This is a post from an earlier Blog but is worth reposting as the Information is VERY Valid and shows those people accusing others in a truer light. It is basically scaps of info and news on the people at ACS:LAW and those who worked with and for them. For later information please see the rest of my Blog especially
each of the following respects, namely:-
(a) He failed to deliver to the Law Society his Accountant’s Report for the 12 month
period ended 31st December 2002 (due by 30th June 2003);
(b) He failed to deliver to the Law Society his Accountant’s Report for the six month
period ended 3rd June 2003 (due by 31st December 2003);
(c) He failed to deliver to the Law Society his Accountant’s Report for the six month
period ended 31st December 2003 (due by 29th February 2004);
Radio interview with Andrew Crossley on the BBC Radio 4 in relation to the mass mailing of claims for money from alleged Copyright Infringement.
Anon: Why arent you commenting Terence? you seem VERY quiet all of a sudden! Questions need answers my friend, what have you to hide?
TezimondoYou are my favourite infringer. It’s a
shame the other infringers dislike you – I find you quite amusing.
AnonNot sure what you mean by that Terence, buy please tell me WHY wonf you answer any questions? oh and by the way, I am NOT an infringer!
TezimondoBecause I don’t need to?
AnonYou are arrogant enough to think you dont need to answer questions? You accuse me of being an infringer? what a nerve, you dont even know me
TezimondoExactly. I don’t know you – why should I answer your questions?
AnonThen why should you call me an infringer? I have shown evidence that YOU are, yet the case against my friend is laughable, and no evidence
AnonSerious, why wont you and your Law firm RELEASE the evidence you have, it looks real bad on your part, why not? you more than an IP surely?
AnonYou are pushing my friend to a breakdown, you and your Law Firm, I find it a disgrace, I realy hope s(he has the strengh to fight your claim
TezimondoI would personally love a court battle. It will look great on my CV. Bring it on I say… if you have the resources.
AnonNo My friend does NOT have the money to fight it, and that is what is so wrong, he is innocent yet a victim of your Money grabbing Firm
AnonThat tells me everything I need to know though I am worrying about my friends healthm you respond about your CV, I mean heartless or what
TezimondoIf it’s affecting your friend’s health then write in and explain the circumstances.
AnonDont think that your firm would care and you know it, you are heartless, worried about your CV and your career, I hope it works out for you
TezimondoI suggest you take down your ‘blog’ before we issue proceedings against you personally.
TezimondoWe do actually, and all circumstances are taken into account when backed up by medical evidence.
AnonI think not, your comment about your CV was it for me, but please tell me WHY you wont release the evidence you have, it is very unusual
AnonYou must realise that if you go to Court without releasing the Evidence you have it will go against you? my friends letter shows an IP addy!
TezimondoAccuracy of the Logistep system is backed up by a court certified experts report. Evidence from isp backed up by a witness statement.
AnonBTW out of all the stuff I have posted here, is any of it Untrue? I would hate to misrepresent the facts!
AnonI gotta get to bed, its late here in France! 3:15 keep in touch Terence!
TezimondoAll will be revealed at trial… if someone actually challenges us. All cases so far we have won or infringers have defaulted on.
AnonWhy do they default? to far to travel? very clever system you have, but not really justice is it? Why revealed at trial? why not now?
TezimondoAccuracy of the Logistep system is backed up by a court certified experts report. Evidence from isp backed up by a witness statement.
Anoncourt certified experts? so tell me who? The Logistep is flawed you must know that, even here in france it was thrown out.
TezimondoI’m not at liberty to disclose their names. They exist and will be produced if necessary in court.
AnonSo what really is the thinking here I mean this is not about infringers is it? it is a money making scheme right?
TezimondoWe have issued a decent number of cases. Not all cases are reported you know. Many reasons why they would default.
TezimondoDo you really think we have issued on only 4 cases? Sometimes they contest it and back out at the last minute. I enjoy being in court.
AnonI didnt realise you had issued on ANY cases as ACS LAW, are you ex Davenport then Terence, I know a few went to ACS are you one of them?
AnonBy the way, what is the reason Nicola Beale left? I know she is at Newmans and she has been contacted, as she will have to appear at court
TezimondoClient’s want to protect their rights. Simple as that. We act on their instructions and get paid for it. We’re called a law firm.
Tezimondobut seriously our logo’s are copyrighted, your website is defamatory. We could easily get them shut down and you would have to pay costs.
