Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

Linkage?

[lymmranger]

.....most updated news is as ever on "slyck"

current/last page "http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=568647#p568647"

there are a number of "regulars" attending today

I expect "enigmax" will soon be posting yet another article on torrentfreak before the day is out.
BBC were/are there as are several papers...

he will have to wriggle bloody hard this time....

Mind his brief claimed he suffered a family accident over the weekend - maybe he has had yet another stroke and gone blind again???

---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

blatantly cut and pasted from "slyck"

.......enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

Report this postReply with quote Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion
by steveh » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:11 am

Bit more of an update. I was there this morning but not able to make this afternoon's session - which primarily is for the counsels for MediaCat, Lawdit and Rali to agree a date with the judge on when this case should resume. Judge wants it within a week although MediaCats barrister - Tim Ludbrooke (sp?) would like a bit longer.

There were 3 counsel there - 1 for MediaCat, and 1 each for Rali's defendants (I think 4 of them) and Lawdits defendants (I think 5). Only one other non-represented defendant was in court and one other had written in a defence. The court had not heard from the rest of the defendants.

There were solicitors from Lawdit and Rali there, but noticeable was the absence from any solicitors for MediaCAT - the counsel just had an admin/paralegal with him.

Judge informed court that all cases had been served notice of discontinuance - 26 sent last Thursday and 1 where defendant was going to settle but they have now decided to send notice of discontinuance - therefore all 27 cases discontinued.

MediaCAT's counsel stated that on the basis of his Honours observation from previous hearing and faced with wholesale amendment to deal with the difficulties alterted by the court that they should discontinue these cases. Judge did comment that there is possibility of them reissusing new claims rather than trying to amend the existing ones. MediaCAT stated that they will pay all reasonable costs.

The court had received letters from a defendant and copies made available to MediaCat. There was also a letter from a D. S. (I'll await to see if his name is published in the official transcript) whose expertise ralates to the validity of using IP addresses - in summary the use of IP addresses is in doubt. Copies were passed to the 3 counsel.

Judge then said that he was not satisfied that MediaCAT had the right to discontinue with the cases and that he would be making a judgement on whether they could discontinue or they would have to continue with the cases. He then cited Section 102 of the Copyright Act - about copyright owner being a party to the case, and then refered to CPR 38.22. Basically he needed to go through licence agreements and a few other things to make a decision. It was then that the MediaCat counsel stated that there was one rather unfortunate difficulty and that he thought that it may be difficult to get instruction. One of the solicitors family had been involved in a traffic accident at the weekend and therefore not able to effectively give instruction. So if there was an accident did Andy run over one of his own family to make it real - or did his mistress chase him out of the house with a golf club and started smashing up his car.

The judge said that he will allow an adjournment whilst Ludbrooke could see if he could get instruction.

Before that counsel for Rali (Mr Tritton?) stated that they were going to be seeking wasted costs (for pre-action as well as the claim) and giving notice to the judge that they would be applying for this (not today but sometime in the future). He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy. In applying for an order for wasted costs, Tritton stated that these should be "off the scale". he then cited 45.412a - sacle costs not restricted where than has been abuse of court and 63.262 where parties had behaved unreasonably. Also concerned that MediaCat don't have the funds.

There was a disucssion on the use or abuser of the NPO - and the judge said that was an interlocutory (?) order and that copyright owners need not be a party and left it at that!

Judge says that he won't be making wasted costs order today as that is a big decision.

The way forward - get your diaries and bring them back at 2.00pm so we can determine a date when we reconvene - which should be no more than a week away (although MediaCat asked for longer). That hearing will determine whether they need the court's permission to discontinue.
Another hearing to make the opder to consider wasted costs.
Another subsequent hearing if the above order is granted to asses costs.


Also in attendance today - I think a lawyer from BT - not sure but thought I heard someone say he was from BT. A few journalists - BBC, Josh from The Guardian and some others from here that might correct and add to anything I've said. Definately no Andy or Bowden there.

The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by lymmranger

.....most updated news is as ever on "slyck"

current/last page "http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=568647#p568647"

there are a number of "regulars" attending today

I expect "enigmax" will soon be posting yet another article on torrentfreak before the day is out.
BBC were/are there as are several papers...

he will have to wriggle bloody hard this time....

