A Simple Hope For Everyone

ACS:Bore is still here.

In this time we are in with this worldwide pandemic of covid-19, I would like to wish everyone to be safe, well and be in the best of health.

My heart goes out to those who have lost a loved one because of covid-19.

I would like to think that because of this pandemic which has affected this whole planet we all live in, all those who inhabit this world would try to appreciate each other for the stresses we all have had to bear.

You may be here reading this post as a result of searching for TCYK, The Company You Keep, Golden Eye International Limited, Ben Dover and many others.

If you are here because you searched for help because of a recent letter of claim, or any legal letter because of any claim of copyright infringement, you can contact me at bpaw69@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Goldeneye International expose how desperate they are – many laugh in disbelief

Order Kemble v TCYK Highlighted(Late Post)

“Goldeneye International” (cough), the pornography Copyright Troll vehicle setup by Lindsay Honey (Ben Dover) and his partner Julien Becker (Optime Strategies) , has been struggling for relevance for some time now.

Most of us, thought they had slunk away, after wringing what little left there was from people frightened by the prospect of being taken to Court, by a bunch of shady looking Porn people. But now Goldeneye, have showed their hand, and it screams DESPERATION.

The Blog, Torrentfreak, has covered this better than I have the time, or ability to do, at the moment (or ever), but here are a few points I would like to highlight.

The case of Mr Kemble et al, who was taken to Court by Hatton & Berkeley, the UK copyright troll front used by the USA company of lame films Tcyk LLC, (Voltage Pictures), bears NO RELATION with the Goldeneye accusations at all. I mean ok, there are links between the companies, too coincidental to dismiss, but apart from that, the actual case cited, no. You see Mr Kemble, didn’t admit to actually infringing copyright, but did say, that “he guessed it could have been someone in the house.”, sadly, by the time he got to the “Reply, Deny, Repeat”, mantra, that all innocent people should, it was to late. Hatton & Berkeley, pounced.

Now when I say pounced, I mean it wasn’t that dramatic, their Head Robert Croucher had just served time in Prison for beating a Taxi Driver to a pulp, witnessed by the Private Members club doormen, who had just refused him and his gf entry to the club, Croucher was released under mysterious circumstances shortly into his sentence, (rumours that his wailing was upsetting the other prisoners, are unfounded), they needed a case, the laughter of the Anti Troll movement, had grown deafening, like the people they followed, ACS:LAW, they took Mr Kemble to Court, but it was a technicality, NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Mr Kemble was fined £1000, but the conditions of the case were that there was NO LIABILITY accepted on any side.

Now, imagine, if H&B had actually taken a person to Court, argued they had infringed copyright, presented actual evidence and then the person was found guilty, imagine the noise, you would hear, the crowing from the rooftops, did you hear any? No, me neither, indeed, so embarrassing was it, that Mr Croucher seems to have been forced out the company, and the reference to the “Kemble case”, is no longer listed on the H&B website.

So, along comes GEIL, sending their letters to people they have already harassed, attempting to stoke up fear with this useless comparison. Again, IF GEIL had a case, they would use it, not infer some “similar case”. It is as I said it was, smoke and mirrors.

If you receive a letter from GEIL from a Julien, Jools, Brenda, Jabba or whoever, REPLY, DENY, and ask them if this is not now harassment, you have denied, they said they would revert to you, and now they are bringing in an unconnected case, and dressing it up as something it inst to scare you into thinking, “Ohhh, I could get done for £1000, or I just could pay them the £500.”, don’t pay the blackmailers.

Remember, Hatton & Berkeley, with the weight of a dubious Hollywood producer, and the fact that the letter recipient had admitted infringement, but then withdrew, as he had not authorised infringement, or infringed himself, could only manage to get a £1000 fine, for a technicality, rather than the actual infringment. For me the astonishing part of the summing up, is in the highlighted portions that I have prepared for you, in that, there is NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, one would have thought that Hatton & Berkeley, would not have stood for that, it seems they had no choice.

Reply, Deny, Repeat. Do NOT be afraid, Stand Strong

(For more current updates, come join us at Slyck Forums.

Posted in Golden Eye International, Hatton & Berkeley, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Copyright Troll Robert Croucher ditches companies?

It is a strange irony, or perhaps it is just the fickle hand of fate, maybe it is someone who recognises their time as a credible company director is gone, maybe it is what some call karma, or maybe it is someone acting in a way that reeks of dubious intentions, given the past declarations, tweets, half truths, and outright bluffs I would argue it is the latter.

Robert (Edwin) Croucher formerly Company Director of Hatton&Berkely and many many others, has resigned a large number of Directorships, after being convicted of a vicious assault on a defenceless Uber driver, back in September 2016. Whilst it has been established that Croucher didn’t serve beyond two-weeks of his sentence only a whingeing pathetic press release has been seen by Torrentfreak. Read it here, it is worth it for the chutzpah 

As has been documented on here, Mr Croucher, has an impulsive desire to engage in Twitter arguments, that approaches Trumpian idiocy (Accusing the doormen at Raffles of being Drug addicts). We believe If a person is going to lie, they should actually make sure that the evidence to the contrary is not so readily available to make one seem foolish, this is what happened to Mr Croucher, and it seems he has pulled the plug on many of his directorships, dissolving many companies, and seemingly cutting ties with Hatton&Berkeley. Do we believe he HAS cut ties? Nope, of course not, this will be again be exposed as obfuscation. It seems that most of the companies have now been left in the sole directorship of a Ms Bridgitta Kudor, Mr Crouchers partner at the time of the assault, who was present at the time.

One other curiosity that was raised by a purported ex employee, although I could not establish evidence for this, is the following discrepancies on the Company Register database at Companies House, for a company of Crouchers and a fellow Director of Hatton and Berkeley.. This shows a shocking lack of oversight that could lead to many more scammers exploiting the company creation rules.


Name: MILLER, Douglas W

Correspondence address: Suite 4b, 43 Berkeley Square, London, United Kingdom, W1J 5FJ

Role Director (Resigned)

Date of birth: January 1970

Appointed: 8 December 2014

Resigned: 16 March 2015

Nationality American

Country of residence: United Kingdom

Occupation: Director


Name: MILLER, Douglas Willard

Correspondence address: 43 Berkeley Square, London, England, W1J 5AP

Role: Director

Date of birth:February 1963

Appointed: 16 March 2015

Nationality British

Country of residence: England

Occupation: Director

Now, are we talking of TWO individuals? Really? a, Douglas W Miller, an American born in January 1970, and another person called very similarly Douglas Willard Miller who was born in February 1963, incredible right?

If I had to put money on it of course I would say that it was the same person, but why the nonsense of resigning and being appointed the same day?