AnonNow now Terence easy tiger, it is NOT my logo, I just thought it summed up your actions, I rather like it. You gonna track me down for it!
AnonI am not the only one to use it, and you really need to build up the reputation of your Law firm by honest means, do a google search of ACS
AnonTwitter is hardly a website BTW it is a social messenging place.about 8 hours ago
TezimondoI’m ex DL – fantastic top UK firm for media work. No idea about Nicola, left shortly after I joined. People move around, it’s normal.
AnonInteresting that you are DL, why go to a 2 bit firm like ACS? were you sacked? or just went to save the name of DL?
TezimondoThink of your comments as you wish. I have other work to be getting on with but if instructed to, I will have to issue a claim against you.
AnonFor a twitter background? come off it, you are joking right? I have to go anyway! thx for the chat
Anonahh I remember you did that to a guy who hosted beingscammed! but not beingthreatened, interesting, makes me wonder of acs involvement
TezimondoI like a challenge…. you’re on!
Anon err what challenge? You are threatening me over a Twitter background?
TezimondoYes but I decided to not pursue him for costs and damages. Was feeling nice.
Anonoh your all heart Terence, how on earth do you sleep at night, like a baby I bet, no conscience, I pity you I really do
TezimondoDefamatory use of someone’s logo. Defamatory comments in general.
AnonDefamatory? nonsense, I have only posted the truth, are you denying you cybersquatted? come off it,
AnonWhat content on here do you find defamatory? I asked you this a while ago, what is untrue?
TezimondoI’m not going to run into a legal argument here with you on the definition of Defamation. You should seek legal advice if unclear.
TezimondoI’m just asking you to remove your defamatory content. Would you prefer it if I didn’t and just issued proceedings?
AnonThere Terence is that better? Some of us cant afford legal advice which is why I know this is all wrong
AnonI am no lawyer but I am pretty sure accusing me of being an infringer is defamation. and you have done that a number of times now
TezimondoTell your friend to write to me personally. I will look into her case. Make sure she details the effect on her health.
AnonShe’s not capable of that not at the moment, but thankyou for your concern, Passions run high, it is not personal, hate to see her like it
TezimondoI’m going to sleep. I’m not as bad as you make out. Tell your friend to write in to me.
TezimondoAlso, I would appreciate the things you write about me taken off your blogs.
TezimondoGet someone to write in on her behalf. Address it to me.
Terence Tsang gets caught trying to hijack Morgan Stanleys name
Terence Tsang gets caught trying to hijack Old National Bancorps Name
A few more scraps of info on Terence Tsang
11 rupert law close
Key-Systems GmbH [Tag = KEY-SYSTEMS-DE]
& ;nbs p; Relevant dates:
Registered on: 17-Jun-2003
Renewal date: 17-Jun-2011
Last updated: 21-Jul-2009
(NAME REMOVED) @Tezimondo Sage isn’t suitable for law firms. There are better options for law firms. Tried Law Soc’s Software Solutions Guide?
2:52 PM Apr 3rd from web
(Tezimondo) @(NAME REMOVED) have you tried http://www.guru.com? I use it frequently to find freelance writers. Some very talented people on there at good prices.
3:26 AM Apr 15th from web
*There is NO suggestion here that(NAME REMOVED) are anything but an innocent party in this, and were merely advising Tsang without knowing his background.
http://devis-trade.com/ (Site has been taken down but please look here for registation details http://whois.domaintools.com/devis-trade.com)
The previous and/or current name is also Motto AG but I can’t find much on them. I only post this out of curiosity as they appear to be selling an e-cigarette!!“We distribute Cigartec® products different from many others on the market. These products give an extremely high satisfaction rate to reseller and consumer.”
Members of the Board:
Richard M. Schneider
In a letter dated 8th February Bridget Prentice MP writes a letter of response to Lord Young of Northwood Green regarding amongst other things the conduct of ACS:LAW.
The letter has been published on the National Archives Website.
What is fascinating about the letter is that the Under Secretary expresses and acknowledges the distress that the actions of ACS:LAW are causing. She also states that whilst the Government itself cannot do anything about it the SRA can, and also alludes to the fact that the SRA can ONLY deal with disciplinary actions whereas Compensation claims must be sought through the CIVIL COURT. Just read that again, here is an extract
Now the REALLY cool bit for ALL those worrying about “how many letters to send”, “Should I reply”, “What should I do if I reply and get another letter”
Can you see it? “It is open to them to inform ACS:LAW that they are not liable and do NOT intend to reply to any further correspondence save to defend a claim should one be brought”
So NO MORE LETTER TENNIS/PING PONG. REPLY, DENY, DEFY!
