Archive

Posts Tagged ‘acs law’

Response to Golden Eyes Appeal “Success”

December 31, 2012 2 comments

http://bretcontreras.com/wp-content/uploads/Bullshit-detector.jpg

Thanks to Bpaw!

On the 21st of December the Appeals Court found in favour of Golden Eye International (GEIL) and sanctioned what the original Judge had refused saying it would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder”.

GEIL intend to keep 75% of all monies collected, their Director Julian Becker has now responded to the successful appeal.  We think we should respond too!

 “I am delighted that the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Golden Eye, albeit that I am still confused that the initial ruling allowed us to act for Ben Dover but fell short in permitting the right to protect the other producers that I represent”

“The other producers that I represent”?  Maybe you should be aware that other Pornography Producers tried this method of “monetizing alternative revenue streams” before, Darker Enterprises, Pure Platinum/Liquid Gold, Mebray, Phoenix, Relish and  Load XXX amongst others, and they all fell flat on their faces, when Media C.A.T and ACS:LAW screwed up by taking a case to actual Court where their lack of evidence was exposed , and their methods were derided, and it resulted in their collapse.

 “Having now studied the case, I’d like to say that there was more chance of the end of the world occurring on Dec. 21 than Golden Eye losing this appeal.”

So you won an appeal.  An appeal that was given by default to other applicants in the past.

Such as the following

 01 Feb 2007 – Davenport Lyons – Judge Behrens – Topware Interactive
22 Nov 2007 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Reality Pump
30 May 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Atari
30 Jun 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect
12 Nov 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect?
19 Nov 2009 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT
19 Nov 2009 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect
27 Jan 2010 – Tilly Bailey Irvine – Justice Warren – Media & More GMBH
17 Feb 2010 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT
07 Jul 2010 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT

 “I believe there is always going to be a bias against this genre of film production”

Well no, that is a “non sequitur”, whatever problems that this “genre of film production” has had in the past,  has absolutely nothing to do with the material you produce, but the actions you take.  When other industries, (games 2 , music  2 etc) took the same actions, they too were derided in  the same manner.   They had the sense to bail out.  It is actions like what you are doing, resurrecting  a hated and hurtful legal action that is known  to target to many innocent people in its dragnet  is what is likely to drag your industry through the mud again.

“So although in legal terms we are actually no further forward than in 2010”

Erm, NO.  You are further back than you were in 2010.  You have been neutered in Court.

You called the account owner an infringer, the Court said NO!

You wanted a default £700 per letter,  the Court said NO!

You wanted the account owners  internet to be slowed down, The Court said NO.

You wanted to confuse with reference to the Code of Practice, The court said NO

You wanted to give the recipient only 14 days, the Court made it 28 days

The previous Law firm that represented you, halted their action in 2010, and you then attempted to pursue alleged infringers through the “Money Claim Online system” , when it seems you come up against Judge Birss, the Judge who presided over the ACS:LAW/Media C.A,T cases.  You deemed your actions inappropriate and that is what has led us to this ruling.

 “Golden Eye has now been successful after the most severe of legal scrutiny, combined with bias and manipulation from some areas of the press and mistruths and lies from faceless keyboard warriors in several Internet forums.”

 I would question in light of the restrictions placed on you by the Court how successful you have been, but yes you have been successful in obtaining an NPO in light of what I believed the agreement the ISPs had after the ACS:LAW debacle, in at least challenging these orders.  You were greatly helped by O2 NOT challenging you.  If they had I don’t think you would have been granted the order.

Your  only defence of criticism is to say your critics, be it the press or “faceless keyboard warriors”, are biased or spread “mistruths and lies”.  My comment on this is simple.  You would say that, wouldn’t you?  Is it a shame you use “sound bites” rather than provide actual evidence.  This Blog has detailed the number of contradictions you have spoken to different organisations.  What are the “lies and Mistruths” that I have spread?

“In some respects Golden Eye finds itself back where it was two years ago, having correctly followed legal procedure after submitting technical evidence that has been accepted by the courts that there is an arguable case that Ben Dover and other rights holders content that we represent has been infringed by Internet users on file sharing networks and obtaining the names and addresses of these alleged infringers,” said Becker, calling Friday’s ruling a “positive judgment [that] is very much a bitter sweet, moment.”

May I provide a quote from your statement in the original Court case (15):

“Originally, the only evidence filed in support of the claim was Mr Becker’s first witness statement. In paragraphs 1-3, headed “Introduction”, he explained that the Claimants sought disclosure by O2 of the names and addresses of the subscribers associated with the IP addresses shown in the CD-ROM attached as Exhibit 1, that the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying and that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms set out in Exhibit 2.”

Hmmm…..“the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying”.   Now you say alleged infringer.  This is plainly wrong, the subscriber as the Court has said is not necessarily the Infringer, alleged or not.

 “Two years ago these cases were merely procedural and heard on paper without any formal hearings. This judgment has been debated by leading barristers, funded by government organizations and presided over by some of the most eminent judges in the U.K.”

Two years ago, we didn’t have a case that actually went to Court. ACS LAW tried to take people to Court for a default, but screwed up when those people said they would contest.  This had a clued up Judge who completely tore apart the “evidence”.  Your latest attempt at obtaining an NPO has been scrutinised because of this.  This statement from you is showing that what you took for granted two years ago is now not so straight forward.   And remember , the only reason this was debated at all was that O2 acquiesced rather than saying “No”.

This was an NPO hearing, that is all, yes you have gained the rights to exploit other Producers work, however as Rt Hon Judge Birss stated in his Court case with ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T who represented many Porn Producers)

“Media CAT don’t know who did it and know that they don’t know who did it,” said Birss.