The table below is a brief table of companies dissolved and Directorships dissolved since his incarceration last September. Remember this is only a small selection of the overall amount of companies that Mr Croucher is a part of.

One other thing to note, Patrick Achache had a Shell company called Copyright Management services, that has been around for a while.  It was renamed from COPYRIGHT COLLECTIONS LTD back in 2016, and moved its address to the same as Hatton and Berkeley.. What is interesting, is not the fact that Two trolls are working together, we already knew that, but that Copyright Management Services Ltd have resigned from yet another shell called H&B Administration LLP. Strange.

Take a look at the image and feel free to join us and comment at Slyck Forums 


Updates on here are slow, as I believe that Copyright Trolling is being defeated in the UK.

I am NOT affiliated with Slyck Forums, but I do like to hang out there!
Posted in Hatton & Berkeley, maverickeye | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Croucher Tiger, Hits An Uber Driver – Crouch End, Bell End, Implodes

Robert Croucher

Croucher Tiger, Uber Driver


Catching up with Croucher, the “Bellend from Crouch end”

It started with a simple conversation between two world weary comrades, fighting Copyright Trolls and discussing the latest one Mr Robert Croucher, who had been arrested and then banged up for beating an Uber driver outside of an elite (elitist) Gentleman’s club in London. We had mused how a man such as Mr Croucher could ever be admitted to such an establishment, even as a “Plus One” (turns out he wasn’t).

We had began to discuss how just before he was pulled crying to the cells to start his incarceration, why he had begged the Magistrate not to imprison him, as he was such a hotshot and his business encompassed thousands of people all over the Country and whom without his, to be fair, rather dubious experience, would die and wither away. My comrade Bpaw, had pointed out that the very fact he had no faith in any of his staff to carry the company forward in his absence demonstrated what he thought of them all. It may not have been such a good idea, mentioning Ms Juliet Takacs in the message, although she had already piped up in a different thread, attempting to legitimise the conduct of the scam that is Copyright Trolling.

Suddenly after just a few interactions, in which she tried to justify the indefensible, Ms Takacs had disappeared, and Robert Croucher had appeared, we thought, ..”that’s odd, he is in prison… right?”, I mean 20 weeks had not elapsed, it was a valid thought, a reasonable conclusion that Bobby “Basher” Croucher was still in prison for his “vicious” assault on a taxi driver, whose only crime it seemed was to be there to witness the embarrassment of Croucher throwing his weight around and screaming and shouting about flats he had built in Mayfair in front of his Hungarian girlfriend, and the bemused doormen of the Gentleman’s club he had tried but failed to get into.

What followed, we did not expect, could NOT have predicted, the seemingly flaky, thin skinned Mr Croucher, seemed to lose his sh*t is the only way I can describe it.

Mr Croucher engaged in several days of exchanges, railing about how life always goes his way, and how great he is, my colleague pointed out he was in prison for serious assault, to which he responded, “You think I am in Prison”, this seemed a fairly reasonable point to make as it had been all over the local press 2 and also the Register, the BBC the Scum, and other press outlets had covered the attack and sentencing.

Mr Croucher pointed out that we should, “watch out for a High Court Judgement that had gone against us” coming up in the following weeks, having not been summoned to the High Court I could be quite assured whatever the case was, it had nothing to do with me, or any of my other colleagues. Mr Croucher hit out at the doormen at the Gentlemen’s Club outside of which he had assaulted the Uber driver so viciously that they had to intervene, calling them “Drug Dealers”, or “Extortionists”, as you can imagine, pretty heavy accusations to make from an average joe in the street, but from a big shot CEO of a Mayfair company? Bizarre

Torrentfreak published an account of how Croucher had been released and an extract of a press release, I am guessing this was done to try and show the World that Hatton&Berkeley are some kind of company of distinction, as opposed to the collection of “scum sucking bottom feeding algae eaters” as some others have commented, including a Mr D.N.Ukem (tongue_in_cheek). The article is an interesting read, the Press release is laughable if it was meant to be serious, attempting to paint the doormen who intervened in his assault on Mr Hussein as “Drug dealers” and “extortionists”, and that he Croucher was taking advise on prosecuting the doormen at the club AND the victim of his beating.

Around this time was news breaking that in the US Hatton and Berkeleys partner Patrick Achaches (Maverickeye) other shell company Guardaley had been caught up in such fraudulent behaviour that the Federal authorities could be investigating them.

Into the New Year and we we now have a situation where Robert Croucher, has RESIGNED from his Hatton & Berkeley companies, and his Hungarian partner Ms Brigitta (or Brigite) Kudor has been appointed as sole Director in his place. Ms Kudor was with Mr Croucher at the assault on the Uber Driver, so it isn’t like it is a clean break for reputation purposes, it is just odd.

Even stranger than all this is the fact that one of the Companies has gone into LIQUIDATION and had its name changed, and a different company has had its name CHANGED to seemingly protect the name of the company. This may be legitimate, although I doubt it, the timing is though outrageous.

It turns out the official receiver has shut down one company due to a debt to Office Angels this company used to be called CMI BUSINESS GROUP LTD – Croucher changed the name of it to COLLINS MAXWELL INWRAP LTD company number 09387353 prior to the receiver getting involved. An attempt to hide what had happened.


He’s then used Brigitte (Kudor) to form a replacement company with the old name CMI BUSINESS GROUP LTD company number 10523070 to attempt to evade the official receiver further and continue trading:


A contributor to the cause is quoted as saying;”I’m fairly sure this is a criminal offence on both their parts as official receiver must be complied with by law and all company assets surrendered when placed in liquidation.”. We here at ACS:BORE, cannot verify the legality of this, but it was described as, “a bit whiffy” by a Lawyer we contacted.

This paints a picture of a man and a business out of control.

(We have included the tweet exchanges as evidence of a kind, sadly the tweets were deleted by Mr Croucher, or someone acting for him, (more likely), and so what we have is from archive.  It should at least show the kind of people we are dealing with.)

UPDATE: Seems the tweets were offline, thanks Strawman, for the heads up.

Posted in Hatton & Berkeley, maverickeye | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Copyright Trolls launch another pathetic attempt to smear Lawdit

You may remember when TCYK LLC, (headed by the rather vile and unstable Nicholas Chartier, in partnership with Maverick Eyes Patrick Achache and Robert Croucher, the “Uber Taxi drivers head kicking thug” honcho of Hatton & Berkeley) last tried to smear Lawdit with their lies. An email was sent sorry, leaked, by Patrick Achache to a Pornographer, that seemingly showed that one of Lawdits Lawyers were offering their services to the Copyright Troll, when he was working with ACS:LAW. The email was used by one of the Goldeneye Internationals Porn Trolls to cast a bad light, on the Lawfirm that has now battled these trolls and those like them for nearly 10 years, offering assistance to those who feel they have been innocently targetted. It was pointed out to the Troll, that there was no context to the email and that it appeared to be missing important information. None was forthcoming and it was seen to be as it was, a ludicrous smear attempt.

