don’t care, what you think or what anyone else thinks.  That is because they have NO REPUTATION to protect.  ACS:LAW are Andrew Crossley….PERIOD, and Andrew Crossley has more than once left his “Sole Practice” to join other Solicitors (see this as well) 2, I would be VERY surprised if this will happen again, but then his Para-Legal Terence Tsang is now at Cramer Pelmont so these things can and do happen.

I look forward to seeing an ISP standing up against ACS:LAW and actually asking them “WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE” I am sure this is going to happen, but it will ONLY happen when the ISPs actually KNOW that we the subscribers to their service are DISGUSTED with the actions of ACS:LAW.  (TALK TALK did this of course and have been vocal opponents of this Scheme).  Andrew Crossley must NOT be allowed to walk away unpunished from this debacle.

The sheer arrogance of this man knows no bounds. he has already bragged  that in 11 Months he has pulled in close to a MILLION Pounds

So Mr Crossley it is past 6 months, so WHERE is the Information that you were ORDERED to release showing HOW many people received a letter, and HOW many people you took to Court to recover the money you demanded?

I would wager that there is NONE that has been taken to Court.  If this is the case then ALL the ISPs in this Country should recognise that your SCHEME is NOTHING to do with the Creative Industries but merely to line your own pockets and that of your friends.

This whole mess MUST be tidied up and soon.  The woefully slow moves of the SRA seem to be coming to a conclusion and I can only hope that they will see fit to hand down a HEAVY punishment, although of course we still await the “Davenport 2″ Punishment.

You never did respond to my open letter did you Mr Crossley! I guess you were to busy counting your money, pried from the hands and mouths of frightened people who have been sold out by their ISPs.

Tilly Bailey & Irvine – Speculative Invoicing Letters – Follow ACS:LAW

Well it HAD to happen, another greedy Solicitor representing the Porn Industry has followed the lead of Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW and issued letters blackmailing asking innocent people to cough up £800 for downloading some horrendous Pornography that no-one has ever heard of but with such a provoctive title that rather than talk to their family about it they feel compelled to pay these swindlers  Solicitors their hard earned cash.  DONT DO IT!

Here is an example of one of their letters, of course with the personal details left out!

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Chief Master Page 1

Chief Master Page 2

Labour MP Jon Trickett condems Money Grabbing Solicitors

Jon Trickett has condemned as extortion the actions of ACS LAW a Solicitors sending out speculative invoices and trying to scare people into paying them.

Warning from MP over bogus legal letters Local MP Jon Trickett has urged his constituents to keep an eye out for letters they may receive from seemingly legitimate law firms. Jon Trickett said: It’s been brought to my attention that a number of my constituents have received threatening letters from a law firm demanding that they pay considerable sums of money for ‘illegally downloading’ material, such as films, games and music. I have referred all such cases on to the Solicitors Regulation Authority who are currently looking into the firm in question, but I would urge anyone who gets anything similar through the post to either seek independent legal advice or contact my office. Such firms can only get any money out of you by taking you to court and if you have genuinely not broken the law then you have nothing to worry about! I find it disgraceful that anyone should attempt to extort money out of people, particularly in a time of such economic uncertainty and I will continue to push the consumer and regulatory authorities to take tough action when anyone is found to be acting in such a way.

See his Website here and send him a Thankyou for standing up against these bullies. http://www.jontrickett.org.uk/

‘Illegal downloading’ cash demand shock

A GREAT article about ACS LAW a Solicitors “Currently under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  In this article is seems that we have an MP following the lead of the LORDS in condemning and actually making a stand against these bottom feeding algae eaters.

See the FULL Article here http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/news/Illegal-downloading-cash-demand-shock.6101007.jp

ACS:LAW Changed the Registration of their Web Address SO? Well just like to keep a cache

Below are the TWO registered addresses for ACS LAW.  The First one appears to be a residential address of Terence Tsang.  The second is a Rented Office, rented from AVANTA http://www.avanta.co.uk/UK/offices/Hanover-Square-W1S-1JY

(I know that certain members of the movement against ACS LAW have conversed with Terence Tsang accusing me of invasion of his privacy and encouraging him to press charges for harrassment (You know who you are) , I feel however that this after discussing this with Legal Advisors that this  is PUBLIC DOMAIN Information and is covered under the FAIR USE Law). 

The OLD Address

Rupert Law Close

Domain name:
acs-law.org.uk

Registrant:
Terence Tsang

Registrant type:
Unknown

Registrant’s address:
Rupert LAw
Quorn
Leics
LE12 8PE

GB

Registrar:
Total Web Solutions Ltd t/a Total Registrations [Tag = TOTALREG]
URL: http://www.totalregistrations.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 09-Apr-2009
Renewal date: 09-Apr-2011
Last updated: 14-Apr-2009

Registration status:
Registration request being processed.

Name servers:
ns1.dfsv61.com
ns2.dfsv61.com

The NEW Address

Domain name:
acs-law.org.uk

Registrant:
Terence Tsang

Registrant type:
Unknown

Registrant’s address:
ACS Law Solicitors, 18 Hanover Square
London
Greater London
W1S 1HX
United Kingdom

Registrar:
Total Web Solutions Ltd t/a Total Registrations [Tag = TOTALREG]
URL: http://www.totalregistrations.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 09-Apr-2009
Renewal date: 09-Apr-2011
Last updated: 08-May-2009

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
ns1.dfsv61.com
ns2.dfsv61.com

ACS LAW send out Phishing Questionnaires UPDATED

Page 1

Page 2

Acs Law continue its War of attrition against the British Public and their latest round of “Speculative Invoices” seems to contain a rather Sinister Questionnaire.  Please take a look and let me know what you think. 

I believe myself they are terribly unprofessional forms, starting with either a “5″ or a “15″ in place of  “1″.  It also seems that ACS LAW want to persue or at least ask wether the person would be willing to allow their PC to be inpected by forensic analysis.  Very Interesting

Of course what these forms REALY mean is that ACS LAW dont have enough information and believe you to be stupid enough to supply them the information with which to attack you again

Beingthreatened have produced an additional chapter to their EXCELLENT “Speculative Invoicing” Booklet please see here http://bit.ly/bonusquestio

Also had an EXCELLENT Spoof Questionnaire sent to me from ACS:FLAW Please see it here  Fishing Questionnaire

ACS LAW in the MEDIA

Yes finally it seems those merry scamsters legitimate Solicitors are getting a lot of focus in the Mainstream Media.  No word yet from ACS LAW apart from the usual bullying threats of being taking to Court for Slander and other such allegations.  Terence Tsang we know you want to defend Andrew but come on…..

Anyway here is the list

Law firm’s piracy hunt condemned

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm

BPI rejects scareletter approach to possible pirates

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/scare_letter_file_sharing/

ACS:Law-type scams ‘big business’

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34736

BPI slams law firm chasing illegal file-sharers

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3211410

BPI Rejects Piracy Threat Letters and Slams Large Profit Making UK ISPs

 http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-scheme-a-scam-legal-blackmail-say-uk-lords-100128/

Received a letter from ACS LAW? Dont panic

 

Those lovely playful scamsters

 Here are a few links to get acquainted with those who accuse you of file sharing. This is a scam legitimate business model!!!!

Click here for help at the Beingthreatened website*

An Anti ACS Blog http://sites.google.com/site/acsillegalsite

Click here for some background on ACS LAW
and their cronies

Click here to go to the SLYCK Forums
concerning this subject

A YOUTUBE Channel dedicated to highlighting ACS LAW

ACS BORE Facebook group

LOGISTEP IP TRACKERS Facebook group

http://twitter.com/ACS_LAW_ILLEGAL  (seems a great point to gather)

A Portal for LOTS of Links (Where this text was taken from) http://acslawscammers.bravehost.com/index.html

*I have NO connection with Beingthreatened and do NOT speak for them.  They ARE the first port of call for those receiving a letter from ACS LAW.  I have no connection with any of the other links, I merely wish to promote their popularity as a way of defeating ACS LAW and their practices against innocent people.

The setup

A group of Solicitors in cahoots with so called “Forensic” Experts using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza are targeting peoples IP addresses for illegal downloads. Now this so far seems quite reasonable right?  I mean it is only fair that people who create games and films should be able to gain money for their work and effort, I have no problem with such a principle.

ACS LAW took over from Davenport Lyons and started to send out their “letters” in early 2009, backed by Digiprotect, Digirights, and Logistep, and at the time of writing, employing Andrew Crossley, Terence Tsang (Ex Davenport Lyons) and one of their Chums Lee Bowden from Piri Ltd they seek to send out over 15,000 threatening demands for cash in the New Year.  

The Modus Operandi

 This has happened all over Europe, for this website I will focus on the UK ops.  Davenport Lyons a well respected Solicitors at the time sullied their name with this tawdry affair.  The Problem?  Well an IP does NOT identify an individual, sure it is allocated to an individual in some ways but it is not foolproof by any means.

Received a letter from Terence Tsang Andrew Crossley and Lee Bowden of Piri, LTD Accusing people of infringing copyright by sharing files via file sharing p2p.

The so called “Top Companies” on their roster of Clients include Reality Pump, Techland, Topware, and Zuxxez  using “Forensic evidence” from Digiprotect. and Logistep