Mind his brief claimed he suffered a family accident over the weekend - maybe he has had yet another stroke and gone blind again???

---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

blatantly cut and pasted from "slyck"

.......enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

Report this postReply with quote Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion
by steveh » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:11 am

Bit more of an update. I was there this morning but not able to make this afternoon's session - which primarily is for the counsels for MediaCat, Lawdit and Rali to agree a date with the judge on when this case should resume. Judge wants it within a week although MediaCats barrister - Tim Ludbrooke (sp?) would like a bit longer.

There were 3 counsel there - 1 for MediaCat, and 1 each for Rali's defendants (I think 4 of them) and Lawdits defendants (I think 5). Only one other non-represented defendant was in court and one other had written in a defence. The court had not heard from the rest of the defendants.

There were solicitors from Lawdit and Rali there, but noticeable was the absence from any solicitors for MediaCAT - the counsel just had an admin/paralegal with him.

Judge informed court that all cases had been served notice of discontinuance - 26 sent last Thursday and 1 where defendant was going to settle but they have now decided to send notice of discontinuance - therefore all 27 cases discontinued.

MediaCAT's counsel stated that on the basis of his Honours observation from previous hearing and faced with wholesale amendment to deal with the difficulties alterted by the court that they should discontinue these cases. Judge did comment that there is possibility of them reissusing new claims rather than trying to amend the existing ones. MediaCAT stated that they will pay all reasonable costs.

The court had received letters from a defendant and copies made available to MediaCat. There was also a letter from a D. S. (I'll await to see if his name is published in the official transcript) whose expertise ralates to the validity of using IP addresses - in summary the use of IP addresses is in doubt. Copies were passed to the 3 counsel.

Judge then said that he was not satisfied that MediaCAT had the right to discontinue with the cases and that he would be making a judgement on whether they could discontinue or they would have to continue with the cases. He then cited Section 102 of the Copyright Act - about copyright owner being a party to the case, and then refered to CPR 38.22. Basically he needed to go through licence agreements and a few other things to make a decision. It was then that the MediaCat counsel stated that there was one rather unfortunate difficulty and that he thought that it may be difficult to get instruction. One of the solicitors family had been involved in a traffic accident at the weekend and therefore not able to effectively give instruction. So if there was an accident did Andy run over one of his own family to make it real - or did his mistress chase him out of the house with a golf club and started smashing up his car.

The judge said that he will allow an adjournment whilst Ludbrooke could see if he could get instruction.

Before that counsel for Rali (Mr Tritton?) stated that they were going to be seeking wasted costs (for pre-action as well as the claim) and giving notice to the judge that they would be applying for this (not today but sometime in the future). He then went on as to why wasted costs would be applicable - I couldn't keep up with my note taking, but he talked about the fact that MediaCAT was not an exclusive license, that the copyright holder was not a party to the proceedings and that all parties needed to be joined. he then went on about tens of thousands of letters sent out demanding monies totally out of proportion to damages and costs. Cited Sheppenhurst & MediaCAT agreement (which Rali had requested from MediaCAT) whereby the solicitor gets 65% of all monies received after costs. Copy handled to Judge who had not seen it before. He said that such an agreement was contrary to the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The letters sent where wholly flawed in terms of the law and an abuse of the process for these types of proceedings that were conducted. The appropriate remedy in such an instance is the wasted costs remedy. In applying for an order for wasted costs, Tritton stated that these should be "off the scale". he then cited 45.412a - sacle costs not restricted where than has been abuse of court and 63.262 where parties had behaved unreasonably. Also concerned that MediaCat don't have the funds.

There was a disucssion on the use or abuser of the NPO - and the judge said that was an interlocutory (?) order and that copyright owners need not be a party and left it at that!

Judge says that he won't be making wasted costs order today as that is a big decision.

The way forward - get your diaries and bring them back at 2.00pm so we can determine a date when we reconvene - which should be no more than a week away (although MediaCat asked for longer). That hearing will determine whether they need the court's permission to discontinue.
Another hearing to make the opder to consider wasted costs.
Another subsequent hearing if the above order is granted to asses costs.