Birss said Winegarten granted the (NPO) order based on the facts put before him, adding that the chief master did not have to decide whether Media CAT would ­succeed in its claims.

“I can’t imagine that the court making the Norwich Pharmacal orders in this case did so with a view to setting in train an exercise that was to be conducted in the manner that has subsequently emerged,” Birss said at the time.

He also added ..”nothing less than authorisation suffices for infringement, at least in the context of a claim for damages

Nothing has changed, it is the same.  I will believe you are different when you actively take a contested claim to Court, I for one do not believe you ever will.

Julian Beckers quotes are taking from an article that can be viewed here

Golden Eye International: The “EXPERT WITNESS” UPDATE 1

October 30, 2012 8 comments

Clem Vogler requested his image removed by DMCA

By Bpaw/Hickster

Here on this blog, much justified attention has been assigned to the “Speculative Invoice” participants.  Although these rogue characters (Which we all know!) justify their acknowledgement here, they owe their unsuccessful efforts to their “legitimate” seal of approval by an “Expert Witness”.  This “Expert Witness” has effectively swayed every Judge in the High Court to grant every Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) that has appeared before them.

So who is this “Expert Witness”?????  Step forward Mr Clement Charles Vogler.

Clem Vogler has in the past provided “Expert Witness” reports for Law Firms practising what is commonly known as “Speculative Invoicing”, what has been declared in the House of Lords as “Legal Blackmail”.  The Law firms, Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW are listed on his website, but now so are Golden Eye International (GEIL).  GEIL however are NOT a law firm, they were however represented by one of the Law Firms that practiced “Speculative Invoicing”.

Vogler gives the “ok” to the monitoring software that is used to identify the IP addresses of alleged copyright Infringers.  The problem is the software has never been scrutinised by a Court of Law and its inner workings are not public knowledge.

In this post we will look at Clem Vogler in more detail.  He is after all the man who puts the seal of approval on the software that has identified tens of thousands of alleged infringers.  Of course the fact that all the Law Firms involved have had their fingers burnt with heavy fines or Solicitors being suspended (one Law Practice actually went bankrupt and its head was suspended for TWO years), has not stopped Mr Vogler from continuing doing what he does.

Clement Charles Vogler could be regarded as a Walter Mitty character.  The self-declared computer expert, expert witness, Chartered Physicist, Technical Partner in Ad Litem, Database writer, Runner, Local Councillor……the list goes on.

For reference, see http://www.adlitem.co.uk

So what can be said about him that’s true?

Well NOT that he is a Computer Expert!

A Computer Expert: (The following statements link to the individual posts)

“The messaging interface has returned an unknown error” It says, helpfully.It leaves emails still sitting in the Inbox that I want to consign to the delete box. Oddly enough, if I go to another folder and delete something there, it will sometimes work – and then even allow me to delete a message or two from the Inbox before reverting to the error message. I’ve removed Outlook and re-installed it, with no improvement. No idea why this problem has arisen – it was fine till yesterday and I’ve not altered anything in the meantime. Any ideas?

I don’t seem able to prevent another pc on my network from connecting to the
internet through my host pc.

I used to print single address labels on my Epson LX300 dot matrix – using MS Word (envelopes and labels). That was with W95 and W98 Now I have XP, it doesn’t work. Instead of printing  one label and advancing obediently to the top of the next, it puts in a form feed and runs through six or seven rows of blank labels. I assume this has something to do with XP not being DOS based. I don’t mind buying a new printer,  if I could find one that behaved itself under XP and Word. Anyone else grappled with this problem?

I can’t really see the computer expert in the above.  Of course he could have become a computer expert in recent years but he says on his website that he published articles on technical aspects of computing in magazines between 1990 and 1996 (Maybe he took a break from being a computer expert for a little while!).  To not be able to prevent a PC connecting to his own host PC seems laughable, for a man of his supposed qualifications.

Now let’s look at what we do know………..

From his own website:

I am listed (under ad Litem) as a checked expert on computer systems in the Expert Witness Directory (formerly, the Law Society Directory of Expert Witnesses). This register operates vetting procedures to ensure that persons registered are suitably qualified and experienced

So where is Clem or Ad Litem when you do a search here:

http://www.legalhub.co.uk/legalhub/app/main?ao=o.Ie2a652a002c711db85b9d734e660a063&rs=BOL1.0&vr=1.0&bctocguid=I369f4260639711dba7e5e11db8d74eba&ststate=S;S&linktype=toc

Still declaring yourself as a certified expert witness on your website whilst you’re not listed on the legal hub website is wrong.

Email from Adam Glen to Andrew Crossley dated 20/08/2010 15:29:

Whilst I have been unable to establish or find a standard for the protection of evidence in civil cases I am concerned that I have not seen any statement from an expert witness that the evidence cannot be altered or modified in any manner.

Clem Vogler was the “Expert Witness” for Davenport Lyons AND ACS:Law, and it must be that his test on the software was clearly inadequate.

Adam Glen didn’t seem to like Clem Vogler really, including getting his surname wrong with this email to Andrew Crossley dated 24/08/2010 09:15:

You know my view on the quality of Clem Vogeler’s expert witness statement and what I perceive as the opportunity it provides to serious challenge.

This all points to some major concerns by Adam Glen that Clem Vogler is not a good “Expert Wiitness”.

From the GEIL Court case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

Both Mr Vogler and Mr Torabi have qualifications in information technology, and both give evidence about the operation of software used to monitor P2P filesharing, which is clearly a field requiring technical expertise.

Remember the above statement, it will be important later!

