Messages

166

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Safe to Ignore Copytrack Threats In the US?

« on: May 02, 2018, 08:59:10 PM »

Sounds like conventional lawyer talk to me here.  And it is exactly what they want you to think.  It plays into THEIR narrative for extorting more money.

What if I told you that most claims NEVER go to lawsuits?  What if I told you they routinely lie about the lawsuit thing?  And even if the very few go to lawsuit level, they end up getting settled way before a judge gets involved?  And in some situations, filing a lawsuit is like farting in the wind. It becomes a win that is entirely noncollectable.  If filing and winning a lawsuit was so simple, there would be no need for extortion letters.

The scenario you paint anyone is free to believe and follow. And if someone has more money than actual facts and a true assessment, then they can piss their money away. People piss money away all the time unnecessarily because they never learn how things really work and how to fight back. Or they let their imaginations run so wild and insane, they sabotage themselves.

Just because there is an infringement, does not automatically mean it is "monetary worthy". That is a myth perpetrated by those who drink the spiked kool-aid.  There are many images which are free you can't get people to ever pay or use. Period. If you want to pay, go pay. If your client is aching to pay to satisfy his conscience, that is fine.

However, there is a such thing as a "de minimus" infringement which I see all the time. The images are not special or noteworthy and they could not sell it for $5.  But because someone stupidly infringes on the image by posting on a website that gets 10 views per month, it suddenly becomes deserving to pay $1,000 or more?  I want to make clear that I believe it is bullshit.

I don't condone infringement or piracy but I don't buy into the bullshit line about someone's "ethics" is questionable because they don't want to roll over and pay a stupid/nonsensical amount of money. What I understand about your statement is that it is YOUR opinion and YOUR stance. If you think ELI is infested with ethically-challenged people, maybe you shouldn't be reading the discussions here.

Second, if they do litigate, it looks very bad and increases the chances that a judge will award attorneys fees if the defendant made no offer to settle the claim; conversely, it also makes the Plaintiff look very bad if they are wasting court time when the defendant made a somewhat reasonable offer.   

I understand how someone who does not have ethical concerns or is not worried about being sued may wish to ignore the letters or offer nothing, but I doubt that is most people. 

167

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images v. Motamedi (Injunction: Ex-employee sharing secrets w/ competitor)

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:53:20 PM »

I was contacted out of the blue by someone who did not identify himself but supposedly wanted to update me on this case. That same person seemed to object to my "editorializing" and made some veiled insults towards me claiming I wrote the post to "benefit me commercially". Seriously?  This is the "GETTY IMAGES Letter Forum". We discuss many things relating to Getty Images here! Some people are too focused on this one post.

I reread my post. I don't see a lot of "editorializing" here. I think perhaps some people should move on and let sleeping dogs lie. Someone should do research into the "Streisand Effect" phenomena.

168

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copytrack chasing me

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:54:51 PM »

What Copytrack clients are you looking for? There isn't likely to be any lawsuits in Copytrack's name because, as far as I know, they are not copyright holders for any images.  And is there a client list for Copytrack?  Most people will not be able to look very far beside the one or two names that might appear in a letter.

I am not sure what country you are in, but if it brings you comfort, I spent about five hours searching court records in the US for evidence of them or their clients ever filing copyright lawsuits and found none.   I am not saying don’t offer to pay something, just that you probably should not do anything out of fear of getting sued in the US.

If they were in the US, I would report them to the state bar for the unauthorized practice of law.  However, I think they are only really in Germany.

169

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Service to "fight back" against Higbee

« on: April 26, 2018, 01:30:10 PM »

That is the point I make to people.  Even with a lawsuit situation, most of these things never get very far and rarely make it to a final ruling by a judge.  Most just go away because the parties settle out. It is generally more efficient for everyone to do so.

I've searched PACER and can't find any example of Higbee taking a case all the way to "judgment".  Does anyone know if he ever gets money at trial/summary judgment whatever?