Also in attendance today - I think a lawyer from BT - not sure but thought I heard someone say he was from BT. A few journalists - BBC, Josh from The Guardian and some others from here that might correct and add to anything I've said. Definately no Andy or Bowden there.

The above is my recollection of much of what was said - it's only an opinion and if the transcripts say something otherwise don't shoot the messenger

I and lots and lots of others have been saying from day one that the likes of ACS law and the others involved in this debacle are in fact blackmailing people into paying out money they don't have to pay.

I hope this judge continues and gives ACS law and the other scam artists a right royal legal kicking and it ends the practise once and for all.


May i suggest people also read this blog in the link HERE, There is a very interesting development at the bottom of that blog.

In the mean time, a further scandal is developing as ACS:Law appears to have passed off its responsibility for an ongoing campaign of writing threatening letters. Picking up that baton seems to be a shady shell company, GCB Ltd. Suggestions have emerged that this company - which isn't a registered law firm - is being used to mask the true identity of the lawyer behind the new wave of threatening letters. Unconfirmed netizen investigations point to one-man operation Hobson & Arditti being the undercover solicitor.

[budwieser]

This is quite interesting.
http://www.goodlawyerguide.co.uk/fir...hobson-arditti

[Down the Pub]

Originally Posted by budwieser

This is quite interesting.
http://www.goodlawyerguide.co.uk/fir...hobson-arditti

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosin...1&searchType=L


looking at that page, they/it seems to be another shyster trying it on - with no mention of knowledge of this field. it all seems to be buildings and commercial/residential stuff. i assume that bussiness is slow for them then.

[lymmranger]

....I would strongly advise caution with regard to "naming" this "alledged" new player

....that "blog" is the one and only source I have seen, and does seem to look like a "curve ball"

The turd still retains a faint smell of Andrews aftershave to me

[budwieser]

Originally Posted by lymmranger

....I would strongly advise caution with regard to "naming" this "alledged" new player

....that "blog" is the one and only source I have seen, and does seem to look like a "curve ball"

The turd still retains a faint smell of Andrews aftershave to me

Who`s Andrew?

[lymmranger]

Originally Posted by budwieser

Who`s Andrew?

....keep up at the back!

....Andrew Crossley ....ACS Law

[JamesChooShoes]

The alleged new player has nothing to do with the GCB set-up other than the fact that they are one of over 50 companies that use that Regus service office.

However the new company just seems to be ACS in disguise. PC Pro have published an article that states:

Acting on a tip-off, PC Pro discovered the London office had been rented by Jonathan Miller, another employee of ACS Law. When we called the Regus office and asked to speak with Miller, the secretary told us she had seen him today but was currently unavailable. He failed to return our calls.

Read more: Exposed: file-sharing lawyers collect fines using 'dormant' company | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/364501/e...#ixzz1BZwWnZhG

[thebestie4lifexx]

Originally Posted by JamesChooShoes

The alleged new player has nothing to do with the GCB set-up other than the fact that they are one of over 50 companies that use that Regus service office.

However the new company just seems to be ACS in disguise. PC Pro have published an article that states:

[budwieser]

Originally Posted by lymmranger

....keep up at the back!

....Andrew Crossley ....ACS Law

Lol.......Cheers.

[lymmranger]

Well today is round 2....

...a very fustered and sweaty Andrew turned up JUST in time....

....court convened

...to be imediately recessed - due to the judge demanding to know "who the hell are CGB?"

.....how many punches is this guy gonna get dealt today????

[JamesChooShoes]

Law firm ACS: Law stops 'chasing illegal file-sharers' - write up on yesterday's hearing on BBC News website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by JamesChooShoes

Law firm ACS: Law stops 'chasing illegal file-sharers' - write up on yesterday's hearing on BBC News website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746

Yep ACS law have got what was coming to them

[BenMcr]

Although:

The case was made more complicated by the fact that a new firm, GCB Ltd, had begun sending similar letters, including one to one of the defendants who had been told just the day before that no further action would be taken.

The judge was keen to find out what the relationship was between GCB and ACS: Law, something Mr Crossley sought to clarify in his statement.

He said that he had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS: Law.

Didin't ACS:Law itself spin out of Davenport?