Mr Vogler explains he did not have Xtrack installed on his computer, and did not concern himself with how it worked, but treated it as a “black box”. He simply presented it with inputs, namely his test files, and examined the outputs to see if they corresponded to his inputs. He was satisfied that they did correspond.

What on earth does that statement say about how you perform your duty as an expert witness?  You do not install the software.  You do not concern yourself with how it works.  Could that be considered enough of a test to show that a true test has been done to verify that the software does what it should do?

Now for a real look at real evidence that Clem Vogler is no “expert witness”.  The following paragraphs and snippets are taken from a Google-translated German website that relates to Clem Vogler providing an expert witness statement for Guardaley GmbH (Yep the very people that ACS:LAWs Terence Tsang was setting up to replace…Ali Torabi) (The translation is not perfect, but is easily understood):

In essence, Mr. Clement Charles Vogler has carried out only a few functional tests, and not even these independent, but always in very close cooperation of the client. The results of these tests, he arrives at conclusions that seemed logical to him, without him being an expert in the relevant field. Even these few test cases were carried out according to his statements with “very small files”, which of course is extremely unrealistic and not even close to a real-mode, the software will meet.

“I’m not an expert in this field”

“Under these assumptions specified by him, the statement of his report, however, is not seriously usable”

In essence, Mr. Clement Charles Vogler has only performed a few functional tests, and this is not even independent, but always in very close cooperation of the client.

The results of these tests, he arrives at conclusions that seemed logical to him, that he was no expert in the relevant field.

Even these few test cases were carried out, according to his statements with “very small files”, which is extremely unrealistic, of course, and not approach a real operation of your software needs.

The questions put to him were answered only partially. Much remains open.

“Overall, his “investigations” totally unfit to occupy a general accuracy of the disputed software.  They could, if they had been since conducted independently and correctly, the correct functioning of the software THAN find in this particular case tests.  Since these test cases, however, does not approach the real conditions comply, they were not conducted independently and not with the necessary expertise, even this statement is not tenable.”

It is interesting that Mr. Clement Charles Vogler notes in his few test cases and constant participation of the client for a time difference of up to 2 seconds

To paraphrase a quote attributed to Clem Vogler by a Judge, I like the way this article put it!

We have found ONE directory that lists Vogler as an “Expert Witness”, however it is for “Construction Issues”, specifically, “Electrical and electronic engineering” Hmmmm,

Mr Vogler is a diverse character, although we have found no evidence of him being a “Sweet and Maxwell” certified “Expert Witness” as he claims, he most certainly is a long distance runner, he seems to also specialise in books with regard to “Fine Printing, Intaglio And Relief Engraving, Non-Photographic Illustration, Private Press”  in the guise of an online bookshop,  through newsgroups and even contributing to the merits of nuclear risks of contaminating sea water, with sodium coolant (Not kidding) and vivisection…. As well as reviewing Microphones! Phew!

A Chartered Physicist:

Your interesting news story about the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear site in Scotland (May pp12–13) noted that the liquid-sodium coolant was, (unsurprisingly), highly radioactive. But you go on to say that the metal is treated so that it can be safely disposed of into the sea as salt water. I am puzzled by this. Either the half-lives of the various isotopes present are short enough to ensure decay to safe levels before release, or they are not. In the former case, why dispose of a valuable metal for which there are various industrial uses? If the latter, then disposal as sea water will cause radiological contamination.
Clem Vogler

The liquid sodium–potassium (NaK) metal alloy from the reactor goes through a separation process that leaves us with some lightly contaminated liquid that can be discharged to sea, while the “filters” that have extracted much of the radioactivity are stored as radioactive waste. In technical terms, the NaK is reacted with water in a nitrogen atmosphere to produce a solution of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. This liquor also contains enormous levels of radioactive fission products, dominated by caesium-137 (many other fission products have now decayed away since the reactor has been shut down since 1977). The caustic solution is neutralized with nitric acid and passed through two custom-built ion-exchange columns to remove the radioactivity. The liquor is then discharged to sea as sodium nitride and potassium nitrate in water, while the ion-exchange columns concentrate the radioactivity for ultimate storage as intermediate-level solid waste. Radioactively contaminated NaK has no commercial value and the contamination cannot be readily removed until the material is in an aqueous phase.
Colin Punler, Dounreay Communications

Now I am no Chartered Physicist, but Clem questioned their story and the reply was enough for me to think that it was a silly question to ask!

Technical Partner at Ad Litem:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04354109

Ad Litem Ltd
Registration Date: 16/01/2002
Registration Number: 04354109
Type: Private Limited Company
Company Status: Dissolved

Technically speaking, you can’t be Technical Partner of a dissolved company.

Database Writer:

(See A Computer Expert above)

Runner:

http://reephamrunners.webs.com/apps/profile/81869688/

http://www.derehamrunners.co.uk/news/archive/the-year-to-date

We also had John Richardson in the V55 class placed 6th 25:37, in V60 an excellent run by Clem Vogler to finish 3rd in class 21:00, Tony Bastard 7th 23:28 and Ernie Bradshaw 8th 24:33

Too easy!!!!!

Expert Witness:

It would be difficult to verify all consultancies that are listed simply because of the number of years that have passed.  But finding any that can be verified is all too difficult!

GQS Solicitors (Birmingham) Dec 2006 Vehicle Fraud

Google “GQS Solicitors” “Vehicle Fraud” and you get one website, adlitem.co.uk.  Not one website anywhere that suggest that GQS has ever been involved in a vehicle fraud case.

David Phillips Solicitors (Manchester) Jun 2005 Immigration Fraud

Google “David Phillips Solicitors” “Immigration Fraud” and you get one relevant website, adlitem.co.uk.  Not one website anywhere that suggest that DPS has ever been involved in an immigration fraud case.

