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In this post, I will look at a peculiar Blog post that has been withdrawn, (cache here) (archived here).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

TCYK LLC client “Hatton&Berkeley” become more “bogus”? UPDATE 2


Artistic Impression

It has been a busy few months, apologies for the lack of updates.

Robert Croucher of CMI Business Group, (and many others 2) had a real problem, he had joined forced with infamous copyright troll Patrick Achache 2, and seemingly with out any “Due Diligence” threw his lot in with a man who has traveled the globe, peddling his dubious “secret system” of identifying “copyright pirates” as he calls them, or as most other right thinking people would prefer to call them, “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”.

Mr Croucher has been called a number of things by people who have contacted me, and none of them good, but I can only judge a person based on their interactions with myself.

Mr Croucher and I engaged each other on an open forum, where I pointed out to him that, he did not own the name “Hatton&Berkely” and so should not be pretending to be something he was not. He did not take this too kindly, and indeed had spend a fair few months before I got involved, telling everyone about a “fraudster” who is under investigation who was using HIS business name for fraudulent means, and that he Croucher was the hard done by person in all this. That is about the time I rolled in, and spoiled his party.

I commented on what I considered to be absolute untruths and bull$hit, so I posted what I believed to be a well researched piece on his “Business activities”, this was posted on a “Whocalledme” website where others had been harassed with phone calls seemingly coming from one of Mr Crouchers business “shells”, West One Business Services. Mr Croucher denied that this was anything to do with his company, but that of a man called Mr Paul Carter, he did not at this time indicate that he knew of this man, but that there was a fraud investigation under way. I smelt a stench and decided to dig.

I started to dig deeper and posted my findings on the public forum, which is when Mr Croucher seemed to object, strongly.

(Part of evidence that seemed to upset Mr Croucher)



Last one was interesting, need to be more careful with the truth, when it comes to advertising I guess.

ASA Ruling against Westone Business Global LTD

What is REALLY interesting, is that this site was registered (Seems to be registered by a Kruger Voltek Systems Ltd  (Katarzyna NIEDZWIEDZ)) seemingly a business partner of Paul Carter? In 2008

Then it seems a different website was registered called (.net, NOT .com) purely innocent reasons? In 2014, of course the registrants name is PRIVATE, but lets look.

Here is how it used to look look, it was CMI 43 LTD then, look, you (Robert Croucher) and Paul Carter. , Now I wonder what happens when we look at where the website reroutes today? ,Oh WOW look at that, it redirects to….

No matter, the other people to whom your company has dealings with may see the evidence here.

Oh one other thing, remember your threat of Legal action, See this post, … is-astonishing/ well, it seems, it was smiled upon by a certain Lawyer, Seems he thinks you a Troll, so do I.  Oh and one last thing, when you see your Lawyer, make sure he sees this. … ative-invoicing

 I pointed out to those on the board, that IF Croucher was as legitimate as he claimed to be, then why, was he using the Hatton&Berkely name to send out letters on behalf of TCYK LLC, instead of using his own CMI Business Group. I then asked him why he was also asking people in the letters to then send money, not to CMI Business Group, nor Hatton&Berkeley, or TCYK LLC but a THIRD company, called Ranger Bay Ltd. This is, as I am sure you can tell already smelling like a bad thing, that smells really bad… It does not sound honest to the author here, just saying. I have covered this in more detail in a previous blog post, but was fair to Croucher and didn’t mention his involvement, as I didn’t have any real evidence of his input at the time, unlike Croucher/Achache, I do like to rely on actual evidence.

Mr Croucher decided the best form of defence was attack, silly mistake really.

Among the points he made, were a couple that I include here;

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 be seeking that charges be brought against you should you not cease and desist from contacting myself, members of my staff or other officers of any of my operating companies.  This is being taken very seriously and I believe you are underestimating the impact of your actions.

Your accusation that I use ‘shell’ companies, is utterly unfounded and denied, these defamatory remarks are just that. Hatton & Berkeley is not a ‘shell’ company as you’ve stated, it is a well respected brand and a young one at that of which I am extremely proud of all of my staff, consultants and associates who’ve helped build it.