170

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Safe to Ignore Copytrack Threats In the US?

« on: April 26, 2018, 01:17:58 PM »

We usually get wind of the lawsuit thing if it were to happen. And if a lawsuit were to happen, it would NOT likely be in Copytrack's name because they are not the copyright holder's. The case would be likely outsourced to a lawyer to "motivate" and threaten someone to pay. But that is a different thing from having an actual lawsuit. And even if there was a lawsuit, most of these things never go "all the way".

For the time being, I would say most of Copytrack's letters are fairly low in the "danger list".

171

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: NY Supreme Court Disqualifies Higbee lawyer: Virtual offices not sufficient

« on: April 09, 2018, 03:41:36 PM »

I am willing to concede that I didn't personally research the physical office requirement in each of the 50 state. But what I am saying is that if you are on the defensive, you use everything you have available to defend.  They NY Supreme Ct case has helped open that door as a defense strategy.  It is a legitimate argument you can make. Whether or not a court accepts that argument is obviously not guaranteed. I am not a lawyer but I can tell you, I can make a strong, persuasive argument on how permitting lawyers using "virtual offices" could be a big problem regardless of what is on the books. It would open the door to ALL lawyers easily paying a nominal monthly fee to fully practice in any state even though a lawyer has spent little or not time understanding a state's customs, laws, etc. It would be bad public policy. Not to mention, all lawyers within a state would suddenly find themselves to potentially competing with lawyers from all 50 states just because they could rent an address.

And that is what Higbee is trying to do. An end run around on the local lawyers from his home base of California.

Each state makes their own rules regarding requirements for practice. Many states either have no express prohibition against virtual offices and some explicitly allow for attorneys to use virtual office space. Other states have a "bona fide office" rule, i.e. an attorney is required to have an actual physical office that the attorney works out of, but most of those states don't explicitly require the "bona fide office" be located within the state itself.

From what I can tell, New York is an outlier in requiring that non-resident attorneys have a physical office in New York. Again, that's not to excuse Higbee's misstep here, but to say that no reputable state would accept a virtual office is an over statement.

172

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee Fraud (class action for people who have already settled?)

« on: April 09, 2018, 03:32:14 PM »

The photographer is the person who would have to authorize a lawyer to handle its case (responsibly or not).  The photographer is also the person who ultimately decides to file a lawsuit or not.

Clients have a lot more say than people realize. Photographers are not these people who have no say.  They generally have FINAL SAY of what their lawyers can and cannot do. Photographers may not know specifically every single thing that a lawyer does but they can be brought to their attention. And if they choose to disregard any information brought to them, at that point, a photographer/client is culpable.

Essentially, what I am saying is that approaching the photographer directly and putting the heat on them can potentially work because they have final say. However, most photographers will generally say, "my lawyer is handling it". But that doesn't mean you cannot plead your case or say what is on your mind if you are upset.

I don't know if we could go after photographer.  He's not the one who told a lie after all.  Does anyone know if Higbee has actually ever proceeded to judgment?

173

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: NY Supreme Court Disqualifies Higbee lawyer: Virtual offices not sufficient

« on: April 04, 2018, 03:20:39 PM »

What I didn't have a chance to say is that I am generally convinced that, for the purposes of a lawsuit, NO reputable state court in the U.S. will accept this "virtual office" nonsense where the lawyer and law firm don't have a legitimate physical presence in the state.

Any lawyer going up against Higbee & Associates should be able to bring this issue up. It is a cheat that Mathew Higbee himself authorized and perpetrated. No chance all this "national law firm" shit could go up on his website without his approval. No way all of these lease agreements could be signed with all these virtual offices without his approval.

Further, there are over 20+ cases (40+ parties consisting of both plaintiffs and defendants) in which Higbee represented that could probably be unraveled.  Both parties are affected by this recent development. If any opposing party gets wind of this, I believe a previously closed case could be reopened due to Higbee law firm's false claim they provide legitimate representation to their clients. Anyone can view the cases and parties of 20+ clients (40+ parties) that have been affected this.