Rigby & Co Solicitors (Middlewich) Sept 2007 Software

Now what that means I don’t know and is meaningless to try and find anything about that case!

All of the above is questionable until evidence can back it up.

This rounds up what we know so far, It will be updated whenever it can be.

UPDATE 1: Clem Vogler requested that the image of himself taken from a WordPress.com Blog should be removed from this one using a DMCA takedown. we did not fight the decision, on the grounds that we believe his request has visually improved this particular post, and we thank him!

EDIT: If YOU receive a letter from Golden Eye International, then contact your local Citizens Advice Center.  Citizens Advice Consumer Service (08454 04 05 06) or your local Citizens Advice Bureau  And of course post comments here or on the Slyck forums!

Golden Eye International, Pre-action letter little more than “Phishing”

July 25, 2012 1 comment

GEIL letter Page 1

GEIL letter Page 2

GEIL Letter Page 3

GEIL letter Page 4

 

GEIL letter Page 5

Download letter as images or view online

Despite assurances from GEILs “Commercial Director” Julian Becker that he is NOT connected to ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley, the release of the template of their Pre-Action letter, shows that he is at least a fan of the format of letter that was developed by Davenport Lyons, and licensed by them to ACS:LAW , who then in turn let Tilly Baily Irvine use them.  TBI were the Solicitors for GEIL/BDP.

It is watered down for sure, as I have said all along, it would be a “Refinement”, but it is still essentially the same format with the same evidence, or should that be, LACK OF EVIDENCE.

The letter is really an exercise in Phishing, you would have thought a company who had gone to Court and gained a Norwich Pharmacal order, would at least have some kind of concrete evidence, right? Err no not quite.

The letter states that

“This letter assumes that you, as the internet account holder at your address, were the user of the relevant computer on the day and time in question,” the letter states under the title “Infringing acts.”

“In the event that you were not responsible for the infringing acts outlined above because, for example, another member of your household was the user of the computer, you should make full disclosure to us of the other parties at your residence using your internet connection to make the Work available for download,” the letter states.

“A failure to make such disclosure may lead to a claim being made against you with the court being asked to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the user of the computer.”

 ACS:LAW in their desperation issued a questionnaire that covered the same criteria, GEIL are using it in their initial letter!  One thing is missing though and that is a demand for money,(GEIL had wanted to demand £700 per letter, but were slapped down by the High Court), this on the face of things seems a good thing, however, it almost certainly guarantees at least a second letter.

We know from the ACS:LAW cases that when they got to court, they were laughed back out.  Judge Birss said of ACS:LAWs client Media C.A.T,

“Media CAT don’t know who did it and know that they don’t know who did it,”.

The letter also contains another similarity to the ACS:LAW letter, the “Forensic computer analyst”, Hmm that would be Alireza Torabi, the same one that ACS:LAW used, of course Becker has already stated he had no problems with Torabis system, only Crossleys use, but that is the issue, a lot of the captured data was duff.

One final concern, is that in the Solicitors Regulation Authorities report, they stated,

“Neither MCAT nor the Respondent had evidence that the “Work” had been made available. They had a report from the monitoring company which showed that its software had captured pieces of the two pornographic videos being made available from an IP address at a particular second in time.”

What was true a year ago is as true as today, there IS NO EVIDENCE, that is why the letter is designed to trip up a person who has not infringed but at least could be hoodwinked into paying up.  It is a scare tactic being used by a failing pornography business to generate money.. PURE AND SIMPLE

Now what was it that Lindsay Honey (Ben Dover) said? Ahh yes..

“At the end of the day, if I can’t make money out of porn, the only way I can make money is to get to the people who are not buying it”

Says it all really

EDIT: If YOU receive a letter from Golden Eye International, then contact your local Citizens Advice Center.  Citizens Advice Consumer Service (08454 04 05 06) or your local Citizens Advice Bureau  And of course post comments here or on the Slyck forums!

Golden Eye International /Ben Dover (GEIL) Neutered in the High Court

June 6, 2012 2 comments

Golden Eye International/Ben Dover the latest group to try their hand at the Speculative Invoicing Scam, have been given permission to send their Court Approved letters out to O2 Customers.

The Letter, it would seem has been very much scrutinised and has been ordered by the Court to be toned down, after GEIL attempted to overstep their mark by using a letter that made some wild claims, regarding the amount they wanted and also what the ISP would do on their say so.

It remains to be seen the actual content of the letter, however early indications point to the fact that it is NOT allowed to contain a cash demand as GEIL’s forerunners, Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine, or Gallant Macmillan had done.

GEIL initially wanted to demand £700 per letter, this was quashed by the Judge overseeing the case.

More background on this can be found on this Blog or the always excellent Torrentfreak website.

What I wanted to highlight here, is some observations

Golden Eye International/Ben Dover may claim to have no connection with ACS:LAW but there is one, and one Julian Becker has already admitted to, the data gatherer, the person who will harvest the IP addresses of those suspected of uploading/downloading, is a man called Alireza Torabi of ng3 systems, Mr Torabi is the guy who got things spectacularly wrong with the IP addresses that led to ACS:LAW targeting innocent people. He is using the same software, so one can presume the same results.

Golden Eye International are also using the same “Expert Witness” Clem Vogler.  Alireza Torabi was shown in the leaked emails to have a somewhat troublesome relationship with Andrew Crossley to the point that Crossleys cohort Terence Tsang, consulted and arranged for the monitoring to be done by Guardaley. One would have thought Torabi at least would have learnt his lesson!