Goldeneye International and Mr Becker, again, I’ve never met anyone from either and nor do I have any knowledge of who they are. Again, your accusations are unfounded and pure speculation without any merit.

The above allegations are clearly ludicrous. My tweets are public, and I have urged Mr Croucher to release the so called;

false and defamatory Tweets to myself and worryingly the more junior female members of my staff”.

They have not been forthcoming. Torrentfreak picked up on this threat to call in the authorities, and published a post on their blog, Mr Croucher declined to comment. The assertion that he does not know, and has never met, nor has any knowledge of Goldeneye International Ltd, is plainly laughable, when subsequent actions emanating from Mr Croucher are alleged;

A smear attempt was made against Michael Coyle of Lawdit; A private email was sent by Mr Crouchers client, Patrick Achache, that ended in the possession of a Pornographer client of Goldeneye International, Terry Stephens, Mr Stephens then leaked the email that seemingly showed Lawdit in some kind of collusion with Mr Achache. The date of this email was during the ACS:LAW campaign, that GEIL and TCYK LLC are natural successors of, and Lawdit were and still are, firmly on the opposing side, they have represented those accused of infringement going back to 2007 when Davenport Lyons were running the scam. Indeed for the last 2 years their prominent Lawyer Michael Coyle has run the London Marathon, with the promise of representation for a token contribution towards his chosen charity. This attempted smear without context, has been roundly rejected by all those within the group opposed to “Speculative Invoicing Trolls”.

To me, this smear attempt, and the denials of knowledge of those involved, show a person deeply lacking in transparency and veracity. It simply does not bear any real scrutiny that Mr Croucher knew nothing of this email or its leak.

Mr Croucher, after the smear attempt on Lawdit, cast aspersions on Slyck forums where a number of those in receipt of letters from Mr Croucher and Goldeneye International, meet up for support, I mentioned it was actually owned and run by a lawyer, and that if he had issue with any of the post on there, he should address his concerns to the website admin, again, I have heard nothing back.

CMI Business Group masquerading as Hatton&Berkeley, have seemingly sought to “legitimise” their claim to the “Hatton&Berkeley” name.

On the 25th April 2016, their appeared SEVEN brand spanking new companies, registered at Companies House, all of them listed as Director, Mr Robert Croucher, and all but one, listed a Secretary, as Ms Brigett Kudor. (One would assume there are rules surrounding similar sounding businesses, but the irony should not be lost with regard to copyright trolls, and copyright infringement!)

HATTON & BERKELEY LIMITED (This is Mr Paul Carters original Company)

08221539 – Incorporated on 20 September 2012

Office Number, 3, Holborn, London, EC1N 8PN


10145729 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10145691 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10145886 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10145165 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10145680 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10144912 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP


10143704 – Incorporated on 24 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

UPDATED: 04_06_2016


Company number OC411823

43 Berkeley Square, London, United Kingdom, W1J 5AP


Company number 10168728

43 Berkeley Square 43 Berkeley Square, London, United Kingdom, W1J 5AP


I contacted Mr Paul Carter but was told that there was ongoing legal actions concerning Mr Croucher, and that he could not make any comment.

The small-print on the CMI Business T/A Hatton&Berkeley website, has now been changed from this;

© CMI Business Group 2015. ‘Hatton & Berkeley’ is a trading name owned by CMI Business Group Ltd, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 09387353
Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is regulated by HMRC under the Anti Money Laundering Regulations of 2007 as a Money Service Business, registration number: 12835500  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is a registered data controller in the UK and regulated by the Information Commissioners Office.

To this

© Hatton & Berkeley Global Ltd. ‘Hatton & Berkeley’ is a trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Ltd, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 10145165
Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is regulated by HMRC under the Anti Money Laundering Regulations of 2007 as a Money Service Business, registration number: 12835500  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is a registered data controller in the UK and regulated by the Information Commissioners Office.

