I was not going to write this piece, however the temptation to write about the abject failure of my wannabe nemesis, proved to overwhelming. For the last 18 Months, Andrew Crossley and his Firm have held a cloak of fear over those using the Internet in the UK.
I will not go into great detail regarding his operations, suffice to say, if you are in the UK and you go online, you are at risk of a letter from Mr Crossley and his cronies, demanding money for some third rate game, music, or more probably some nasty sounding pornography that you MUST have shared, as ACS:LAW NEVER make mistakes. Ah hem
After thousands of letters, much distress from innocent recipients, and a MASSIVE betrayal of trust on the part of ACS:LAW who allowed their email database to be leaked online due to VERY poor security measures, all those who had received these nasty little letters wanted to see was a day in Court to prove they were innocent and the “Evidence” that ACS:LAW had was well shall we say crap..
That day came this week when under the advice of a QC, Crossley issued Court Proceedings against EIGHT people and attempted what is known as a Default Judgement. The cases were brought in the name of Crossleys friend and Business Acquaintance Lee Bowden and his company Media C.A.T.
The actual outcome of this case turned into a fiasco, much of what is expected of ACS:LAW, not really know for “Getting it right” as has been noted on some of the support forums set up to provide help for his “victims”. I would urge you to read Torrentfreaks account of proceedings here.
What is REALLY interesting however, is the RESPONSE from ACS:LAW. You would have thought after accusing so many people, and knowing that your Business and all the shenanigans surrounding it had been exposed to the point that you were viewed as LAUGHABLE , including a record amount of complaints received by the SRA(Solicitors Regulation Authority) Over 500 at the last count that were investigated and which resulted in his THIRD referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (Following the people who started this Speculative Invoicing Scheme in the first place), AND the fact that he allowed the email leak which is one of the biggest in UK history, AND that he has been derided in the House of Lords who declared his practice of sending “Threatening and bullying letters” as “Legal Blackmail”, Oh and not even being able to maintain a Website!
AND and…. Well you get the idea, he goes to Court seeking EIGHT default judgments, and LOSES, but not only that, only TWO of those were genuine in the sense that the others had either responded or their was no way of telling either way.
So what was the response from Andrew Crossley?
I quote in part from “The Lawyer”
Andrew Crossley, the sole partner at ACS:Law, told The Lawyer that the firm was working to “correct the technical issues” involved with the cases and would be resubmitting applications for judgment against the individuals.
He said the firm was “full steam ahead” in its efforts to litigate against file sharers and there were more cases in the pipeline.
Wow did you see that? My emphasis of course, but “FULL STEAM AHEAD”!! That sounds like the Captain of the Titanic, and like the Captain of the Titanic, he can’t see the icebergs ahead. The Icebergs for Crossley are many but the Information Commissioner and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal WILL I am sure put an end to this miserable man and his campaign of misery.
Crossleys leaking of the email database has put so many people at risk of losing their jobs, their family’s, their reputation, yet repeated calls for Andrew Crossley to apologise for this has always resulted in SILENCE
For all those receiving a letter from ACS:LAW
ACS:LAW in one of their emails show SERIOUS doubts about their ability to prove the amount of damages they are seeking. This email has already been released by better blogs than this, HOWEVER in light of ACS:LAW sending out BRAND NEW LETTERS OF CLAIM I though it only right to highlight this scandal further.
In an email from Adam Glenn to Andrew Crossley on the 19th August 2010, Glenn expresses his deep reservations regarding the actual proving of an “infringer” making the “Works” available to ANYONE else.
As far as I am aware there areNO academic studies which have evaluated how many people the average participant in aP2P session shares a file with. To empirically establish that it would be necessary to eithermonitor the packet level inbound and outbound transmissions of an infringer (an action whichis against the law) or have permission from the participants to record such information.Without some level of direction on quantification it would be impossible, as Newzbin found,to determine the degree of sharing.
This statement alone should prove encouraging for those innocent people caught up in this scandal. ACS:LAW has been crowing about its bullet proof system for well over a year now, and yet here less than a month before the devastating release of their emails into the wild by either sheer incompetence or wilful sabotage by one of their employees sickened by their business practices. we have Adam Glenn raising questions about the very foundation upon which ACS:LAW had built it’s House of Cards.
Glenn goes on to dismiss Davenport Lyons infamous “Barwinska” case with a brutal assessment.
The Davenport Lyons model, in my opinion, failed to apply accepted and fundamentalmathematical principals in its calculation, including queuing theory, and would havedifficulty in passing an applied mathematics assessment if submitted in an “A level” statisticspaper.
And then a classic
Barwinska might make nice headline reading but it has, in my opinion, about as much legalforce as a Sun newspaper headline regarding the licentious behaviour of a D list celebrity
Remember ACS:LAW waving the Barwinska case around like a flag at the beginning of their campaign back in May 2009 ? how the Mainstream Media did NO investigating but took Davenport Lyons at its word ?, now ACS:LAW are laid bare, the Emperor really is wearing no clothes, he has no evidence, this is, as we always thought it was, a barely legal “Shakedown”.
One wonders if Glenn had in mind the “D List Celebrity” as opposed to the Z List clients that ACS:LAW represents. The pitiful stream of nobodies out to make a quick buck, whose so called “works” are so worthless you wouldn’t even find them in a bargain bin at the local market.
Or read it online here!