Ben Dover aka Lindsay Honey,  was interviewed in January 2009, with regard to the same action taken in the USA by Larry Flynt, The interview can be viewed here.  as can be seen, Honey claims he KNEW that his sales were already going down the pan and that he had “Seen it coming” and had diversified into other areas, even attempting to become a serious actor

The problem with this kind of “Legal Blackmail”, as it was decribed in the House of Lords, is that it is VERY difficult to defend against.  A person may have strong evidence that he has NOT downloaded one of their films, however to go to Court and have his name cleared costs a LOT of money.   A person would more than likely pay up even if they are innocent through fear of not having the money to go to court to clear their name, and that is EXACTLY what people like GEIL are banking on.  Of course being pornographers they have no shame, no understanding and no concern of what their actions have on the average person.

They want you to be frightened, they want you to fear going to Court, the reason being of course is that they have NO evidence whatsoever, against ANYONE.  Don’t believe me? See this quote from the ruling of Media C.A.T  (ACS:LAW) by Judge Colin Birss

All the IP address identifies is an internet connection, which is likely today to be a wireless home broadband router. All Media CAT’s monitoring can identify is the person who has the contract with their ISP to have internet access. Assuming a case in Media CAT’s favour that the IP address is indeed linked to wholesale infringements of the copyright in question… Media CAT do not know who did it and know that they do not know who did it.

Julian Becker claims that GEIL are different, they all did, every Law Firm that has tried this, claimed to be different from the others, but they were not.

Becker says “In our first letter we seek to find out more information regarding evidence of an infringement of our copyright” 

 

Andrew Crossley of ACS:LAW said “I make an enquiry of the recipient of my initial letter following receipt of evidence that their internet connection was utilized for the purposes of infringing copyright of our clients”

GEIL are not of course Lawyers, so it will be interesting to see what they will do when a letter comes through the door of some innocent subscriber of O2 and they say “Screw you, con merchants”

We will see.

One final point is that I wonder what O2 meant when they talk about their “Unique” position in this case?, the only unique position as I see it, is that they are the only ISP to have acquiesced to this form of racket since ACS:LAWs spectacular disintegration.

I am angry, pornography accusations can wreck lives and marriages, that is why I will fight for those wrongly accused.

I will leave the last word to Mr Honey… 

 “Fuck! Aren’t I just the luckiest bastard in the World?

Not only do I get to film all of these fantasic looking girls stripping off for my camera, but I also get to slide my fingers knuckle-deep into their hot, wet snatches, then get my knob sucked into the bargain!! Have I got some awesome little jizz-junkies for you!”

And the comment:

“At the end of the day, if I can’t make money out of porn, the only way I can make money is to get to the people who are not buying it”

O2 sells out it’s customers to Pornographer WITHOUT a fight

March 27, 2012 12 comments

Telefonica Spanish owner of O2, were approached by Golden Eye International with a request to disclose 9124 (NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR) of its customers details.  “Golden Eye International” (GEIL) is a trading name for “Ben Dover”, the Pornographers.

It is astonishing to think that this request came on the 20th September 2011, a FULL year after the ACS:LAW debacle unravelledAt a time when all other ISPs have stated they would not work with the “Speculative Invoicing” scheme, O2 alone has bucked the trend.

They did NOT fight for their customers, rather they SOLD them out

From the Judgement posted online:

5: On 7 October 2011 Baker & McKenzie filed an acknowledgement of service on behalf of O2 stating that O2 did not intend to contest the claim.

6: On 18 November 2011 the parties were given notice of a disposal hearing before Chief Master Winegarten on 6 December 2011. On 28 November 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master to confirm that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms submitted by Golden Eye, and therefore did not intend to attend the hearing. At the hearing on 6 December 2011 Mr Becker attended on behalf of the Claimants. The Chief Master raised a number of questions about the proposed order, which he asked Mr Becker to relay to Baker & McKenzie. Mr Becker duly did so, and on 14 December 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master answering his questions. In the letter Baker & McKenzie stated that, prior to issuing the Claim Form, Golden Eye had provided O2 with a draft of the proposed order and that Baker & McKenzie had made amendments to the draft. A number of amendments were identified and explained. The letter reiterated that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in that form. Having considered the letter, the Chief Master decided to refer the claim to a judge.

120: In consider the proportionality of the order sought, it seems to me that it is important to have regard to the precise terms of that order. The terms of the draft order having been negotiated between Golden Eye and Baker & McKenzie, it is in a form that O2 is content with. Thus it may be regarded as proportionate as between the Claimants and O2

32:1: 4(b) Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the First Applicant, on behalf of all the Applicants, shall pay into an escrow account to be held by the Respondent’s solicitors, Baker & McKenzie LLP, (the ‘Escrow Account’) a sum equal to £2.20 per IP address requested within the initial Batch together with £2500 costs to be held as security for the costs specified in paragraph 5 below.

They COULD have contested it, but CHOSE not to.

If YOU are a subscriber of O2, I think maybe you should consider moving to an ISP who values you as a customer more than the needs of a Pornographer who after all is merely following the example of ACS:LAW.  Golden Eye International after all were first represented by Tilly Baily Irvine.  It was only when TBI reacted to the negative publicity including being named in the House of Lords that they withdrew and GEIL continued.

O2 did not fight for it’s subscribers when it could have done, their have be to many disingenuous articles published so far that claim they did 1 2.  Read the Judgement and decide for yourself.

Their will be another hearing after Easter regarding the GEIL hearing and how the letters will be composed, one thing is for sure GEIL did NOT get what they wanted. 

This is not a new direction more an attempted refinement of the scheme that Davenport Lyons,  ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine and Gallant Macmillan/Ministry of Sound have attempted and failed.  It should be treated with the same contempt. 

The contempt indeed that O2 have shown it’s customers.