Now we have a blog post from a blog, of anonymous people. (It has been suggested it may be run by certain members of the USA Trolls, both of whom have worked not so co-incidentally with the Achache German enterprise)

The Blog post uses terms that have been applied to the Trolls, in a classic attempt at “Reframing”. The motion did indeed fail, and Mr Coyle of Lawdit readily accepts that, HOWEVER the motion was NOT to stop TCYK LLC pursuing their Trolling as has been reported in the blog post, but only that specific case, and that was on perceived irregularities in the case. The Blog also details claims of how Lawdit, defends, in the Trolls usually confused way, “fact that Lawdit Solicitors are representing pirates, who illegally download content – more simplistically or more simply put, steal films “ No, they represent those innocently targeted. This blog as usual talks from a USA legal system, there is no theft involved, it is a CIVIL case, if it were theft, why have they not upped this to a CRIMINAL court and shown all their evidence?

The assertion that Lawdit were attempting to somehow defraud or act in an improper manner, is simply silly to anyone who has spent a short time dealing with Lawdit. The £90 contribution from “letter recipients”, has always been to allow those access to representation, It was never going to cover the actual work that Lawdit put in to this, the fact that the monies has been given to Charity, despite the fact that the case was not actually won, I believe shows what a great lot they are, in stark contrast the words of Mr Chartier I think shows the type of person we sometimes have to deal with. Remember, Hatton & Berkeley, Goldeneye International and TCYK LLC have all been denounced as “Villains and Scammers”, in the House of Lords

I will reproduce part of the original blog post, AND the response from Lawdit, for accuracy purposes.

Please read below

As part of the Application to strike out the Claimant’s Claim out, Lawdit Solicitors submitted a Statement of Costs for £12,387. However, as the Judge pointed out, Lawdit Solicitors openly advertise their legal services for copyright infringement cases for the sum of £90. Michael Coyle explained that the firm has been funding their efforts against TCYK LLC from donations, yet they were still looking to ‘double dip’. After further questions, the Judge enquired if Mr. Coyle’s client was going to pay the £12,387 cost if the application got was denied. To this, Mr. Coyle failed to answer.


LAWDIT Response

My name is Michael Coyle the aforementioned Solicitor Advocate in the above post.

My application to strike out the TCYK claim on behalf of my Client was indeed unsuccessful.

My main thrust of the application was that TCYK’s claim was an abuse of process and I almost succeeded in this.  But I accept I failed to convince the Court.

TCYK’s claim was in the Intellectual Property’s Small Claims Court and usually there is no provision for a court to award Solicitor’s costs.  We believed though that TCYK’s conduct merited an award of costs and if we were successful in striking out the Claim I would have applied for my costs. As I did not succeed it follows that costs could not be awarded. I agree that the District Judge was not impressed as it was a large sum of money for a small claim and even if I were successful it is very rare for costs to be awarded in a small claims court but it was a worthy attempt.

I have written off this time and put it down to the rough and tumble of litigation.

One final point this speculative invoicing campaign by TCYK raised £21,410.50 in legal contributions all of which  went to the Get Kids Going Charity http://www.getkidsgoing.com/ – all donations welcome!

Thank you.


Posted in Hatton & Berkeley, Lawdit, tcyk, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Copyright Troll Robert Croucher cries as he is sent to jail for assault – New Update


Rober Croucher with a “Female Companion”

Robert Croucher, the head of Copyright Trolling outfit Hatton&Berkeley, who have been busy sending copyright trolling letters  to people in the UK, in a similar operation to disgraced Solicitors ACS:LAW has been sent to jail for assault on a Taxi Driver, Mohammed Hussein.

Croucher has been convicted for knocking a taxi driver to the floor and repeatedly kicking him in the head as he lay helpless on the ground. Croucher was out, it seems at the exclusive Raffles Nightclub in Chelsea, when the altercation took place. Croucher was in an argument with his female companion (Which one? -Ed), which sadly it seems for the taxi driver, escalated into violence against him.

Mr Hussain said: “I got out to open the door, and the gentlemen took the keys from through the window. He then slapped me. I was begging for my keys and he pushed me on the pavement.”

Magistrate Sandra Blandford said: “We find that you did kick Mr Hussain a number of times while he was on the floor, and one of those kicks was to the head.”

Croucher cried as he was sent down; “This will destroy my life, I am the director of a company, and everyone would lose their jobs.”

He was  ordered to pay £500 compensation, £620 costs and a £115 victim surcharge. (That’s ironic, that is how much Croucher was demanding from recipients of the Trolling letters- Ed) 1

“This will destroy my life, I am the director of a company, and everyone would lose their jobs.” He was  ordered to pay £500 compensation, £620 costs and a £115 victim surcharge.

Croucher it seems did not just reserve his arrogance and aloof nature to humble taxi drivers, but also it seems to the Exclusive establishments employees as well.

Raffles doorman Kristoff Kwiecien told the court Croucher had been rude to staff before the attack on June 9: “He said he had built four flats in Mayfair, and I could lose my job tomorrow.”

Considering Raffles is an invite only membership, the mind boggles as to what individual would have given an assurance for him, to join.

The case heard at Hammersmith, was as Newton hearing, In a Newton hearing a judge makes a decision about who is telling the truth without the presence of a jury because both sides have given such conflicting accounts of what has happened.  Here at ACS.Bore, we know from experience that Mr Croucher is a stranger to veritas.

We don’t usually report on such matters, but this really is one of those karmic events that one felt was coming one way or another. Croucher had beeing a bullying force in the Copyright Trolling movement in the UK, running a parallel operation to that of the Pornographers Goldeneye International.

The blog contains a lot of information about this individual, and his business practices.

His arrogance knows no bounds, he reported me to the Metropolitan Police, and threatened to sue me, for what was publishing publically available material.

“You and others have been sending false and defamatory Tweets to myself and worryingly the more junior female members of my staff, this is being reported to the MET Police as it is continued harassment (see Malicious Communications Act 1988), ….. I will ensure that you are put to maximum task with respect to issuing legal proceedings against you for ongoing harassment and defamation,”

This was patently ridiculous, and no proof again was offered. When asked for a comment by the Press, I responded with what now seems a prescient observation;

“I would not DREAM of harassing, ANY innocent person, whether they are young woman or men or pensioners. I would obviously leave that in [Croucher’s] more than capable hands, he has more experience at doing that than I,”

Croucher has had repeated run ins for false adverting with the ASA 2, and only a short time ago was described in the House of Lords along with others running the Copyright Troll scam, as a “Villain and scammer” (1:39)

How sad for Mr Hussain that he copped the inevitable consequences of a very unstable person.