As Mr Crouchers said in his exchange with me;

Your accusation that I use ‘shell’ companies, is utterly unfounded and denied, these defamatory remarks are just that”

How hollow and shallow he sounds.  I submit my evidence for your perusal.

UPDATE 1: The new name that Mr Croucher has picked to replace CMI Business Group is unusual, HATTON & BERKELEY GLOBAL LIMITED, is VERY similar sounding to the WESTONE BUSINESS GLOBAL LTD, that was run by Mr Carter AND Mr Croucher, and whilst still under Mr Crouchers control was subject to an Advertising Watchdog ruling for being misleading with regard to a claim about being “Award Winning”

04_06_2016: UPDATE2: Just received this email;

“We have changed our lettering again;

“Trading name of Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 10145165 Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients”


“Trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar number: 10145165.  Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients”

Looks like they won a dispute! Shame, I hate to see bullies win. (Not the most most stable company in the world)


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

“Speculative Invoicing”- Smoke and Mirrors – The connections Part 1

Just thought this would be useful to some who have received letters in the post and have heard of previous actions like this.

The map shows who is connected and how, it IS brief, but we believe useful.

Please comment, suggestions or corrections.

Click below for a LARGE version (Opens in a New window)


The PDF Contains hyperlinks


Please feel free to join us at Slyck Forums Trolls and letter recipients both welcome





Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Gesture From A Law Firm – Let’s Kill Speculative Invoicing

LawditLogo1Thanks to Michael Coyle and Hickster.

It is with absolute pleasure for me to provide wonderful news to those who have received a Letter of Claim (“LoC”) from any Limited Company such as Goldeneye International Limited (“GEIL”), TCYK llc (The Company You Keep), Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd (“MIRCOM”) and others who practice the much criticised Speculative Invoicing.

A firm of Solicitors based in Southampton and London who are called Lawdit Solicitors, who specialise in Intellectual Property, have long recognised the dubious practise of Speculative Invoicing needs to be stopped. The practice of Speculative Invoicing has previously been operated by dubious Lawyers in the past and dubious Limited Companies today.

In what can only be considered as a wonderful gesture and will most likely bring an end to Speculative Invoicing, Lawdit Solicitors are offering their services to those who have received an LoC for a one off fee of £90.00 including VAT.

And what does this one off £90.00 including VAT with no strings and no additional fees bring you?

Well, from the pdf document from the Lawdit Solicitors website:

  1. Our advice in writing and a discussion with you.
  2. Go on the record and draft and send a letter on your behalf – you will receive no more correspondence and we shall take the pressure and embarrassment (if any) from you and it will always remain confidential.
  3. Deal with any response and draft and send a second and final letter.
  4. Drafting and sending any third letter if applicable.

So, the first nasty phishing letter from those like GEIL you do receive is THE ONLY letter you will receive from them. All other letters from GEIL will have to go to Lawdit Solicitors who handle all replies using their expertise.

This takes away one thing those like GEIL pray on and rely on and that is trying to shame innocent people in to paying their settlement demands which can be £600.00 for one alleged infringement, and if they allege more infringements their settlement demands can be three times more (Subject to a minor discount).

So will that be the end of the matter? To quote from the pdf document on the Lawdit Solicitors website:

Whilst the chances of a court case against you are practically nil we cannot guarantee that a claim will NOT be issued but we promise you free legal advice if the Trolls do decide to litigate.

That is we will represent you for free

So the likes of GEIL will be unable to conduct their shame exercise by sending LoCs to unsuspecting ISP subscribers. Instead they will have to send them to a firm of Solicitors who specialise in Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Also, in the very unlikely event of Court proceedings being issued against you, Lawdit Solicitors will represent you in Court for FREE!

Why is Court proceedings very unlikely? Well in all the time Speculative Invoicing has been around, anyone who replies to an LoC with a denial has never had Court proceedings issued against them. This includes those who had NO legal advice.

The Trolls will know, in having to send their correspondence to Lawdit Solicitors instead of the intended ISP subscriber, that issuing Court proceedings to an ISP subscriber will mean the ISP subscriber being represented in Court by experts.

