Appeals Court Upholds Sanction Against BitTorrent Download Attorney

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld sanctions awarded by a District Court against one of the lawyers bringing copyright infringement cases against individuals for BitTorrent movie downloads, in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670. The Court's opinion (PDF) described the lawyer's 'strategy' as 'suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars — a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.'"

Re:And what do "Sanctions" mean?

[Ravensfire]

From the ruling,
"the court imposed $10,000 in sanctions on Stone and also required the following:
1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and
to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose
in these proceedings.
2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing
proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in
the United States, federal or state.
3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds,
either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig
received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated
with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe
Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig
to Stone).
4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably
incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. The Ad
Litems shall file an affidavit or other proof of such fees and expenses
with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Stone may contest such proof within seven (7) days of its filing.
Stone shall comply with these directives and supply the Court with
written confirmation of his compliance no later than forty-five (45)
days after the date of this Order."

-- Ravensfire

Re:Using the power of the court, without permissio

[Baloroth]

That is the specific grounds for the sanctions, but if you read the actual court order they make it pretty clear they despise his tactics overall, which is a good sign (not sure if it sets any kind of precedent, but it might). The judge seemed pretty pissed over the idea of what he was doing, not just the fact that he was breaking the rules. I may be reading slightly too much into it, but I don't think so.

Re:And what do "Sanctions" mean?

[Ravensfire]

The appeal court decision mentioned that the original request was for some 26k. Personally, I think the fine is intended as a "wake up" slap. The nice part of the sanction is #2. He's been bad and now potentially lots of other courts will know about it and be able to check if he's pulling the same stunt again. And usually subsequent sanctions get harsher.

-- Ravensfire

Re:Lawyers are professional Bullshitters.

[Alien Being]

Just wait outside the courthouse for the asshole lawyer and smash his/her skull with a baseball bat. Works every time and its good for mind, body, soul and society.

Not quite

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Actually, the appellate court didn't agree--they just said that the attorney suing the does had waived his right to make the arguments he made on appeal, because he hadn't made them below and on-time.

In other words, he lost the appeal on a technicality. He might well have lost it on the merits as well, but it never got that far.

The only especially notable thing about this is a circuit court on record talking about the pattern of abusive litigation in mass-porn lawsuits.

Re:Lawyers are professional Bullshitters.

[TapeCutter]

That's why you instruct a good lawyer to write them a " So sue me, motherfucker!" letter for $100 tops, then do nothing unless they actually proceed with their bluff (which in the US is a small but non-zero risk)*. Enaging them by responding to subsequent threats allows you (or your lawyer) to say something silly and them to get a foot in the door of the negotiating room. There's and excellent TED talk on precisely this subject that I'm too lazy to look for but it doesn't just apply to copyright. I had personal experience of a roof tiling company who attempted to take advantage of a freind's elderly mother by charging her $9K for what was a $6K job on the open market. They were at the point of harrasing her with heavy handed debt collectors. A properly worded letter from my lawyer which he kindly did for FREE and a cheque for the $6K she and the family had originally agreed to was sent to the roof company by registered mail, we never heard another word about it.

*In most western countries outside of the US, this sort of behaviour is called "extortion".

Re:Plea bargains?

[mutube]

I always thought, that the fairest court of all, would be the one where the "prosecutor" (for lack of better term) would be searching for the "truth", not necessarily going for "conviction".

You're describing the Inquisitorial system of justice as practised in such exotic locations as France (and most of the world using civil as opposed to common law).