I know from personal experience that a closed case can be reopened. When a compelling reason is given to a court and a motion is filed, the case gets reopened and BANG a judge gets assigned to respond to the matter.

Higbee now has 20+ clients that potentially have their respective rulings and settlements unraveled.

Special thanks to the informant who brought the articles and the issue to my attention.

174

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: NY Supreme Court Disqualifies Higbee lawyer: Virtual offices not sufficient

« on: April 04, 2018, 12:23:19 AM »

The email below came from a court exhibit.  In an email from NY Attorney Chris Murry written to Higbee Lawyer, Raymonh Ngo:

From: cmurray@XXXXX
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 8:13 AM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: L572 - Platinum Rapid Funding v. H D W of Raleigh, Inc - Index No. 605890/2017

Mr. Ngo,

As you’re aware, my office represents Platinum Rapid Funding Group in Platinum Rapid Funding v. H D W of Raleigh, Inc ‐ Index No. 605890/2017. It has come to my attention that, despite the fact that you have filed an Answer for the Defendants, neither you nor Higbee & Associates are currently in compliance with New York Judiciary Law Section 470. Based upon your firm’s failure to maintain a physical office in New York, you are not authorized to appear as counsel for the Defendants in this lawsuit (or any action in New York). This is a grave and troubling development as the NYSCEF system indicates that you have appeared in dozens of litigations despite the fact that you are effectively unauthorized to practice law while you are not in compliance with Judiciary Law 470.

We believe it to be our obligation to bring this matter to the Court’s attention if you do not immediately withdraw as counsel or remedy your non‐compliance with Judiciary Law 470. Please advise how you wish to proceed.

175

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: NY Supreme Court Disqualifies Higbee lawyer: Virtual offices not sufficient

« on: April 04, 2018, 12:17:56 AM »

Christopher Murray, NY lawyer for the plaintiff, made the following written statements regarding Raymonh Ngo and Higbee & Associates.

1. I am the attorney for Plaintiff, PLATINUM RAPID FUNDING GROUP LTD. ("Platinum"), in the above-captioned action. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action and all prior pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.

2. I submit this reply application in further support of Plaintiff's motion by Order to Show Cause seeking an Order:

a. Pursuant to NYS Jud. Law §470, disqualifying Rayminh L. Ngo and Higbee & Associates, from appearing before this court and representing the Defendants for failure to maintain an office for the transaction of law business in the state of New York;

b. Striking Defendants' Defendants Answer, including any exhibits, and Rayminh L. Ngo's Notice of Appearance upon the grounds that Rayminh L. Ngo and Higbee & Associates do not meet the requirements for practicing law in the State of New York;

c. Staying this action for thirty (30) days so that Defendants can procure new counsel;

d. Sanctioning Defendants' counsel in an amount to be decided by the Court plus costs in the amount of $140.00, Plaintiff's actual cost of filing a Request for Judicial Intervention and the instant Order to Show Cause; and

e. Granting Plaintiff such other, future, and different relief as may be just, proper, and/or equitable.

3. Rayminh L. Ngo or Higbee & Associates do not claim that they ever have attorneys or law firm staff at either of the two addresses they claim to be located at. They do not claim they have ever had attorneys or staff at those addresses, and they do not claim they have ever been to either location.

4. Rayminh L. Ngo and Higbee & Associates do not provide leases or affidavits of any employees or staff that have ever allegedly been to either of their claimed New York offices.

5. Despite their unsupported assertions, neither Rayminh L. Ngo nor Higbee & Associates have permanent physical offices at either address.

6. The affidavit of Steven Pena, a process server that physically went to the 48 Wall Street address and confirmed that neither Rayminh L. Ngo nor Higbee & Associates have permanent physical offices at 48 Wall Street is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

7. The affidavit of Jakeem Penn Sr., a process server that physically went to the 605 West Genesee address and confirmed that neither Rayminh L. Ngo nor Higbee & Associates have permanent physical offices at 605 West Genesee is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

8. Plaintiff served the Order to Show Cause in the time, place and manner required by the Court. A copy of the Affidavit of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause in its entirety.

More to come...

176

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / NY Supreme Court Disqualifies Higbee lawyer: Virtual offices not sufficient

« on: April 04, 2018, 12:09:29 AM »

I have some news that was brought to my attention.

Raymonh Ngo "Of Counsel" Lawyer for Higbee & Associates was disqualified by Justice Jerome Murphy of the NY Supreme Court in Nassau County when the court bluntly and publicly ruled that Higbee's virtual offices was insufficient to claim a legitimate/sufficient New York presence.  (Coincidentally, our own Oscar Michelen is actually based in Nassau County.) Higbee's use of virtual offices/rented addresses is something that we have known since 2016 and called bullshit on. Both Robert and I worked to investigate all the public addresses Higbee reportedly he had.

These recent articles provide a general report of the Higbee lawyer disqualification.

https://debanked.com/2018/01/attorney-suing-dozens-of-mca-companies-disqualified-as-counsel/

https://debanked.com/2018/04/usury-suit-by-higbee-associates-made-null-and-void-by-judge/

https://www.bna.com/firm-virtual-new-n73014474110/

The articles speak themselves. However, I dug further into where New York Supreme Court case information is posted online.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch

The case is: Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd. vs. H D W of Raleigh, Inc. d/b/a Pure Med Spa, a/k/a Pure Cosmetic and Surgical Center and Holly Donielle Wybel a/k/a Holly D. Wybel, Index # 0605890/2017

I downloaded several important court filings and exhibits to look into the nitty-gritty, blood and guts of the case.  I found a LOT of detailed information.

First, I directly quote several passages in the ruling dated December 20, 2017.

Based upon the papers submitted herewith, this Court finds that, in this case, neither Higbee & Associates ("Higbee") nor Rayminh L. Ngo had a physical office in the State of New York at the time that they appeared in this action on behalf of the defendants. Thus, said entities are all non-residents and have failed to comply with the Judiciary Law §470. Indeed, the papers herein establish that Ngo and Higbee's pleading -the Verified Answer and Counterclaims - identified their principal office to be located in Santa Ana, California. In addition, Ngo's attorney registration states that he is not an associate or partner of Higbee and is actually the principal of the Ngo Law Practice - a law firm based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

In his affirmation in opposition, Ngo avers that he is "an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York and ~isl currently the attorney of record for the Defendants". He adds that he is representing the defendants in his capacity as "of-counsel" to Higbee, "a multijurisdictional law firm based in California with whom I have long been associated" and which "maintains office spaces in various states, including in New York" where it currently maintains two offices. Specifically, it is counsel's contention that Higbee currently has lease agreements for two office spaces and addresses in New York at: 48 Wall Street, Suite 1100, New York, NY 10005 and 605 West Genesee Street, Suite 101, Syracuse, New York 13204.

Despite their contentions however, this Court finds no merit to the defendants' counsel's claims that they should not be disqualified. Initially, tqis Court cannot overlook the fact that at no point does Ngo aver that either he or Higbee have attorneys or law firm staff at either of the two New York addresses that they claim to be located at.

Moreover, while Ngo furnishes the lease agreements in his Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition, said documents also fail to establish that at the time that this lawsuit was commenced i.e., on or about June 20, 2017 - and at the time they appeared in this action on behalf of the defendants, the defendants' counsel had offices in New York State. Specifically, the lease agreement document furnished by the defendants for the 48 Wall Street address clearly states that said lease agreement commenced on July 13,2012 and expired on October 31,2012. Similarly, the office sub-lease agreement furnished by counsel for the 605 W. Genesee Street location clearly states that said lease agreement commenced on October 3, 2017. (The W. Genesee Street lease agreement was signed on October 3, 2017.) Thus, there has been no showing or any evidence that at the time this suit was commenced, the defendants' attorneys had offices in the State of New York.

In the end, this Court finds that there is no evidence on this record that Ngo and Higbee had physical addresses in New York. Moreover, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the defendants have failed to offer any competing evidence against the sworn affidavits of Steven Pena and Jakeen Penss, Sr., process servers who attest that they physically went to the 48 Wall Street and or 605 West Genesee addresses, respectively, and confirmed that neither Ngo nor Higbee had physical offices at these locations. Accordingly, this Court herewith awards the plaintiff its instant motion to disqualify the defendants' attorneys of record - Raymin L. Ngo and Higbee & Associates.

More to come...

177

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Mathew Higbee of Higbee & Associates Bullshits People about "National Law Firm"

« on: April 03, 2018, 11:36:44 PM »

In November 2016 (the very first post of this discussion which unfortunately strayed off-topic), I called bullshit on Higbee & Associates being a "national" law firm because of their use of rented addresses and "virtual offices". I am not a lawyer so I really couldn't say how this might be important to any defendant.

It would appear that in New York, this is going to fall apart very quickly. In two articles written by Sean Murray and published by the deBanked website, the case of  Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd. vs. H D W of Raleigh, Inc. d/b/a Pure Med Spa, a/k/a Pure Cosmetic and Surgical Center and Holly Donielle Wybel a/k/a Holly D. Wybel, Index # 0605890/2017 was brought to my attention.

This case is significant because this might be the first time any U.S. court has publicly and bluntly ruled that Higbee & Associates and one of its lawyers, Raymon Ngo, be disqualified from the case, ultimately forcing Ngo to withdraw from the case.

https://debanked.com/2018/01/attorney-suing-dozens-of-mca-companies-disqualified-as-counsel/

https://debanked.com/2018/04/usury-suit-by-higbee-associates-made-null-and-void-by-judge/

Because I am not familiar with either Sean Murray or the deBanked website, I wanted to check the story out.  I spent time looking for the online court docket and case information for the New York Supreme Court in Nassau County. (Coincidentally, our own Oscar Michelen is based out of Nassau County, New York)

The direct link to the New York Supreme Court online court document and case information can be found here:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch

The index number for the case is:  0605890/2017.  You have to type that exactly or you won't pull up the information. I was able to access all the court filings for that case.

I was able to corroborate the facts of the article and confirm that the case truly exists and that the court ruled that Attorney Raymon Ngo and Higbee & Associates are NOT authorized to directly practice law and directly file lawsuits in New York.

Because of the bombshell information that was brought to my attention, I continue this story in a new discussion thread.

178

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Receive extortion letter from Matthew K. Higbee today - need advice

« on: April 02, 2018, 06:34:52 AM »

You are in the Higbee Letter/Lawsuits Forum.  There are already plenty of posts to read for general advice.

If they choose to file a lawsuit, it generally won't be very soon.  Lawsuits are a rarity. So, start reading the other posts first to get a general sense of what is going on. A lot has been covered already.

179

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can Oscar help us settle on short notice if sued ?

« on: April 01, 2018, 10:23:40 PM »

If you plan on settling, you should do it BEFORE getting sued. It costs a lot less to settle a case BEFORE any lawsuit is filed.

Having said that, the majority of cases never go to lawsuit status. However, that doesn't mean a lawyer or law office won't try to threaten you or contact you over the matter.

180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Return address for Pic Rights???

« on: April 01, 2018, 10:21:16 PM »

That return address is probably the address where the letters were outsourced for mass printing, postage paid, and sent out.

If you want to confirm if the letter is legitimate, you can contact Pic Rights themselves and confirm it.

So this was the return to address that was attached to the letters from Pic Rights. Has anyone else searched this online and noticed the group linked with this address? Not exactly the type of people that I would think would have anything to do with this matter. Was going to upload the image of the address but can't seem to figure out how to do it here. Return address is PO Box 3415 Wichita KS 67201-3415