Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: NY judge orders client of Troll Lawyer Richard Liebowitz to post $10,000 bond  (Read 1459 times)

kingkendall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
I don’t know the particular of this case.  Maybe some of our PACER savy posters can shed more light?  Federal is demanding $10,000 bond posted to continue case. 

Docket last updated: 12 hours ago

Thursday, July 12, 2018
17    17 3 pgs order Order Thu 1:23 PM
ORDER re:15 Letter filed by JSN Global Media, LLC: Accordingly, Plaintiff shall post a bond no later than July 31 in an amount not less than $10,000 in order to proceed with the action. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 7/12/2018) (jwh)
Related: [-]

Monday, July 02, 2018
16       16 misc Letter Mon 3:49 PM
LETTER addressed to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Richard Liebowitz dated July 2, 2018 re: Response to Defendant's Request that the Court require the Plaintiff and/or his counsel to post a bond. Document filed by Christopher Sadowski.(Liebowitz, Richard)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:12:15 PM by Matthew Chan »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
check your email  ;)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:13:06 PM by Matthew Chan »
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

kingkendall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Thanks Robert

Looks like copyright troll Richard Liebbowitz is getting his comeuppance.  Love to hear from Matheww or Oscar on this.  Very educational for others.   
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:13:34 PM by Matthew Chan »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:13:59 PM by Matthew Chan »
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

This Site Is A Joke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
What a shock, the analysis of this case is wrong.     The judge did not order Richard Liebowitz to post a bond.  The judge ordered the client to post a bond.  There is a significant difference.   This site continues to be font of bad analysis by people who have no legal training and marginal reading comprehension skills.  I pity anyone who relies on this site for information.   

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I see that you have returned to comment on a thread which references "Richard Liebowitz" after previously accusing Oscar Michelen of not being able to represent people outside of NY. I trust you saw Oscar's response on the matter. You falsely disparage and defame him at your own risk.

Regarding the supposed "analysis", read again, there was no analysis whatsoever. It was an ELI user who posted notable PACER entries asking for assistance in finding out what happened here.  Another ELI user dug out the actual PACER documents for everyone to read.

I don't think anyone is going to be confused with this discussion thread as any formal, legal analysis. But based on my reading, I will state that you are correct. It was not "Richard Liebowitz" asked to post bond, it was his client.

Consequently, I will intervene and make a modification of the discussion thread title to be more accurate.

Last thing, your two posts apparently come as responses to comments made about "Richard Liebowitz".  Are you posting anonymously on ELI, Mr. Liebowitz, or are you just a fan/employee/protector/defender of Mr. Liebowitz? Very curious.

If you are Mr. Liebowitz, why don't you just come out and post publicly in your own name?

What a shock, the analysis of this case is wrong.     The judge did not order Richard Liebowitz to post a bond.  The judge ordered the client to post a bond.  There is a significant difference.   This site continues to be font of bad analysis by people who have no legal training and marginal reading comprehension skills.  I pity anyone who relies on this site for information.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:27:39 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Based only his two posts, it appears the user "This Site is a Joke" has an interest in protecting/defending "Richard Liebowitz" or perhaps Mr. Liebowitz himself is posting anonymously here. I cannot say for certain but it does seem peculiar.

In any case, I think people should get a broader view of how he operates. As far as I know, he tends to pursue larger parties like news and media companies. Somehow, Richard Liebowitz has gotten himself a Wikipedia entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Liebowitz

There was The Hollywood Reporter writeup:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/has-man-sued-you-a-copyright-troll-takes-hollywood-1099156

ABA Journal:  http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_filed_500_plus_copyright_cases_in_federal_court_calls_10k_sancti

The newest Slate article about Liebowitz is long, interesting, and worth reading:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/richard-liebowitz-why-media-companies-fear-and-photographers-love-this-guy.html
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 02:54:15 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
So first of all, in response to "This Site is Joke"'s comment that he would pity folks who rely on this site, this site's reputation and effectiveness cannot seriously be challenged. No other site or group has done more than ELI to help victims of copyright trolls like Richard Liebowitz.  As to the point that the court made the client - and not Liebowitz - post a bond, I would advise everyone to read the application for the bond. It is hardly a love song to Liebowitz. Here are my Top Ten quotes from the bond application: (1)"Indeed, our firm was involved in another matter in which the plaintiff (represented by the Liebowitz law firm) was found liable for attorney's fees and costs based on the frivolousness of the plaintiff's claims"; (2) In that prior case, the court said of Liebowitz: "no reasonable lawyer with any familiarity with the law of copyright" could have thought the case had merit;  (3)  The letter lists a series of cases Liebowitz has filed where bonds have been required; (4) In those cases, bonds were required because of "a variety of different errors committed by the firm"; (5) The letter chastises Liebowitz' practice of not trying to settle in advance of filing  litigation saying this tactic is "inherent to the business model of the Liebowitz Law Firm which uses the existence of the court system to extract settlements which reflect not what is just for the plaintiff or the circumstances but the cost of hiring outside counsel to defend a claim;" (5)Indeed the [factors a court considers in determining if fees should be awarded when someone gets an award less than amount that was previously offered] including motivation and objective unreasonableness can almost be determined at the outset of cases involving Mr. Liebowitz who within only a few years' practice  has filed many hundreds of "strike suits" for copyright infringement;"(6) [Liebowitz] has been increasingly recognized as a "copyright troll"; (7) "[Liebowitz]is a known copyright troll"; (8) "[Liebowitz] has a penchant to 'irresponsibly litigate';" (9)"this unsound practice has not only garnered his firm its notorious reputation" but has placed his own clients and not just defendants at risk of unnecessary financial loss"; (10)In his few years as an admitted member to this Bar Mr Liebowitz has committed himself to hundreds of potentially expensive (and often frivolous) copyright infringement actions where low damages  are at stake." The client is barely mentioned in the letter. For anyone to read that letter and the court's decision agreeing that a bond was necessary and to then think that it was the client the court was concerned about is delusional. Yes, the court made the client pay the bond - I believe because that will actually impact Liebowitz more than him being ordered to pay it. It will have a bigger backlash against him if his client now has to either fork over the money for the bond or be concerned that Liebowitz will pay for and post the bond properly. If he had been required to post the bind, the client could have been none the wiser but he is now obligated to inform the client of the court's decision. So this is a big slap in Liebowitz's face and a signal that courts are FINALLY getting the message about these digital image lawsuits after ELI's near decade-long  pursuit for justice on this issue. How this man can show his face in Federal court in light of all of these negative decisions is beyond me.   
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.