This Post is a response to the News Entry on the ACS:LAW website “Andrew Crossley responds to criticisms” I have tried to state the case in response to what Mr Crossley perceives as “Misconceptions” I feel I have tried to reflect many other people’s concerns who find themselves Falsely accused. Mr Crossleys post is in Black my response and reflections are in blue.
I have been operating the file sharing litigation aspect of my practice for a year now. I would like to counter five commonly held misconceptions about what my firm does:-
- It is said I accuse individuals of infringement of copyright in my initial letters. This is not true. 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 (or their licensors’ copyright, as appropriate);
This is VERY disingenuous, your letters do indeed accuse people of Copyright Infringement. Your letter may not say that the person who receives the letter is guilty but you ARE saying that their connection was used. Now Mr Crossley the implication of this is VERY clear, you are implying that either the account holder of the ISP did the infringing or KNOWS who did. Let us not be silly here Mr Crossley, this is a VERY serious matter.
- It is suggested that I accuse people of downloading. This is not true. I state that the internet connection was used to make the copyrighted work we are concerned about available to others (in other words, uploading, not downloading);
This is true, I actually agree with your statement here. I must of course point out that your “Uploads” may be a small fragment of the file that is tagged with the name (This is of course being theoretical). There of course would be a VERY easy way of showing a person that they ARE responsible for uploading but that would take something called EVIDENCE. Your much touted Forensic Experts could I presume quite easily show HOW MUCH of a file has been uploaded or indeed how many times it has been done.
- I am accused of demanding payment in my initial letters of claim. This is not true. The recipient of the letter of claim is afforded the opportunity if they wish to close the matter off and avoid the issue continuing by entering into a compromise agreement to bring the matter to an end. They are under no compulsion or obligation to do this and the compromise agreement is an entirely voluntary process;
Again I would be charitable and say you don’t DEMAND exactly but you do make it quite clear that IF the recipient does NOT pay you the money that you WILL prosecute them in a Court and this could lead to VERY expensive costs. There is again a problem with your linguistics here Mr Crossley, for instance IF you had said “I DEMAND you pay me the money” then I would say you are right in saying that you don’t demand money, but of course by saying “If you don’t want to pay this money that is your choice BUT it will cost you thousands in a Court of (Civil) Law then you may not consider that a demand, but I and many many others certainly would consider it a demand, especially when you leave a sheet of paper for recipients to fill in their Credit card details etc
- It is said our data collected is inaccurate and cannot be relied on as sufficient evidence to pursue a claim. This is not true. The data suppliers we use have all separately and independently been assessed and monitored to determine their accuracy and integrity of data captured. Reports by independent experts are produced and made available to court in advance of our application for disclosure and on each occasion so far the court has felt able to grant our applications, with these reports in mind. The only known and cited example of data being “wrong’ is that of the Murdochs (a Davenport Lyons matter). In fact there was no error with the data captured, but an error by an ISP in giving the wrong name to the law firm;
Mr Crossley, we will NEVER know it seems whether your “Forensic Experts/Data Suppliers” are legitimate as you fail to actually provide ANY of the evidence that you claim you have. You “Independent Experts” are unknown as are their reports.
Regarding the Murdoch’s you claim that it was the fault of the ISP, and NOT your data collectors, well that is all very convenient but hardly trustworthy. Why not, because you say it was a Davenport Lyons case and you have stated before that your Company had NO CONNECTION wth ACS:LAW, apart from your erstwhile Paralegal telling an alleged infringer that he had indeed been drafted in from Davenport Lyons to work with you. Again disingenuous, it leaves your statements with the aftertaste of dishonesty.
In your latest letters you are so unsure of you forensic experts that you even fail to name them, without you actually ever releasing the evidence and independent experts reports we have no idea if these experts are independent at all. We know that one of your ex-employees bought a “Monitoring Application”, that is hardly independent if that is being used, and for all we know it could be!
It also worth mentioning that the judge has no technical knowledge and is realistically taking your word and the independent forensic experts’ statement as the truth, as far as is concerned it leaves you looking a tad underhand in your dealings with people.