So where’s the catch? There must be a catch! No, there isn’t a catch. Quite simply, there is only one motivation by Lawdit Solicitors offering this and that is to bring Speculative Invoicing to an end.

Michael Coyle, Solicitor Advocate and Director at Lawdit Solicitors recognises the Legal profession can be an expensive business and the settlement demands from Copyright Trolls are aimed below the potential costs of Legal advice and representation.

Michael Coyle explains the gesture by saying “I am hoping that doing this will in some way be a nail in the coffin of these people”.

So this gesture is to send a message to the Copyright Trolls that operating their Speculative Invoicing scam will no longer be profitable and to bring it to an end.

GEIL tried to ruin innocent peoples Christmas time with stress and worry, and Lawdit Solicitors will hopefully put an end to their plans.

If I was of the type that enjoys a bet, I would be at the Bookmakers putting money on what Michael says!

Over the years that speculative invoicing has been around, which is about ten years, there have been moments which have been truly remarkable.

Think of Andrew Crossley being fined and suspended for two years by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) and The Davenport Lyons solicitors David Gore and Brian Miller being fined and suspended by the SRA also.

The main factors in common with both SRA decisions?  They are all solicitors who were found guilty of “sending intimidating letters to individuals they accused of illegal filesharing.”

It took solicitors to think of Speculative Invoicing and the ill-gotten rewards it brings by sending nasty letters with huge disproportionate settlement demands based on very questionable evidence.

It now hopefully will be a fantastic gesture by law firm Lawdit Solicitors which will finally bring Speculative Invoicing to an end.

How great that would be!

If you have received a Letter Of Claim from Golden Eye International Limited or any other Limited Company, get in touch with Lawdit Solicitors now to put your mind at rest.

Contact them by:

Telephone: 0800 862 0157
Website Enquiry:

So the message is, as from Lawdit Solicitors themselves:

So stand firm against the trolls, don’t pay and instruct us today!


Posted in Golden Eye International, MICM, Mircom | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Goldeneye International attempts to wreck Christmas….

(Don’t allow it to happen)xmas

Thx Bpaw

Following on from SKY sending out letters informing their subscribers that they would soon receive a letter from Copyright Trolls Goldeneye International (”GEIL”) it has started. GEILs letters, claiming compensation for Copyright Infringement have already started to fall on the doormats across the nation, the equivalent of having a dog turd chucked through by a bored teenager, but this turd will have a cash demand, well the second one will.

Timed to coincide with Christmas, thus giving the recipients unneeded and unnecessary worry over the festive season. Listen to me though, expecting a Troll to care, LOL, they often say I am a Faceless keyboard warrior, I say they are Trolls without a soul.

GEIL, whose Directors Julian Fraser Beck and Lyndsay Honey are quite simply exploiting a Copyright Designs and Patent Act (“CDPA”) from 1988 and a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) which was first granted in 1974.

How can their actions be regarded as exploitation of the CDPA act and NPO?

There are many reasons mentioned and explained here on this blog. Three particular reasons I wish to highlight.

  1. Why pornography?

Yes, why pornography? It is only pornography producers involved in BitTorrent monitoring and sending speculative invoicing letters. The vague exception is TCYK LLC and their “Works” The Company You Keep which isn’t pornography, but the link with Marcus Auton and GEIL is implicit enough.

So is pornography the only media affected by BitTorrent downloading? Any pornographic producer or even Julian Becker saying so would truly be misguided by saying such a thing. Could pornography be the only media where producers can argue lost revenue through BitTorrent sharing? Again, such an argument is preposterous to even suggest.

So why is it only pornography?

Which leads us on to number 2.

  1. Clairvoyance

How can Julian Becker in an interview with the BBC back in December 2012 know for sure he can offer GEILs services to US producers?

“I look forward to travelling to adult conferences in Los Angeles and Vegas in early January to offer Golden Eye’s services to other producers,” he told the BBC

Yes there is BitTorrent use which we know, but to say in a BBC interview that you have an intention seems to suggest a particular confidence which I believe can only come through an intention regardless rather than a belief and hope. Or to put it succinctly, I see it that Julian Becker goes to the US to bring on board US producers in this elaborate well rehearsed 2 exploitation of the CDPA/NPO in the UK. Oh, and whilst Julian Becker was in the US, he could gain the bonus of TCYK LLC as a one hit wonder!

Such confidence from Julian Becker is a real indication of knowing that the exploitation of the CDPA/NPO in the UK rather than any desire to go to Court against any alleged infringers.

  1. Overload of explicit material

I think this has some relation to reason 2 above.

To be truly confident of results, the more titles the better. Echo Alpha Inc has 41 pages in their witness statement of pornography titles they list! Most importantly in GEILs attempts at exploiting the CDPA/NPO in the UK and ensuring a payment of their suggested settlement is to bring a claim against their victims of allegedly sharing a very sexually explicitly named video title.

There is an add-on advantage of providing to the Courts thousands of pornography titles. It gives the opportunity to bring multiple claims of infringement against an alleged ISP subscriber. As is in the past with GEIL, the first sanitised Court approved letter will only have one copyright material mentioned. Suddenly, the next letter from GEIL may well list additional titles miraculously!

OK, what do reasons 1, 2 & 3 above make you think?

The logical conclusion is a scam motivated by greed.

I will again repeat the words of Lord (Hansard 1 Mar 2010 : Column 1256 )

“This scam works because of the impossibility of producing proof against this allegation. How can you prove that you did not do this thing? You have an internet connection, and they say that it was done over that internet connection. It is no good producing your computer, because you committed the offence using a different computer. It is no good saying that you are a 97 year-old widow and that you hardly know how to use the telephone, let alone the internet, because, nevertheless, you have an internet connection and they say that it was abused. It is extremely difficult to produce evidence to gainsay this. All you can do is deny it, and one of the things that they say in the letter is, “Don’t bother to deny this without producing evidence that you didn’t do it”

The result is that a very large people of number pay up, as a result either of the first letter or of the letters that follow. As far as I can discover, despite the tens of thousands of orders that have been granted, the solicitors involved have never taken a seriously contested case to court, because getting money out of people on the basis of the compromise offer is actually what is lucrative.”

Stand up, Stand Strong, Do not fear. Reply Deny, Repeat. FIGHT!

Join us at Slyck forums

Posted in Golden Eye International, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sky Broadband Send Notification Letters About Golden Eye International To Their Subscribers (UPDATE)


OK, certain Sky Broadband customers are receiving notification letters from Sky notifying them of that they may receive a letter of claim from Golden Eye International Limited.

I currently do not have a copy of the letter being sent out (yeah we do now – Hicks), but if you have received such a letter then the most importing thing is to be calm and do not feel stressed about it.

Read the letter and be aware of the likelihood that a Letter Of Claim (“LoC”) from Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”) will arrive through the post at some time soon.

Previous letters like this were sent from O2/BE Broadband to their subscribers in anticipation of GEIL letters being sent out:

Yeah OK, easy for me to say! “Don’t feel stressed about it”.  Well, you are not alone and with you finding yourself here, you have guidance and help.

If you do receive a letter from GEIL, it may be similar or the same as this below:

(We covered this “Phishing” letter on the blog!)

The above letter was decided by a High Court Judge from the following High Court case involving GEIL:

The above Court case is quite a lot to go through but essentially Justice Arnold ensured that you as a receiver of an LoC from GEIL do not have to pay them if you are innocent.

Now, with that established, where can you find further guidance?

Firstly, please visit a forum completely dedicated to this:

Read the posts and understand that many people have gone through the same experience.

If you wish to ask a question, register with using NO DETAIL that could be linked back to you. Don’t use your name, nickname, email address etc. Create a new email address which has no resemblance to your name or nickname.

Be Anonymous! LOVES anonymous!

Further help can be obtained from The Citizens Advice:

You can use the Citizens Advice consumer complaints procedure:

You can write to your MP:

Most important. If you are innocent STAND STRONG and do not pay them and seek help.

Do not suffer alone and try to bear such a burden. We are here to help.

Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments