USCG Sues Copyright Defense Lawyer 360
ESRB writes "The US Copyright Group has sued Graham Syfert, an attorney who created a packet of self-representation paperwork for individuals sued for P2P sharing of certain movies and moved to have sanctions placed against the defense attorney. Syfert sells these packets for $20, and the USCG claims the 19 individuals who have used it have cost them over $5000."
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Informative)
I recall reading at one point that Arizona allows non-lawyers to represent other people in their state.
It's more of a "you get what you pay for", or "buyer beware" state than anywhere else...
Re:Advertising (Score:3, Informative)
Graham Syfert, the "Copyright Defense Lawyer", is an EFF-listed [eff.org] lawyer.
Do you think that the EFF accidentally mistook the manager of a "phoney storefront" for a lawyer credible enough to refer people to?
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Erm...what? (Score:5, Informative)
That's the problem - one of the defenses did work. The "lack of personal standing." You can't sue for lost revenue if you're not the copyright holder.
No, the defense that worked is lack of personal jurisdiction, not lack of standing. Courts in a state only have power over people who reside in the state, or have a certain level of contact with the state, or who consent to jurisdiction. Basically what the successful defendants are doing is telling the court, "Hey, you are a court of state X. I live in state Y and have no contacts with state X, so you aren't the right court for this", the the court is agreeing.
Note that this doesn't end things. The plaintiff simply has to refile in the defendant's home state (or find some other state that the defendant has sufficient contacts with).
You have to be careful when raising the lack of personal jurisdiction defense, because generally responding to a lawsuit in a given court is taken as conceding personal jurisdiction of that court. However, you can make what is called a "limited appearance", where you respond solely to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Further, you can't sue for lost revenue if you can't prove that, you know, you actually lost revenue.
You can sue for statutory damages.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Erm...what? TAX Is in place (Score:3, Informative)
Coincidentally they (Arizona) have no income tax.
Arizona has personal income tax. I used to to live there and filed every year. States with no income tax are:
Alaska
Florida
Nevada
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wyoming
New Hampshire and Tennessee tax only dividend and interest income
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll just leave this here [bc.edu].
Re:The Lawyers Who Brought This Suit (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.dglegal.com/ [dglegal.com]
http://www.vsb.org/ [vsb.org]
http://www.dcbar.org/ [dcbar.org]
Re:Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? (Score:3, Informative)
I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter.
Actually, if you file a suit which is clearly frivolous you can face sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You *can* sue anyone for anyone reason, but if the suit had no chance of winning then the attorney who filed it can face sanctions.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:2, Informative)
Reading the description of the forms offered for sale here [payloadz.com]
He does some CYA, it states, No warranty is made as to the content of these documents. Graham W. Syfert is not acting as your attorney. ; Pursuant to rules of ethics, no assistance can be given in filling out these forms, unless a separate contract with the signature of an attorney and the client exists.
WARNING - LEGAL FORMS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Purchase of these forms is not intended to create an attorney client relationship, and by using these forms, no attorney-client relationship will be formed. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through these forms.
Re:Erm...what? (Score:3, Informative)
As a post down the way pointed out, we can read the disposition, which I didn't see earlier. (Stupid Noscript.)
Reading it, it appears they have some points, but a lot of their arguments are bogus.
In random order, in 1 they're complaining that the forms are defective because they're filed with the court, not served to the opposing consul. Which would be a fair complaint if those people actually had legal consul, but the courts tend to be fairly lax, procedure-wise, with people who have been sued and defend themselves. In fact, the law says what consul should do, not what defendants without consul should do.
Their complaint is, frankly, absurd, and they're attempting to make 'consulted with a lawyer for legal advice' into 'has a lawyer'. Just because lawyers don't like to give legal advice to non-clients doesn't mean they can't.
3 is equally dumb. They correctly point out that the motions to squash the subpoena is incorrect, but then admit all but one of those motions gave them the information they were looking for...which advances their case and saves them time and money. They can hardly complain about that.
4 is idiotic in it's own way, in that they apparently cite cases deciding a court has jurisdiction for Doe subpoenas...but what that actually demonstrates is that it's a debatable legal point. Um, duh. The motion may fail, but that doesn't make it frivolous.
Their only legit complaint is 2, where apparently the wrong part of the law is cited. Which, again, happens all the time and is a mistake...but isn't 'frivolous'.
I guess they're trying to make the point that he 'keeps' making such a claim, but they'd have to demonstrate that he knew such a claim was bogus and didn't fix it in things he sold. Giving people the same piece of legal advice over the years, and then discovering it's wrong, is not magically 'frivolous' if those people acted on the advice and were shot down.
that was overturned a few months later (Score:5, Informative)
US Court Of Appeals Lifts Texas Ban On Sales Of Quicken Family Lawyer [findarticles.com] (one of the first hits in a search for "quicken family lawyer texas" sans quotes) states:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated a judgment restraining Parsons Technology Inc. from selling and distributing Quicken Family Lawyer Version 8.0 and Quicken Family Lawyer '99 legal software within the State of Texas.
Re:Mind blowing (Score:5, Informative)
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books.
The same is true in the US, however states have legal statutes to prevent a person from giving legal advice who is not a lawyer. Depending on how strict the statutes are, this can pose real problems for self-help legal products.
However, that isn't what this appears to be about. Copyright is a federal matter, and the lawyer is licensed to practice law in the US, so that's not where the complaint seems to be coming from.
Apparently several of the motions always fail, but USCG still must respond to them or they lose automatically. This costs USCG and, to a lesser extent, the courts, more money than is necessary. However, I don't see how a lawyer can be sued for advising clients to file a motion that is ultimately unsuccessful, even if he advises thousands of such clients to do so. He never filed any motions, he simply told the people how and suggested they do so. I can't see how he could possibly construed as responsible for the motions.
I would suggest the USCG's bulk litigation practices are the ones that are actually wasting the court's time and money, since the majority of them are completely frivolous and must be responded to by each individual involved.
Re:Let me see the logic here (Score:3, Informative)
They have no legal standing to sue, that's the motion that wins.
They are basically suing because this guy tells them to file three other motions in addition to the motion that USCG has no legal standing, and those three motions always fail.
So, basically, USCG has no right to sue these people in the first place, but they are suing this guy for advising people to file the three more motions than necessary to defeat the lawsuits. Filing multiple motions in the hopes that one will "stick" is common practice, and as far as I am aware there is no limit to the number of motions you can file.
In other words, USCG is suing this guy for telling people how to exercise their legal rights.
It's utter bullshit.