Logo supplied by a now EX Customer of O2

 Previous Posts RE Golden Eye International

https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/will-golden-ey…e-to-ben-dover/
https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/golden-eye-int…s-and-monitors/

Golden Eye International using ACS:LAW’s “experts and monitors”

March 13, 2012 4 comments

Image

For Previous post on GoldenEye International see here

Speculative invoicing or “Copyright Trolling” really is the “Turd that will not flush”

Just as Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine, and Gallant Macmillan, have been roundly ridiculed in  the House of Lords,  the Media and the High Court, and apart from Gallant Macmillan all been financially punished by the SRA/SDT most of us thought this tawdry practice of sending out letters in the hope of receiving money from people to scared to frightened or not able to afford to defend themselves was well and truly over.

For those who are not aware of this sad saga, please see these links for background.

https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/acslaw-a-brief-history-of-speculative-invoicing/

https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/will-golden-eye-international-be-made-to-ben-dover/

http://torrentfreak.com/theyre-back-porn-outfit-sues-uk-citizens-for-illegal-file-sharing-110927/

http://torrentfreak.com/yet-another-uk-law-firm-admonished-for-file-sharing-letters-111103/

However, their will always be one arrogant or greedy or indeed both Lawyer and Troll who will chance their arm, and indeed reputation.  Step forward Golden Eye International (GEIL), better  know as Pornographer Ben Dover, (AKA Simon Lindsay Honey) alongside Barrister extrodianaire (well if his own hype is to be believed) Jonathon Cohen of Littleton Chambers

They were in Court on Friday applying for an order known as an NPO for 9000 names, yep NINE THOUSAND, they want to send demands of £700, to each of these people which will net them a cool £6.3 MILLION

The interesting thing about all this, is that it IS the same sad old scheme “Pay us or else”

For back ground to this particular case please see the excellent Torrent Freak and also Computeractive.

Even more amusing, Golden Eye International are using the same “Expert Witness” that ACS:LAW used but considered troublesome in the emails they leaked, Clem Vogler, and if that was not bizarre enough they are using Alireza Torabi of NG3Systems

Alireza Torabi was shown in the leaked emails to have a somewhat troublesome relationship with Andrew Crossley to the point that Crossleys cohort Terence Tsang, consulted and arranged for the monitioring to be done by Guardaley.  One would have thought Torabi at least would have learnt his lesson!

Computer Focus are the group who have employed Ralli Barrister Guy Tritton who tore the ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T case to shreds before High Court Justice Birss.

Jonathan Cohen acting for the Pornographer (GEIL) stated that it was not “economically viable for Golden Eye International) to bring a test case”, in other words to show they have a valid case.  This should be no surprise as Judge Birss at the ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T hearing stated, that (See her for link)

Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court. Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?

And Also

Media CAT and ACS:Law have a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny of the cause of action because in parallel to the 26 court cases, a wholesale letter writing campaign is being conducted from which revenues are being generated. This letter writing exercise is founded on the threat of legal proceedings such as the claims before this court.

 Judge Birss also made the point In summing up of the ACS:LAW?Media C.A.T case in regard to the Norwich Pharmacal Orders

 

Wider issues – this kind of Norwich Pharmacal order

111 I cannot imagine that the court making the Norwich Pharmacal orders in this case did so with a view to setting in train an exercise that was to be conducted in the manner that has subsequently emerged. In my judgment when a Norwich Pharmacal order is sought of the kind made in this case, it may well be worth considering how to manage the subsequent use of the identities disclosed. Perhaps consideration should be given to making a Group Litigation Order under CPR Part 19 from the outset and providing a mechanism for identifying tests cases at an early stage before a letter writing campaign begins. When Anton Piller (search and seizure) orders are made the practice is for a supervising solicitor who does not act for the claimant to be closely involved in order to ensure that the orders are not abused. The supervising solicitors are experienced practitioners. Perhaps a court asked for a Norwich Pharmacal order of the kind made here should consider requiring some similar form of supervision from a experienced neutral solicitor.

112 A party seeking a Norwich Pharmacal order in a case like this should also give serious consideration to s102 of the 1988 Act. Although s102(3) clearly provides that s102(1) does not affect the granting of interlocutory relief a Norwich Pharmacal order has some elements of final relief about it. After all the Norwich Pharmacal action comes to an end once the order is made. In any case just because the court has power to grant the relief without joining the copyright owner does not mean it must do so.

 One more nice link that sums up the copyright Trolls scheme that GEIL is now persuing.

UPDATE 1: The ISPs involved in this case are o2 and Bethere, essentialy the same company Telefonica.  In the past these Lawfirms have only targetted ISPs who have said they will not challenge the order.  In other words, if you are a customer of O2 or Bethere, think, wether you want to remain a customer of a company that thinks so little of you that they put the needs of a Pornographer above yours!  The could have challenged the order, but DIDN’T

Maybe you should consider Plusnet as your new ISP.

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley suspended for TWO Years :UPDATE 2

January 16, 2012 6 comments

Andrew Crossley leaving the SDT Hearing

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley has been suspended for Two years and  fined had costs awarded against him of over £70,000.

The lead ringmaster of a Copyright Trolls/Speculative Invoicing campaign he admitted to Six Charges levelled at him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. (Here is a Brief History of Speculative Invoicing)

Crossley ADMITTED the following charges: (1 ,2 ,3, 4, 5, and 6, no#7 was dropped)

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised

2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients

3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession

4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law

5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients

6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

Crossley gave the  Court Testimonials, like Character references from people who knew him… these included

Andrew Hopper QC (And by Crossleys own admission, the man who wrote the SRA Rules)

Alistair Logan OBE – His ex partners father!