Credit goes to Andy(Torrentfreak)
Strawman at Slyck

New Update – 24/09/16

More information has been given to a post from The Register which provides a shining light on Mr Robert Croucher, and quite frankly copyright trolls in general.  Raffles Nightclub in Chelsea provided a response to The Register to clarify what exactly happened that night and they also provided the evidence that led to Mr Robert Crouchers conviction:

The club wishes to issue a statement to clarify that Mr Croucher was refused entry to the club on the evening in question; Mr Croucher is not a member of the club, nor was he being accompanied by a member. Furthermore Mr Croucher was heavily intoxicated when he approached the club and became aggressive and abusive towards our staff upon refusal.

The club takes the upholding of the key licensing objectives very seriously and would like to praise the members of our security staff involved for their swift and decisive action. Their actions prevented what could have amounted to a far more serious injury to a member of the public just trying to do his job and facilitated Mr Croucher’s arrest and subsequent conviction.

Technology also played a key role as the body cameras worn and operated by our security staff incorporate audio recording, which, coupled with our CCTV, provided the club with necessary means to assist the police in full and to a satisfactory end.

What was previously considered that a copyright troll has a privileged lifestyle where he can hon-nob with high profile footballers, Royalty and even worse reality celebs (Wink!), it transpires that Mr Robert Croucher being “heavily intoxicated” tried to barge his way in to a very privileged club.

One can only deduce from this that a copyright troll, like Robert Croucher, consider themselves so important that they can gatecrash an exclusive club, and if not admitted, they can assault the very cab driver who is there to try and help them.

What is very telling from the Raffles statement is the evidence.  The evidence is CCTV and audio recordings.  Mr Robert Croucher denied kicking Mr Mohammad Hussein in the head, but real evidence proved otherwise and Mr Robert Croucher is quite rightly behind bars.

What irony!  Mr Robert Crouchers letter of claim victims are being “alleged” to have downloaded copyright material with the evidence of an IP address.  Mr Robert Croucher ignores those denials from his victims.  The evidence against Mr Robert Croucher is CCTV and audio recording.  Mr Robert Croucher denied kicking Mr Mohammad Hussein in the head.

ACS:Bore sends sympathies to Mr Mohammad Hussein having to be subjected to a despicable assault by Mr Robert Croucher just because he was doing his job.

Thanks Mr.Grey


Posted in Hatton & Berkeley, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Golden Eye International Ltd & TCYK LLC – The Court Jesters


Thanks Hickster.

This is a lengthy blog post, so I apologise for this and hope you don’t think tl;dr!

Speculative Invoicing is well recognised as being operated by questionable characters, creating questionable shell companies who operate very questionable tactics.

For what reason?

To take advantage of the British Legal system and obtain via a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”), without a warranted challenge to them in the High Court, Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) subscriber names and addresses.

What is their objective?

To send disproportionate and unrealistic settlement demands to those ISP subscribers. These settlement demands are sent in their Letter of Claims (“LoCs”) along with insufficient evidence to prove the ISP subscriber is the infringer.

The common narrative in all this, from the NPO applications in the High Court right through to their LoC campaign against unsuspecting ISP subscribers, is GEILs and TCYK LLCs promise to issue Court proceedings against an alleged infringer.


GEIL themselves, fronted by Julian Becker and Lindsay Honey (AKA Ben Dover), have a long history of speculative invoicing. Julian Becker was quoted in http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471 mentioning the promise of Court action:

Our initial letters in summary gave details of the infringements the software had detected, giving specific dates and times in addition to film titles. The letters then gave the recipient our legal position and encouraged them to contact us so that we could make an informed judgement on whether we would be pursuing the case through the courts or ceasing action. It also gave the recipient the option to admit the offence, financially settle the matter as well as committing to not re commit the offence.

The part that he says of “we could make an informed judgement on whether we would be pursuing the case through the courts or ceasing action” has two outcomes HE outlines. Either an ISP who denies the infringement will be judged whether GEIL pursues the case through Court OR cease action against the ISP subscriber.

Julian Becker goes on to say “It also gave the recipient the option to admit the offence, financially settle the matter as well as committing to not re commit the offence”.

This is a Director of GEIL saying that settlement demands would be sought against those ISP subscribers who admit the alleged infringement.

So to reiterate, Julian Becker says that those ISP subscribers who deny the alleged infringement (The opposite of admitting the alleged infringement) are to be judged whether to issue Court proceedings against them OR GEILs action against them will cease. Those who admit the alleged infringement negotiate a settlement.

Many thousands of ISP subscribers have received their Letters of Claim, and how many of those ISP subscribers who denied their claim have had Court proceedings issued to them?


So, to gain an NPO in the High Court and make such promises means these Copyright Trolls are consistently lying to a Judge.

So where does this leave the poor unfortunate ISP subscribers who deny the infringement? Are any of these cases dropped? And when I say dropped, I mean have any of these ISP subscribers had official notification that their case has been dropped from either GEIL or TCYK?

The answer again is NONE, NIL, ZIP…….NOT A SINGLE ONE.

The reality is going back to 2013 when GEIL were sending their LoCs against ISP subscribers, GEILs letters made reference to the possible consequences of Court action:

ISP subscriber second letter after denying infringement:


So this is GEIL referring to an ISP subscriber who denied their claim using a template letter provided in the Speculative Invoicing Handbook that there is an obvious threat from GEIL of Court proceedings being issued against the ISP subscriber.

ISP subscriber next letter after denying infringement again:


This is the first appearance of GEILs infamous “Revert to” letter which states the line:

We remain confident of our evidence against you, and will revert to you once your file has been reviewed and a decision has been made on whether to progress matters against you through the legal system.

One very important note on this is it didn’t matter how an ISP subscriber denied GEILs claim, they still received the same last letter. I chose the above images as examples, but I have seen many identical template replies from GEIL to ISP subscribers who did not use the Speculative Invoicing Handbook response but rather a more personalised denial to the alleged infringement.

So this “Revert to” letter from GEIL is three years old and leaves the recipient in a limbo situation where they are unsure whether GEIL will issue Court proceedings against them. I have never seen one single example letter from GEIL where they have sent a letter to an ISP subscriber where they say they have ceased their claim against them.

So out of the three possible scenarios outlined by Julian Becker where an ISP subscriber will have Court proceedings issued against them, or GEILs claim against the ISP subscriber will cease, or settlement negotiations commence with an ISP subscriber who admits the alleged infringement, I have not seen any evidence of this.

