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.