- It is suggested that I never issue any claims. This is not true. It is fair and correct to say that I try to avoid litigation wherever possible and exhaust all other avenues falling short of litigation prior to proceedings being issued (open offers of settlement, extensive correspondence, CPR Part 36 offers, final warning letters and so on), but proceedings have been and will continue to be issued in appropriate cases. Litigation has always been the final option in the processes I invoke on behalf of my clients and the number and frequency of such actions is shortly to increase significantly. However, each case will be assessed on its individual merits before a decision is taken to issue proceedings.
Sorry Mr Crossley, I simply CANNOT believe this, your erstwhile Para Legal made a monumental cockup when engaging in conversation with a person who was concerned about their friend receiving one of your letters. Your Ex Para Legal bragged that he liked being in court and looked forward to it IF the person had the finances to take you on.
Why I simply CANNOT believe you though is that it has now been a YEAR and I have heard of NO case that you have taken to court. This is simply incredible, I know you have bragged about making nearly a Million Pounds out of your “Scheme” and I truly believe that the ONLY way you can salvage your tattered and sullied reputation is either by Dropping this WHOLE scheme and apologising, OR actually starting litigation and GOING TO COURT where ALL the evidence e can be heard.
You say that proceedings have been launched, yet why no news regarding this? You say that litigation will increase significantly but WHERE IS IT?
Let people go to court and lose this millstone around their neck have you ANY idea of how upsetting this all this?
You have ONLY issued (at most) a handful of claims against people whom fall into one of these 3 categories below, however NONE of these cases have ever reached Court.
a) Have admitted guilt originally then retracted their statement and refused to pay
b) Have admitted guilt but have not paid
c) That you have found potentially incriminating posts on internet forums relating to the account holder.
I also believe you will NEVER issue a claim to any individual whom does not fall into the above 3 categories because you are NOT confident that your evidence would stand up in court , and with good reason, it would not.
I would like you to respond to this Mr Crossley, I feel that this would be of interest to MANY people who have been falsely accused, and you could by answering the points start to salvage the battering to your reputation that I feel maybe almost irreparable.
I believe that the rejection of your methods by amongst others Which?, The BPI, members of The House of Lords and the House of Commons, The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) amongst many others DEMANDS a more verbose explanation of your methods and reasoning.
Here is a short list of quotes from people regarding ACS:LAW and their “Business practice”. As can be seen from the diverse range of comment ALL critical of ACS:LAW this is in NO WAY “merely targetted by an Internet campaign” as ACS:LAW Chief Honcho Andrew Crossley claimed.
These quotes are from Lords of the Realm, Industry leaders. the Music Industry, Consumer Watchdogs, and there is even one from one Of ACS:LAWs own employees taunting a person whose friend had been targetted by one of their “Speculative Invoices”
Please Download the PDF version here acs law – what people think and of course post it around. It IS the Truth.
this is the new ACS 2 Bullshit Detector. It has been run past the latest letters and seems to be VERY reliable at detecting bullshit. If you have any comments on how the new ACS 2 can be improved please let me know.
It seems that “Shady” ACS:LAW Paralegal Terence “W$%$%r” Tsang, is no longer employed by ACS:LAW, his present employer Cramer Pelmont make NO reference to his work with ACS:LAW although it does note that he worked at Davenport Lyons, there is also reference to Tsang
Advising a German record label on preventing the unauthorised sale of products on Ebay and other online trading platforms.
Advising international rights owners on preventing the unlawful distribution of their copyrighted works on peer to peer
Hmmmm now what IS interesting as I pointed out in a previous post, is wether Terence Tsang had taken the “piece of crap” P2P Scanner that he brought from freelancer to his new employers. You have to at least wonder in light of the fact that Davenport Lyons started this whole sorry mess and when they quit Mr Tsang left to Join ACS:LAW just as they started their campaign. Coincidence? well we will see.
In light of the SRA dragging its heels over both Davenport Lyons AND ACS:LAW it will be VERY interesting to see if “Cramer Pelmont” letters start being sent through the post to people demanding them to “Pay up or be ruined”. The Common denominator in ALL of this is Mr Tsang. One thing is sure that with Mr Tsangs MASSIVE ego at yet another company looking for big bucks fast the “Speculative Invoice” is far from over. Especially as one of the specialties of Cramer Pelmont is the ominous “Protecting Rightsholders Interests – Online”
EDIT: A Message has appeared on the ACS LAW Website saying Goodbye. Aww aint that nice! It also PROVES that he had worked there since May 2009, and confirms he came from DAvenport Lyons, and so proves once again that ACS:LAW are liars and canot be trusted.