The only evidence I have seen is a non-negotiated settlement demand from GEIL to an ISP subscriber whether the alleged infringement is admitted or denied.

In other words, the hallmarks of a money making scam.

What is so despicable and totally unacceptable is when GEIL are unable to extract their settlement demands from an ISP subscriber, they leave the unfortunate ISP subscriber in limbo not knowing if Court proceedings will be issued against them.

In any other example where someone or an organisation makes unproven and unsubstantiated claims against an individual with threats which are never acted upon can only be seen as criminal. An individual can be arrested by merely making a threat on social media against another individual. GEIL have spent the last three years promising Court action in front of a Judge in the High Court, threatening ISP subscribers in their LoCs with Court action and in their final letter suggesting that they may issue Court proceedings against the ISP subscriber.

So GEIL in the three intervening years until recently have gone through the same process of obtaining NPOs under false pretence in the High Court, subjecting thousands of ISP subscribers with their unproven allegations with spurious claims of copyright infringement in LoCs and then constantly leaving ISP subscribers in limbo.

Where do GEIL go next?


Well, in January 2016, one of the producers who were represented by GEIL in an NPO hearing in March 2012 turns up on the Slyck forum, which is a haven of information and helpful people whose one goal is to help those ISP subscribers who are unable to fight GEILs tactics on their own.

The individual in question is Terence Stephens who trades under the name of One Eyed Jack (“OEJ”). His registration and subsequent arrival on the Slyck forum coincided with a new wave of LoCs being sent by GEIL.

Being a self-confessed supporter of GEIL, what is clearly seen by OEJ is his intention to intimidate those who have just received their first letter from GEIL. The Slyck forum has clearly been responsible for many ISP subscribers who received GEILs letters to not pay their settlement demands. As the Honourable Justice Arnold said at GEILs NPO Court case “Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum.”

What can only be understood here is on the Slyck forum we have concluded that the GEIL “Revert to” letter is GEILs last letter and no one receiving it should worry after that. In fact, many who did receive that letter professed a sense of glee and relief. Effectively the intention of threat that GEIL had with that letter had dissipated.

It is worth noting with OEJ he was very happy that GEIL were to pocket 75% of revenues from anyone who paid their settlement demands:

  1. i) Golden Eye had entered into agreements with the Other Claimants under which Golden Eye was not licensed by the copyright owner to do any of the acts restricted by the copyrights in the films, but only to “act for it in relation to any alleged breaches of copyright arising out of [P2P filesharing]”.

  2. ii) Those agreements typically provided for Golden Eye to receive 75% of the revenue (slightly less in some cases).

But, more importantly, OEJ pocketed 25% of such revenues.

The only person who posted on the Slyck forum who benefits financially out of all this is OEJ.

Is it about protecting copyright? Or is it financial gains?

Different Words, Same Meaning

Having examined GEIL, next is TCYK and their conduct.

TCYK llc is fronted by Patrick Achache, whilst aided and abetted by the Directors of H&B Administration LLP who are Robert Croucher and Brigetta Kudor.

This is where history and present combine. Patrick Achache has had a long history with speculative invoicing and it is a pity from me that Robert Croucher and Brigetta Kudor decided to align themselves with this character.

So how can TCYK llc be regarded as? Well, they had to send the same first LoC as GEIL had to. Their conduct since the first letter could be described as far more desperate. Why? Because they seem to make it up as they go along.


Yeah, weird isn’t it? “Few more days”, “to and fro”. Eh?

Seriously, Robert Croucher and Brigetta Kudor are just making themselves out to be so amateurish. Unfortunately, I have seen different versions of TCYKs letter which threatens either immediate Court summons or Solicitor letters. Each of them mentions a time limit, and when the time limit ends who gets action taken against them?


In my opinion, TCYK have seen where GEIL got themselves with the “Revert to” letter and realised they needed to make up some words that sounded more threatening.

In reality, GEIL and TCYK will never take an alleged infringer to Court who denies their allegations.

And why don’t they?


To do so, they used software called Maverik Monitor, which mimics the offering of a movie online without actually providing it, instead recording the details of who’s keen before dumping the connection and then presumably emitting an evil cackling noise.


Voltage Pictures, the claimant in the case, used software called Maverik Monitor, which mimics the offering of a movie online without actually providing it, instead recording the details of who intends to download the work before dropping the connection.

So TCYK use Maverick Eye and Maverik Monitor which “mimics” the offering of the movie?  Do TCYK know what they allege? They allege the ISP subscriber “sharing” their copyright.  How can anyone be accused of sharing some unknown film that what seems cannot be downloaded in the first place?

Come on Golden Eye International Limited and TCYK LLC. We want you to take an alleged infringer to Court who denies your allegation. Your letters suggest that you will do that if the ISP subscriber doesn’t pay your settlement demand.

The reality is this:

GEIL have the “Revert to” letter, and TCYK have the “Joke” letters.  None of their letters have any meaning or have any consequence.

Court Jesters are what they are. A Joke.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

View from the Lords “Copyright Trolls are villains and scammers”

lucas and the scammersLord Lucas, the Lord who led the charge against ACS:LAW during the Digital Economy Bill debates is back, and this time with what he considers the companies who are just as bad.   Speaking in the HOuse of Lord at the Second Hearing of the Unjustified Threats Bill, He states;

“These Villains are laughing at, and abusing the system, just as ACS did”

they are

“Shaking down internet users”, their “evidence is extremely suspect, and has never tested in court”

Hard hitting stuff, but he goes on;

“These Villains are laughing at, and abusing the system, just as ACS did”

Who are these companies? Why none other than the Copyright Trolls we have been highlighting and battling on this Blog for the last few years 2.

“If anyone comes across the names Hatton & Berkeley, Goldeneye International, Mircom International, Ranger Bay, TCYK, I really urge them to put their correspondence in the bin”

Lord Lucas goes on to say

“The current scammers aren’t pursuing anyone, just threats extortion and shaking people down”

I don’t think we could have put it better ourselves, indeed in a nod to the classic vampyric films of old, he states;

“..some careless person has dropped blood on the ashes of ACS, and the same scam is alive again”

I have been saying this since the first letters from Goldeneye started being sent out, it is nice to see the view vindicated.
He raises the idea of a sue or desist letter, where if after denying the allegation, further letters continue to arrive demanding money, as it seems is happening, then the recipient could trigger an action, that would either send the company to Court, or have them back down. This is an excellent idea, and I feel would indeed help an awful lot, in the cases where as it stands, a recipient can state they have not infringed, offer what proof you possible can in that situation, only to have their reply completely ignored, and have multiple letters sent demanding money.