After one of the BIGGEST data leaks in UK history adding misery to thousands of people many of them innocent, ACS:LAW seem to be deaf to the cries of reason.
Unbelievably they have continued to send out letters of claim to people they suspect of illegal file-sharing. What it means to be suspected by ACS:LAW is unknown as their monitoring apparatus is NOT available for public scrutiny and indeed in some of the leaked emails even ACS:LAW staff were not convinced by the “Expert Witnesses” that are supposed to have see the software used to identify IP addresses.
Below is part of a scan of a letter sent THIS month (October) on behalf of Media Cat, whose Boss Lee Bowden goes back a long way with ACS:LAW Boss Andrew Crossley.
Lee Bowden “represents” RELISH Adult films that is owned by Jasper Faversham, AKA Jasper Orlando Slingsby Duncombe AKA 7th Baron Feversham. Faversham was disinherited by his Father (Got the title but nothing else), but of course this has NOTHING to do with money does it?
Media Cat are seen as small time chancers in the emails leaked, indeed Lee Bowden seems quite upset that he is not getting his cut, “Everyone is getting eir(sic) bit and I am owed £17k ffs.” Faversham himself does not come across much better “Much looking forward to sending letters to these f$$$ers,”, and that from a LORD no less!
The Notorious ACS:LAW Solicitor Andrew Crossley who has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is no stranger AT all. Many Blogs and news articles have stated that this will be Crossleys Second time before the Tribunal however here at ACSBORE we can confirm it will in fact be his THIRD time in front of the Tribunal.
Although the report of the maverick lawyers Second appearance has been available on the SRA Website, the FIRST appearance has been harder to track down, but WE HAVE GOT IT and it makes for some interesting reading.
I have posted the Document for your own perusal and I will not go into to much detail. One of the most striking things is the way that Andrew Crossely uses his health and an unfortunate string of events outside his control as an excuse for not filing his financial report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority that is required to show that a clients finances are not being mishandled.
In the Finding that found Crossley of committing “Conduct unbefitting a Solicitor” which Crossley did NOT accept, is a section where he claims to have been struck Blind with a Stroke at 36, and also troubles with a rogue accountant who “Blackmailed” Crossley by demanding money before the release of paperwork.
The Blackmail charge is a charge that has been used AGAINST Crossley by the House of Lords and many letter recipients who have received his “Pay up or else face Court” Letters, letters that Crossley laughingly calls “an invitation to enter into a compromise”. Maybe his ex Accountants should have used that excuse!
After employing a new accountant Crossley claims that that one also did him wrong bemoaning the “High Cost” of £500 for “Writing one letter and talking to the respondent(Crossley) Twice”
Those innocent people who have received letters of claim for a similar amount might think Crossley got a better deal for his £500 than what they got!
One further point is that Crossley has no problems using his illness as mitigating factors where he has never to my knowledge shown that to any of the people he has sent his “Speculative Invoices” to.
With news breaking the Logistep one of Crossley favoured data managers being BANNED from their country of origin and a group of Solicitors persuing ACS:LAW through the Courts for harrassment, this whole nasty mess might be starting to fade. Let us hope this is true
Andrew Crossleys FIRST appearance (31_10_2002) at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (Please Click for the PDF of the findings)
amitten2.jpg Tilly Bailey and Irvine who started to emulate ACS:LAW in sending out “Speculative Invoices” to people asking them to “Pay up or be sued” have apparently halted their operations as it appears that the negative publicity is harming their other businesses.
Tilly Bailey & Irvine actually threatened to enforce the debt collection AGAINST the Property of the person accused.
“We estimate that collectively such costs would be several thousand pounds. In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property.”
Extract from TBI letter
You can see the letter to one such person here (letter from Tilly Bailey & Irvine) The Solicitors specialise in illegally file-shared pornographic material copyrighted by Golden Eye (International) Limited.
I have tried to contact Tilly Bailey & Irvine, as have others with the same result, NO REPLY, indeed they have actually Blocked my Twitter account and my Youtube Channel. This I find is a shame, as I am very courteous and polite and only want to know the truth and defend those who are falsely accused. I do NOT believe that this is a way for a Solicitor to act. Before you wonder why I believe they would respond to someone they believe is a “Pressure Group” I have also tried to contact them via straight email, but nothing.
I feel that it is NOT right for Tilly Bailey and Irvine to merely withdraw for COMMERCIAL reasons while still maintaining they were morally right in what they were doing. IF they had apologised that would have been different.
We are left with a situation where Amanda Mitten with the collaboration of her Seniors has THREATENED peoples homes and livelihoods with NO EVIDENCE released, NO WAY for the person to defend themselves unless they bankrupted themselves to pay for a Solicitor.
This is why I believe Tilly Bailey and Irvine should NOT be allowed to rebuild their shattered reputation, UNTIL they accept that what they have done is “Conduct unbecoming a Solicitor” I hope the SRA will investigate. To threaten to take someone’s home without evidence based on some foreign surveillance is an OUTRAGE.
One further amusing aspect of just how far they went to try to SILENCE their critics was this following extract regarding their attempt to “Vandalise” the Wikipedia Website
“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,” added the award-winning user, Rlandmann. From Torrentfreak Article.
So What do YOU think?
EDIT: I cannot actually list ANY of the titles of the Films that Tilly Bailey and Irvine represent as they are to Pornographic to post on WordPress.
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!