Andrew Crossley - ACS LAW
Lee Bowden - Media C.A.T
After one of the BIGGEST data leaks in UK history adding misery to thousands of people many of them innocent, ACS:LAW seem to be deaf to the cries of reason.
Unbelievably they have continued to send out letters of claim to people they suspect of illegal file-sharing. What it means to be suspected by ACS:LAW is unknown as their monitoring apparatus is NOT available for public scrutiny and indeed in some of the leaked emails even ACS:LAW staff were not convinced by the “Expert Witnesses” that are supposed to have see the software used to identify IP addresses.
Below is part of a scan of a letter sent THIS month (October) on behalf of Media Cat, whose Boss Lee Bowden goes back a long way with ACS:LAW Boss Andrew Crossley.
Lee Bowden “represents” RELISH Adult films that is owned by Jasper Faversham, AKA Jasper Orlando Slingsby Duncombe AKA 7th Baron Feversham. Faversham was disinherited by his Father (Got the title but nothing else), but of course this has NOTHING to do with money does it?
Media Cat are seen as small time chancers in the emails leaked, indeed Lee Bowden seems quite upset that he is not getting his cut, “Everyone is getting eir(sic) bit and I am owed £17k ffs.” Faversham himself does not come across much better “Much looking forward to sending letters to these f$$$ers,”, and that from a LORD no less!
But I digress, the letter from ACS:LAW is an outrage in to many ways. We really need to do something now, the Media has been lukewarm, Sky News has not even reported the Data Leak (Probably due to it affecting 5000 of their subscribers)
ANYONE who has received a letter from ACS:LAW AFTER the 24th September, I repeat ANYONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ACS:LAW AFTER 24TH SEPTEMBER, please email tom@slyck.com
Slyck were the people who BROKE THE news of the ACS:LAW Email leak
This Blog is NOT affiliated with Slyck although we admire them greatly and the work they have done.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
About Hickster
I am one of the many innocent people who have been accused of file sharing by Copyright Trolls, my letter came from the now infamous ACS:LAW, but they have now been emulated by many more using the same system.
Their ruse is simple, Send out letters of claim with NO Real evidence beyond an IP address that they claim was captured using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza.
My REAL opinion of these companies turned when they started sending out Pornography claims, THAT is what I find most disturbing. People who HAVE to pay up without the option of having their day in Court. THAT is NOT Justice. Why can't they just go to Court? because the Lawyers, pitch the price of paying the "Compensation" at about the same rate as hiring a lawyer to fight it.
Things have changed in the last 8 years though.
I would advise people to read the "Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2", research these people yourselves, and find me at Slyck Forums, or on Twitter.
Do NOT Worry, Stand Strong
Received a letter from Goldeneye International? MICM(Mircom? TCYK LLC? 
It’s ridiculous that this company is still trading. I am assuming once the SRA and Information Commissioner is finished in their investigations it will close them down for good.
Having read some of the emails I find the staff attitude disgusting andI feel sorry for those that have had their data leaked, and for those that have ended up paying (most cannot even afford to pay in the 1st place).
I think it is funny they are sending out template letters but stating they will not accept a template back, even though their is no legal basis for refusing the responses, template or not.
One of the interesting emails is from Lawdit, who even got one of their letters rejected, which they prompt;ly replied that if they are sending out the same template letter, it stands to reason that the reply of their many clients will be similar and are legally acceptable.
It has been very dissapointing that the mainstream media have chosen to ignore this story in the main, and most of the coverage has been online through forums and sites like this. I suppose thst they don’t want people knowing they still have some power, and also what this means for the Digital Economy Act (which needs to be rethought out before millions are made criminals).