ACS:LAWs Terence Tsang the “Del Boy” of file sharing buys job lot of monitoring programs “Off the back of a lorry” to help out his Bosses Mate!
With news breaking that the Paralegal Terence Tsang has bought code from a freelancer with a view to:
“Create a bit-torrent client for me which will obtain details about file sharers of certain torrents. Server is Linux. The torrent client just needs to monitor IP addresses and take information which is then placed in a database,” writes Tsang in his request.
“The information needed is as follows: Host IP, Hit Date and time (GMT time), Provider network name (i believe whois search will help with this – can you think of a better way?), P2P Client, File name, File size, MD5 of file,”
“So we need to get the software to monitor a number of specific torrents it needs to create a database of the above information. The database needs to be able to import into a database file like csv. I am only interested in UK IP addresses. Easy job if you have the skills,”
It seems only right in light of ACS LAWs failure to release details regarding their “Monitoring system”, and the fact that ACS LAW Sole Partner Andrew Crossleys buddy and work associate Lee Bowden has entered the fray as a client of ACS LAW to do what they do best and SPECULATE, so here goes.
Lee Bowden owns MEDIA C.A.T and The Text Works and is a Partner with Jay Puddy of Pirri LTD. Although there is NO suggestion that Pirri LTD is involved with this but MEDIA C.A.T most certainly is and so is Bowden.
Indeed at the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on November 19th 2009 When Chief Master Winegarten asked why rights holders were dealing with Media C.A.T and not directly with DigiProtect, Crossley said that
“[Media C.A.T] happen to operate in the UK…dealing with UK companies…” In referring to the scheme ACS:Law and DigiProtect operate in respect of these hardcore porn titles, Crossley tried to suggest that they were doing a public service by helping to prevent the sharing of restricted movies on P2P.
Chief Master Winegarten responded by noting that
“[this is] not a moral crusade” and that in his opinion, ACS:Law and DigiProtect were doing this “…because you want the money.”
So what are we to make of this? Well it PROVES that Terence Tsang bought code for the very purpose of bringing file sharing suspects to court.
The work dates back to April 2008, I do NOT know when he left Davenport Lyons but this time scale would at least indicate the timing of a realistic business practice. Indeed their WAS a abortive website that attempted this that was registered back in January 2009, it name was http://www.stoppiracy.co.uk/ and a quick WHOIS search reveals that the Registrant is…… Terence Tsang of Advanmedia/AdvanGroup and also of ACS:LAW.
We KNOW that Lee Bowden and Andrew Crossley are friends or at the least associates. Bowdens Company Media C.A.T is in trouble with it’s finances and needs cash, how? Well a quick search of Companies House Website SHOWS that Media C.A.T is in trouble.
1) If Terence Tsang had inside knowledge into the methods used by Logistep and Digiprotect which having worked for DL we assume he would have. Have we just uncovered the specification of the “Monitoring Software”? , if so then this confirms what we have suspected all along, that this “Monitoring Software” is not fit for purpose. This may also explain the complete reluctance by ACS:Law to provide the “Evidence” and “Expert Reports” to those that have requested them.
2) Is this commissioned application the very same monitoring software now being used by Media C.A.T ? , and if it is then is this not a serious conflict of interest? not only does it raise serious concerns about the quality and processes used by the “Monitoring Software” it’s also possible that the solicitors concerned:
a. Commissioned the program
b. Operate the Program
c. Gather the Evidence
d. Produce the letters of Claim
e. Receive Money from the “Damages” claimed
This may be something that the SRA may wish to investigate further and if the suspicions are proved to be true they should be held to account for their actions.
So What is the Truth? Is Andrew Crossley merely helping out a friend in need(Lee Bowden) or is Terence Tsang trying to break away from ACS LAW? How Did Tilly Bailey & Irvine get involved? ….we cant know for sure but certainly their needs to be an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority at the VERY least into the actions of these three people. It seems at the VERY least that all roads lead to Terence Tsang and Advanmedia/AdvanGroup
Credit: Thx Flaw!