The fact that some people have received up to FIVE letters after they have denied the allegation, is a disgrace, and an insult to our justice system.  These Trolls should put up or shutup.  This is another thing they have in common with ACS:LAW
I was asked to give a statement, to a News Blog, which I did. I post the link as it is has a lot more about the background to this speech.
See here for the video of part of Lord Lucas speech;

I am sure for anyone who has received a letter it will be VERY heartening.

Posted in Golden Eye International, Hatton & Berkeley, Lawdit, maverickeye, MICM, Mircom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patrick Achaches Cannes interview – A Response- Update 2

In this post, I will look at a peculiar Blog post that has been withdrawn, (cache here) (archived here). I mentioned the content of this piece and what I felt were awful inaccuracies to the Author on twitter. I got no response, and whether coincidence or not, the post was taken down shortly after.

I will keep the Authors questions and Achaches responses in the same colour (Grey), and my own response in black.

Interview with Patrick Achache, COO of Guardaley LTD, Law. For the past few years I have been seeing Patrick at all of the world’s most important film markets. At first I didn’t understand what he meant when he said his job was “internet policing” but then when he explained that he is part of a new legal initiative to track down and control internet piracy, I wanted to know more. How can this be done? (Interview by Vanessa McMahon)

I don’t know much about the author of this interview is, but they sure don’t know what due diligence is. If they had seen this parasite at “…all of the world’s most important film markets”, and “didn’t understand what he meant when he said his job was “internet policing”, then a cursory search on most popular search engines would reveal, that this role is very much self appointed and that it is not “Internet Policing” but “Copyright Trolling”, neither is it “…part of a new legal initiative to track down and control internet piracy”, this is a lesson in searching your facts BEFORE you publish. To be clear, I have reached out a few times to the author of this piece, and have been rebuffed for comment. I will attempt to fill in the gaps for those who are interested. There are what are called, softball interviews, and hardball, this is beyond soft, and to me, can be seen as propaganda for the film industry. My view is that, if the Film Industry has to rely on shadowy people like Patrick Achache and his colleagues, then it deserves to fail.

I interviewed Patrick about what it’s like to work on the front lines of the film industry’s greatest combat.

Q: How did you get into internet piracy prevention/policing?

PATRICK: My colleague and I were developing a software to interfere with online File-sharing networks. He knows all the technology and I was working with movie clients. Then we ran initial tests and it worked only for a couple of weeks, then infringers found a way around technology. By accident we spoke with a lawyer who told us that he could police this with the help of district attorneys.

No names of course, just bloviation, it could be any number of people, but, from the actual evidence we have, Mr Achache started out with Logistep, who were working with clients in Germany, and also in the UK, with Davenport Lyons. His friend Terence Tsang was working at Davenport Lyons at the time. Logistep filed papers in the USA stating that Patrick Achache had “stolen” their Intellectual Property and was secretly working with Guardaley at the time, and having his calls forwarded from Logistep. See here (Exhibit 10) (page 36) 

Q: How do you go about researching who has downloaded films illegally? Is it easy?

PATRICK: The technology to identify IP addresses is very easy – it’s participating in File-sharing networks, the difficult part is the data management and analysis, as well as the traffic. We record 200 Million IP addresses per day and that is a lot to process, analyze and store.

Well they have a modified version of a torrent client, and a whois enquiry, that then slims down the ip addresses to countries of choice. Not really rocket science. They then go to a Court, claim that they are interested in taking the person to Court if they do not pay up, they are issued a Norwich Pharmacol Order, that they then send to an ISP, who then roll over, and tell the company, how much money they want for the IP addresses. The IP addresses are then converted to names and addresses and threatening letters are then sent out, demanding money. Any response is ignored in favour of sending out generic template responses. It NEVER goes to Court, but it encourages the recipient to pay up, many do, as they just want the problem to go away, the letter is worded such that even an innocent person wold think twice about not paying. Any recipient that don’t pay, get dropped, no Court cases in the UK. Of course, this is the theory, and depending on the fact the system works, which it doesn’t with any degree of accuracy.

Q: Will this be a bigger offense in near future than it has been?

PATRICK: Our lawyers are constantly looking into setting up new precedence cases (e.g. third party liability). In the US we have always worked with the statutory damages, which can be up to $150,000 USD for willful copyright infringement. Let us be serious – there is nothing like clicking on the wrong link and get caught up in our software.

No, one doesn’t even need to do that, and from some of the innocent people you have targeted, they didn’t even have a torrent client on their machine. Being on the internet with people like Mr Achache utilising their scatter gun approach, is like a letter demand lottery, ANYONE could get one. Of course, this is NOT about fighting Piracy, or defending copyright, this is ALL about IMOmonetising copyright infringement claims” and “creating alternative revenue streams” for his clients works that are not selling anymore.

Current guestimates is that the identification method employed by ALL these TROLLS is about 25% accurate, that leaves 75% of IP addresses invalid.

Q: Have you been able to prosecute people yet?

PATRICK: Yes. Our clients have sued infringers in Singapore. There are criminal proceedings in Poland, where people get arrested and their computers get taken away. We have provided data for at least 1,000 lawsuits in Germany. In the US our clients are thriving to take someone to court.

Thriving to take someone to Court? Err ok, no idea what that is, (striving maybe), Evidence again would be a good thing, I am not sure of the fairness of Singapore justice, and bragging about success in Easter European countries, is again, laughable. What happened in Australia? You lost? 2 Oh, ok.

Q: What has been your biggest bust so far?

PATRICK: The German equivalent to the FBI – we caught their IP address several times. They admitted, but I can’t provide further details as per confidentiality of the settlement. Our lawyers have all type of businesses- gas

stations, embassies, army bases, banks, law firms – the list is really long. Some have thousands of illegal files on their hard drives. The pool of infringers our clients attack only consists of the worst of the worst.

That would be the Federal Intelligence Service then?, you caught them, they admitted it, but you cant provide details because of confidentiality? Wow, that is a REALLY compelling piece of evidence, isn’t it? As far as I remember in the UK the Law Firms drop ALL cases that are not individuals, as it is to difficult and not worth the fight. “The pool of infringers our clients attack only consists of the worst of the worst.” Hmm so what does that say about the Old Age Pensioner you bullied in the UK then? Is she really the “Worst of the Worst”

Q: As you are consulting, do companies hire you to find countries and individuals who have pirated?

PATRICK: Yes, companies hire us to find out who initially stole their movies. We were investigating the “Expendables 3” leak and a couple of other early leaks of theatrical blockbusters.

Well it is a shame that you would ONLY go after the people who would share the film NOT the person who worked at the studio and LEAKED it. Let us not forget, it was a leak from the studio, yet you will target thousands of people, (well attempt to) and have them pay up continuously, RATHER than catch the one person who leaked it, wouldn’t you?

