Prenda Case Defendant Gives Copyright Trolls What for

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

In a very interesting twist as well as Prenda case development covered by both die troll die and copyright trolls websites today focused on an Arizona P2P case which has named eight defendants. The article was a very interesting read by itself but what grabbed my attention as well as the eye of the fight copyright troll site was the response by defendant David Harris to the trolls.

I will say right off the bat that I like David Harris, I like him a lot, not only does he show spunk and a strong will to fight in the response filed with the court he also lists his email address as [email protected] in the same document. Have I mentioned that I really like David Harris? In his reply to the charges filed with the court he states:

What we are witnessing is phenomenons evolving exponentially across the United States Federal District Court System. They are societal parasites, and they have gained enough popularity that the host has named them: CopyrightTrolls. This anomaly was spawned by the coupling of two sinister groups that have existed independently of one another for decades. Pornographers and corrupt lawyers.

In the instant case these parasitical mutants of society, the masters of exploitation and experts of deception, the epitome of greed has bolstered their arrogant delusions of being untouchable to the point that they have rendered themselves completely vulnerable to the very court system that they rely upon to execute leverage against there victims. Watch as the veil is pulled back exposing the bitterly ugly evil that is this Copyright Troll.

At this point I want to say I really like this guy. You can read the full articles at both websites at the following links:

http://dietrolldie.com/2012/11/13/eight-named-az-prenda-cases-set-to-backfire-doe-fights-back/

http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/11/13/an-explosive-mixture-of-emotions-and-reason-the-future-that-copyright-trolls-will-deal-with/

You can view the defendants full reply to the court on Scribd here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113103618/Harris-Answer-02144az

[Mulligan]

I really like this guy too. His full reply to the court made for wonderful reading.

I have a question for Oscar in this regard. Oscar, do federal judges read a self-defended written argument as attentively as they do written arguments from members of the bar? Or do lay people have two strikes against them from the get go because they decided to argue their own cases?

After asking my question, I did a little research on my own and found "A Manual for Pro Se Litigants before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York." I've downloaded the pdf but haven't yet read it. The download link is here:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/file/forms/pro-se-litigants-manual

[stinger]

Great find "Freak show".  I too, really like this guy.

Perhaps we should invite him to join the ELI forums.  His work to date makes me think he should get a free lifetime membership here. 

[Oscar Michelen]

Mulligan asks:  Do federal judges read a self-defended written argument as attentively as they do written arguments from members of the bar? Or do lay people have two strikes against them from the get go because they decided to argue their own cases? Often federal judges will go out of their way for pro se litigants, giving them opportunities to correct errors that they would never give to a represented party. I have often said I would rather litigate against a reincarnated Clarence Darrow that a pro se litigant. They tend to over-write, cite dozens of inapplicable cases because one sentence appeals to them and are treated with kid gloves by courts. Also, if I win, so what I beat a guy who wasn't a lawyer, but if I lose, I just lost a case to a plumber's assistant or school bus driver. Try explaining that to a client! Courts will generally lose patience with a pro se litigant when they get "personal" or use foul language or make the same argument repeatedly despite being told not to. But generally speaking, courts cringe when they see pro se litigants because much of the law is complicated and people can make many mistakes even if they are highly educated in other fields. Off the bat the sentiment is "Why couldn't he find a lawyer" but if it is a small case (like a copyright trolling case) then it is understandable why someone might go it alone and the court will be more glad to hear them out. 
           

[Mulligan]

Oscar, thank you for that detailed answer. Very much appreciated!