Raymond Murphy – senior solicitor at Merriman White (Himself subject of a SDT Tribunal)

Mark West – a barrister and recorder

Edward Parladorio – (Terence Tsangs new employer)

David Fisher – Birchwood – ( Part of the GCB  debacle)

Mark Beresford

Nicolas Underwood – “Ray Santilli – Orbital Media

Clive Windsor

Oh and Lee Bowden of Piri Ltd…

Also Crossley stated the he had been offered FIVE different positions recently but he could not take FOUR them as the firms could not get insurance, the other firm withdrew when the circumstances surrounding these issue were known.

One other snippet is that Crossley has NOT paid his £800 fine from the ICO. The Fine was £1000, but was reduced by 20% for a prompt payment, this it seems did not happen, and so he would still owe a £1000 (Maybe part of the bankruptcy)

This was Andrew Crossleys THIRD appearance before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, (First one here) (Second one here) one wonders what it would take to protect the public from a bag legal situation.  The Law Society put “Solicitors from Hell” website offline, saying they would deal with bad legal situations, I have to say personally, for the now nearly THREE years I and many others have been involved fighting this corner this punishment does NOT fit the bill…..

UPDATE 1: According to “The Lawyer” Crossley claimed that his internet service provider (ISP) had been negligent, adding that he intended to sue the provider when he had more money.  Good luck with that one!

UPDATE 2: Mike Wallace (Darker Enterprises) in writing at the hearing. “ACS Law has helped us significantly in the last few months, we have also seen a small increase in DVD sales. In looking through various internet forums, we’ve seen them having an effect on filesharers.”  Hmmmm, treated with contempt it deserves I think is the word here!

More updates as they appear.

See the Excellent TorrentFreak for more as well as the SLYCK FORUMS, my home from home! (Big thanks to Steve!)

Tilly Bailey Irvine accept paltry Fine handed to them for “Copyright Trolling” UPDATE 1

November 4, 2011 5 comments

Tilly Bailey Irvine (TBI) the Law Firm that jumped on the “Speculative Invoicing” bandwagon driven by ACS:LAW has “Agreed” to accept a monetary punishment of £2800. This is a sad sad day for those who followed this case and were expecting more from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

TBI launched their letter campaign in January 2010 and by April had had enough. They represented “Media & More GMBH” and also “Golden Eye International” sending out letters of claim to members of the general public that they claim were infringing the copyright of their clients.

Problem for TBI was that it was a deeply flawed system that rounded up far to many innocent people.

TBI like ACS:LAW and the law firm that followed Gallant Macmillan, never sought to go to court but relied heavily on the embarrassment of receiving one of these letters, and the assumption that no one would challenge them because of the damage to their reputation in doing so.

One of the more infamous titles represented by TBI was “Army Fu**ers”,  I cant publish the titles of the others as they are that bad (You can type in Media & More into a search engine to see what I mean)

Ironically TBI withdrew from the “Speculative Invoicing” plan, in a letter to the SRA TBI stated:

 “We have been surprised and disappointed at the amount of adverse publicity that our firm has attracted in relation to this work and the extra time and resources that have been required to deal solely with this issue.

We are concerned that the adverse publicity could affect other areas of our practice and therefore following discussions with our clients, we have reluctantly agreed that we will cease sending out further letters of claim.”

Hmmm well not as surprised and disappointed as a military man returning from service to one of their letters accusing him of downloading a porn film called “Army Fu*kers” but still.

TBI went on to try to eradicate all trace of their “Speculative Invoicing” actions by Vandalising” an entry on Wikipedia. This led to a rather amusing clash with one of the editors:

Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, as you did with TBI Solicitors — this is vandalism,” wrote a Wikipedia admin to Tilly Bailey & Irvine.

Furthermore, your IP address geolocates to ‘TILLY BAILEY & IRVINE’ which suggests that you have a conflict of interest in removing criticism of the firm from Wikipedia. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with that policy before editing this particular article any further,”

Oops.

They were slammed in the House of Lords and now have an entry in Hansard, describing them as “an embarrassment to the creative industry”  see 1:06 – 1:40

The Speculative Invoicing plan that TBI took wholesale from ACS:LAW as shown in the ACS leaked emails (And for which ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley originally threatened to report them to the SRA, but later relaxed and attempted to “Work together” when the SRA came down on them both), was also described in the House Of Lords as “no better than Legal blackmail” 

I attempted a satirical post regarding this comment, and TBI saw fit to threaten my Blog Host and also imply they would sue me for defamation.

In the end most people who read my Blog know that I seek only one thing from these Lawyers, and that is an apology, an apology for the pain they have caused in falsely accusing people who were left with a feeling of helplessness, and having no option but to pay up to avoid losing their homes or their jobs.

Did Tilly Bailey Irvine feel they could apologise? Well here is what one of their Bosses said,

TBI managing partner John Hall said the firm was “delighted to be able to dispose of this matter in a way that makes it clear that the firm has never acted with any conscious or deliberate impropriety”.

He added: “We take pride in our reputation for fighting our clients’ corner to the best of our ability. Although on this occasion the SRA has ruled that we went too far – on their interpretation of the rules – we shall continue always to put the interests of clients first, as our clients and the public generally would expect.

“Copyright breaches cost business £200m per year. We hope that these cases will highlight the lack of clarity in the rules and ensure that, in future, criminal activities such as these can be dealt with by the legal process so that copyright is safeguarded and clients’ legitimate interests are protected.”

noting that the SRA ruled that the company went “too far”, that decision was based on “their (SRAs) interpretation of the rules”.

One wonders what on earth John Hall means by this, the SRA after all are the ones who MAKE THE RULES and regulate Solicitors, this is no apology, and I hope the SRA will reconsider referring Tilly Bailey Irvine to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which is independent, and where the likes of John Hall can argue the rules all he wants.