Q: How do you see the future of piracy with more and more media being available online?

PATRICK: One question we ask every client is whether they have a legal opportunity made available. A lot of clients do and it still has not impact (e.g. Game of Thrones parallel release had no impact on the online-piracy).

See Patrick, people who share Game of Thrones, aren’t really the big fish here are they?, you need to be more concerned with the people who ORIGINALLY LEAK FROM THE STUDIO. People much like your friends you have spoken about before, generally only download stuff because they are fans, they are NOT making money from it, it is YOUR pursuit of money that informs your choices to pursue them for UPLOADING the files, most people don’t as I understand actually upload that much (16kb, I believe is what you claim as proof). The internet HAS changed the way the World works, sadly the Entertainment industry is still largely stuck in the pre-internet business model. To be fair, you would be suing people using vinyl records instead on buying Wax Disks had replaced them, bemoaning the sales of sheet music, and blaming it not on recordings, but on the people who bought those recordings.

Q: What cases are you currently working on?

PATRICK: “London Has Fallen” on a worldwide basis. “Criminal”, which was just released. We are planning a new case in Australia where we were very disappointed about the judge’s change of mind.

London has Fallen” and “Criminal” wow real top notch films there. The case in Australia where the Judge decided the evidence was awful, and the actions of your company, and Voltage Pictures were out of order.? Hmm, far from a “Change of mind”, one could almost characterise that as a “Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory”

Q: What is your goal for the near future in combating film piracy?

PATRICK: Expanding the program to other jurisdictions. Especially in English speaking territories.

We wait with baited breath. We have repelled you a number of times in the UK , and we will again. Of course, your association with CMI Business Group/Hatton & Berkeley is ongoing, and we await, the first Court hearings.

Q: What is your biggest challenge?

PATRICK: Having the ISPs as opponents is one challenge. In various jurisdictions they fight back hard, as they earn money from the pirating consumers which are signing on high volume band with contracts. What is even bigger is to convince industry bodies and local government that the way we police piracy is the only effective way. Let us take the UK as an example: We have sent letters to all the industry bodies, tried to work with the house of lords, sent a letter to David Camron. No one ever responded. That’s why we call out the UK government as cowards like AVI LERNER did in the below link with the US Administration:


A study had shown that UK File-shares intended to pirate more movies and no one did anything about it. Can you

imagine that?


So you have an alert that thieves will come into your country and steal things from you and you do NOTHING?

UK Film counsel wanted to implement the digital economy act and notices. Notices have been tried but they DO NOT work. The MPAA wants to send out 400,000 Notices per Month. These have failed in the past: France, New Zealand, United States, Etc. etc. The list is long and it is simply not working. Why is the MPAA still investing Money???

Err WTF, you have ISPs that oppose you? Where? Not in the UK you don’t, in the UK, the ISPs don’t even bother to send a representative to Court, they simply send a letter of agreement. In the leaked emails from ACS:LAW it showed that some ISPs even negotiated the wording with them, BEFORE the Court hearing. Far from making money from “Pirating customers”, they actually make money from companies such as yourself, that SELL the IP addresses to your company, you pay them up to £5 per IP address, that is a tidy amount to sell out your customer base, with the pitiful “evidence” you provide.

It is because we know it is NOT the “only effective” way that it is fought against. Your ambition to contact our Prime Minister and House of Lords is interesting, but ultimately futile, for a number of reasons, namely, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, is NOT “David Camron” so if you cant even get his name right, then you deserve to be ignored, but you must realise something, why the hell would the Prime Minister respond to someone of such insignificance as yourself? I contacted one of the Lords just this week regarding yourself and Mr Croucher, do you know what he said?

I had not realised the shitbags were back. Happy to take up cudgels again. Please point me at details. “

Does that sound like an embrace to your methods? Indeed last time this was happening in the UK, it was described in the House of Lords as “Legal Blackmail”, go on, educate yourself. you need to. You attempt to conflate the situation you are exploiting and making your money from, and what Avi Lerner was discussing which was GOOGLEs responsibility, I don’t agree with him, but it is FAR away from the individuals that you target. I am old enough to remember another prat called Jack Valenti head of the MPAA (at the time) who tried to stop the sales of video recorders, as he argued they would kill cinemas; “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Why is the MPAA still investing money? I would ask why they still exist,

Create affordable accessibility to films and music, so called “piracy” would die overnight, BUT this is NOT about “Piracy” this is about YOU and your many companies, making money out of the misery of very often innocent people, and worse thing is, YOU KNOW IT

(For further information, please visit the excellent Torrentfreak , FightCopyightTrolls and DieTrollDie)


Posted in maverickeye, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Maverickeye takes scurrilous aim at Hickster: The rebuttal

A response to Maverickeye (Patrick Achache) blog post “No internet suxnqmxhnbscriber is falsely accused in copyright infringement case”

A rather odd and barely comprehensible Blog post was made just the other day, it concerned, me and was posted on the Maverickeye Website. Let us not be confused however, for Maverickeye, we mean Patrick Achache. Patrick of course, was Terence Tsangs friend in Germany 2, who was going to help out ACS:LAW before the latters implosion.

I felt the need to respond on a point by point, as there are some serious untruths and aspersions, nothing you wouldn’t expect from an amateurish outfit you understand.

The article was posted under the title;

“No internet subscriber is falsely accused in copyright infringement cases”


Sorry, I get confused, sometimes you and your “clients” say it is the connection that is accused, (even a printer once), never a downloader only uploads blah blah blah, but the actual LETTER you send out, most defiantly DOES accuse the subscriber, it says, the account holder is responsible.

Patrick Achache:

Defender of copyright infringers Joe Hickster made it his mission to make people believe that movie pirates should not be penalized. In essence, he makes it seem okay for people to infringe copyrighted materials because they can get away with it. So basically, he’s one of the reasons why the entertainment business is struggling with piracy.


Defender of copyright infringers? Wow, OK, I prefer defender of falsely accused, but there, lets not split hairs. I don’t and never have defended infringers, I simply urge those accused to demand a hearing in Court, that the companies that send out the letters should do. Without a Court hearing to lay out the evidence, to me, it is wrong and a misuse of the Court system, you Mr Achache are relying on out of court settlements, and using fear to keep people away from demanding their day in Court, by spreading rumors about how they could face financial ruin if the Court found against them.

In essence, no I state explicitly that people receiving these letters should not pay up out of fear, if they have not done what they are accused of they should state this and demand a fair hearing in Court. If the entertainment business has to rely on targeting innocent people and extorting money from them through fear tactics of financial ruin, then the entertainment business is in a sad state of affairs, not of course that you Mr Achache has anything whatsoever to do with that business, apart from your self appointed role and self serving practices.


Hickster is responsible for keeping infringers from facing the consequences of their actions. He runs a blog called ACS Bore that was set up to undermine ACS:Law’s activities. Now, an article targeting Patrick Achache, Robert Croucher, and a few other copyright enforcers has surfaced all over the net particularly on TorrentFreak.


Not only does this statement show Achaches arrogance, that anyone receiving a letter is already guilty of infringing, I would restate that in England, the presumption is innocent UNTIL proven guilty. I do run a blog, although I would say it was not to undermine, but to show the negligence that was happening at ACS:LAW, and other Law Practices, the leaked ACS:LAW fully vindicated my stance, and showed the shadiness of Achache and his convoluted shell company organisations. I don’t trust anyone who speaks in the third person, “targeting Patrick Achache, Robert Croucher, and a few other copyright enforcers”, wow Patrick, that is real delusions of grandeur right there, “Copyright enforcers” eh, I think the word you are finding hard to type there is TROLL. The so called article, was actually a report into how I was targeted by Mr Croucher, but never mind, the evidence is on the board for all to see. Mr Croucher reacted badly when I showed him some evidence contrary to what he believed and he threatened me.


Just to clear the air –


Please do, it seems saturated with methane at the moment!


No internet service subscriber is falsely accused in copyright infringement cases. When copyright enforcers work on a copyright case, their discovery is the result of the findings from using sophisticated software and they track the internet subscriber’s Internet Protocol (IP) address.


There you go again, stating that noone is innocent, interesting, even the Judge at the Goldeneye International hearing stated it was obvious there would be many innocent people targeted, but you Mr Achache have a better system? No of course not, it is probably, a tampered version of Transmission (open source program) that excludes the uploading feature. We know how it works (the concept), it was in the leaked emails, you act as if the world doesn’t know how the system works, like you have some black box of high sophistication. Your friend Terence put an advert out on Freelancer to BUY a system for $700, I mean COME ON MAN.


At Maverickeye, we refer to the IP addresses used in the illegal downloads through BitTorrent networks. These IP addresses are linked to the name of the registered subscriber of an internet service provider (ISP). So, using the 82-year-old lady’s case as an example (Patricia Drew’s IP was allegedly caught uploading “The Company You Keep” film to torrent sites) is such a poor excuse for copyright infringers.


Maverickeye, Guardaley, Excipio, APMC, et all, this is NOT an exact science, and you know this. What has the “82 year old ladys case”, got to do with anything? Did you prosecute? If not why not? If your system is faultless, then did she pay you? Did you drop the case, for PR purposes? What does, “poor excuse for copyright infringers” actually mean? The fact remains, that you boil this down to a binary choice, an either, or, which is wrong, you state that either, YOU used this connection, OR you authorised someone else to do so. Here is a third reason, YOU MIGHT JUST BE WRONG! Just a thought. Judge Birss in the only time this has been heard in a Court in the UK (ACS:LAW), said, “…they don’t know who [infringed], and know they don’t know who [infringed].”


Anyone can have their own guesses as to where this fight will go, but surely all anti-piracy advocates will not back down from any setbacks. When Hickster accused Robert Croucher of being involved in a “smoke and mirrors” operation, the latter  warned, “To summarise; Please stop contacting me, any of my staff and certainly any of my clients, should you continue I will ensure that you are put to maximum task with respect to issuing legal proceedings against you for ongoing harassment and defamation,”


We don’t need guesses, we need truth and facts. NO HE DID NOT! Mr Croucher, made that statement, after I pointed out to him that Hatton&Berkeley, was owned by a Mr Paul Carter, he denied this and put out seven rather ludicrous statements, in a VERY patronising manner, and ended it with that statement. I refuted his assertions, and provided overwhelming evidence point by point, that what I had said was true.

This was obvious as Mr Croucher operated from a website branded with Hatton&Berkeley, yet in reality it is CMI Business Group, t/a Hatton&Berkeley. This has of course been rectified with the creation of a number of new companies by Mr Croucher, AFTER our exchanges. Why else do you think he was using Ranger Bay, setup by an associate of the pornographer Julian Becker to receive the money from the TCYK letters? Mr Croucher continued to engage with me after this, because he is a real man of his word.. ‘cough’.


Hopefully, Hickster can see the efforts being done to combat piracy.


Well, not by yourself I cant no. If you mean the leaking of one of your Guardeley emails to a Pornographer in an attempt to smear, Lawdit the Solicitors who are representing a lot of the falsely accused, then I see that, but don’t consider it a valid attempt at combating piracy. The Pornographer, Terry Stephens (One Eyed Jack), also shows your knowledge and possible involvement, denied by Robert Croucher, of Julian Beckers Goldeneye International. Terry Stephens being one of the more small time producers, but most vocal of the GEIL defenders. Interesting, Mr Croucher or yourself, seems to be telling a mistruth, I wonder which one?

I have seen your “Business plan” that was leaked online; loved the line “paragraph 2 in regards to software consultant (i.e., he can talk about software issues), & we’re hoping the judge won’t question his qualifications too much. “ ,was their good reason for this? You couldn’t get someone sufficiently qualified, kind of smells bad, doesn’t it? Almost like, deceitful?, like you are hiding something.

A few other thoughts;

just why do you need more than one “Copyright enforcement” business, I mean if you are legit, and upstanding?, all seems so shady to me. For the record, there are LOTS of ways to combat copyright infringement that do NOT involve sending letters out based on a modified bittorrent program, that isn’t even your own original piece of code.

The problem with these other methods, is that whilst they would significantly lower the copyright infringement they would not make people like yourself wealthy, whilst using the latest of the desperate mugs you find to sign up to what was described in the Lords as “Legal Blackmail”

I note with interest that one of your many companies, Copyright Collections Ltd, that was originally intended for Golden Eye International, has changed its name to Copyright Management Services and relocated to 43 Berkeley Sq (CMI Business Group t/a Hatton&Berkeley) Curious and curiouser.

Maverickeye, is a 4 man team, technical analyst, an accountant, a systems administrator, and chief executive officer Thomas Novak, who is the main shareholder. How do we know this? From when Maverickeye was ridiculed in Court in the US. This also included evidence of the alleged theft of intellectual property “File Monitoring” from Logistep, where you worked, but that is for another day.

On your Copyright Management Services Website you include the line; “Chances are you have already infringed our rights, if you are reading this”, maybe you should consider editing that line, I know, to this one on the GEIL website, “If you are reading this, then more than likely you have infringed our rights already.“ see, I think you copied it wrong onto your new site.

I consider this a fair rebuttal to your scurrilous Blog Post Mr Achache

Posted in Hatton & Berkeley, maverickeye, tcyk, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment