Archive

Posts Tagged ‘martin levinson’

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Tilly Bailey and Irvine” Stop sending “Speculative Invoices” to save their Reputation

April 10, 2010 11 comments

 

amitten2.jpg  Tilly Bailey and Irvine who started to emulate ACS:LAW in sending out “Speculative Invoices” to people asking them to “Pay up or be sued” have apparently halted their operations as it appears that the negative publicity is harming their other businesses.

Tilly Bailey & Irvine actually threatened to enforce the debt collection AGAINST the Property of the person accused.

We estimate that collectively such costs would be several thousand pounds. In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property.” 

Extract from   TBI letter

You can see the letter to one such person here (letter from Tilly Bailey & Irvine)  The Solicitors specialise in  illegally file-shared pornographic material copyrighted by Golden Eye (International) Limited.

I have tried to contact Tilly Bailey & Irvine, as have others with the same result, NO REPLY, indeed they have actually Blocked my Twitter account and my Youtube Channel.  This I find is a shame, as I am very courteous and polite and only want to know the truth and defend those who are falsely accused.  I do NOT believe that this is a way for a Solicitor to act.  Before you wonder why I believe they would respond to someone they believe is a “Pressure Group” I have also tried to contact them via straight email, but nothing.

I feel that it is NOT right for Tilly Bailey and Irvine to merely withdraw for COMMERCIAL reasons while still maintaining they were morally right in what they were doing.  IF they had apologised that would have been different.

We are left with a situation where Amanda Mitten with the collaboration of her Seniors has THREATENED peoples homes and livelihoods with NO EVIDENCE released, NO WAY for the person to defend themselves unless they bankrupted themselves to pay for a Solicitor.

This is why I believe Tilly Bailey and Irvine should NOT be allowed to rebuild their shattered reputation, UNTIL they accept that what they have done is “Conduct unbecoming a Solicitor” I hope the SRA will investigate.  To threaten to take someone’s home without evidence based on some foreign surveillance is an OUTRAGE.

One further amusing aspect of just how far they went to try to SILENCE their critics was this following extract regarding their attempt to “Vandalise” the Wikipedia Website

So, how do we know it was TBI doing the editing? Because they were smart enough to edit it from 195.153.132.204, the IP address registered to their company.

“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,” added the award-winning user, Rlandmann. From Torrentfreak Article.

 

So What do YOU think?

EDIT: I cannot actually list ANY of the titles of the Films that Tilly Bailey and Irvine represent as they are to Pornographic to post on WordPress.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 295 other followers