Terence Tsang resurfaces with different name.

October 21, 2011 7 comments

"Terence Jintin" AKA "Terence Tsang"

Terence Tsang is working for PSB LAW.  The former Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW Paralegal, had gone off the radar as far as those interested and greatly affected by the dealings of Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW were concerned.

After a brief stint at Cramer Pelmont that ended at the same time as leaked emails from ACS:LAW showed that he had continued working for them whilst at Cramer Pelmont, he seemed to have dissapeared.

The fact he has been so hard to find is that Terence Tsang has stopped using his real name and has adopted the new name of Terence Jintin (This may actually be his middle name) What is of interest is that PBS LAW it would seem have gone to great pains to conceal his identity.

On their website the actual text describing their team members is HTML text, however on Tsangs it is an actual image.  This has the effect of being invisible to both Googles and other search engines “Search Robots”.  In addition to this, in the HTML of the page “About us” there is in the header a HTML intruction <meta name=”robots” content=”noindex,nofollow” /> this instruction will stop a search engine actually indexing that page and any links from it.  In effect this makes the page invisible to normal searches and would only be seen by someone who was on the actual PSB LAW website. there is NO link to Tsang/Jintins presence on this page.  All rather strange.

To be clear Google and other search engines will search and index the total PSB LAW website EXCEPT Tsangs own page.

One has to wonder WHY Tsang has changed his name.  If what he had done at Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW was so right and above board, then why try to hide? Of course the Courts have not found what Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW did was right, and neither has the Solicitors Regulation Authority that has sent both Davenports Brian Miller and Dave Gore and ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley to their Disciplinary Tribunal.

Many websites have speculated over the involvement of Terence Tsang in the “Speculative Invoicing” over the last few years.

There are many ways to hide online, doing what PSB LAW has attempted to do, may have worked, however the best way to remain anonymous online and protect your name and reputation seems to me to not upset people in the first place by exercising dubious legal methods.

The pain and anguish caused to those by what Terence Tsang was an integral part of is well documented.

Will Golden Eye International be made to “Ben Dover”? (Update 3)

September 28, 2011 3 comments

"Ben Dover" or "Goldeneye International" or "Optime Strategies Ltd" or just plain Simon Honey?

After the Copyright Trolls, Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Gallant Macmillan, Tilly Baily Irvine were either slain or withdrew due to adverse publicity and returned to their core practices, the people of Great Britain breathed a sigh of relief that they might not again be wrongfully targetted by unscrupulous Law Firms or “Copyright Holding Companies”. They were wrong.

Arising from the ashes of Tilly Baily Irvines failed attempts to emulate ACS:LAW, comes a company called “Golden Eye International”, indeed they were represented by Tilly Baily Irvine.   Golden eye International claim to be the “..holder of numerous film copyrights” and have sent out letters themselves demanding money from people they claim to have “infringed their copyrights”.

This is quite interesting in the fact that “Golden Eye International” are NOT a law firm. They seem to represent the “Copyright Holdings” of a Pornographic Franchise called “Ben Dover”

What is VERY interesting is that the Director of Golden Eye International, is a man called “Simon Lindsay Honey“, a cursory search online,  leads one to his AKA which turns out amazingly to “Ben Dover”

Yep, Ben Dover or rather Simon Lindsay Honey, is a Director of the Company that owns the Copyright of his OWN films and is sending out letters of claim to people he accuses of “Infringing his copyright”.

How does he do this?

Well according to Golden Eye Internationals website they use “bespoke technology which captures the irrefutable evidence of the perpetrators.”

Hmmm anyone who knows the background to the Davenport/Acs/Gallant Macmillan/Tilly Baily Irvine “monitors”, know this to be, how should I put this….BULLSHIT.  In addition Golden Eye International even use the “Expert Witness” Report of a Mr Clem Vogler, as did Davenport Lyons, as Did , ACS:LAW, as can be seen here on Mr Voglers own Website.

One further note of interest is that back in August 2010 thanks to ACS:LAW leaking their emails, it is shown that at least one of the ACS:LAW Crew, Adam Glen had serious issues with the Vogler report.

24/08/11

(Adam Glen)acslawsupervisor@googlemail.com
andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk

You know my view on the quality of Clem Vogeler’s expert witness statement and what I perceive as the opportunity it provides to serious challenge.

The ACS:LAW debacle ended in a Court Case where ACS:LAW and Media C.A.T (The Copyright Holding Company) both went bust rather than pay damages, when it became clear they were “Trying it on” To paraphrase the Judge. by a strange Co-incidence, the Golden Eye International cases have now also landed in Court before the SAME Judge, such was his actionas regarding ACS:LAW Judge Colin Birss was awarded the Internet Hero Award for 2011.

It remains to be seen what will happen with Goden Eye International, the ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T fell apart after the actual true copyright holders, refuse to be “Joined” in the Court Action.   They had benefited from people paying up but were not going to put their neck on the line.

For Golden Eye International to be succesful, they will (I presume) have to be Joined by the Copyright Holders, in this case Ben Dover, as they are one and the same Person, ie SIMON LINDSAY JAMES HONEY, it conjures an image that may well befit one of his Pornographic titles.

UPDATE 1:  “BDP (Ben Dover Productions” means Optime Strategies Ltd trading as www.ben-dover.biz

Golden Eye own the Ben Dover trade mark.

Again it seems like smoke and mirrors.

UPDATE 2 (Fixed Link): It has been pointed out that Clem Voglers company Ad Litem Ltd has been dissolved as of 13/09/2011 see here http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04354109

Thanks to Mullard!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 285 other followers