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.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Matthew Chan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
1
Announcements / All Forums on Indefinite Hiatus status.
« on: March 14, 2019, 01:31:47 AM »
All discussion forums on the ELI Forums are on hiatus for an indefinite period of time. Because I (along with other ELI admins/moderators) are unable to sufficiently moderate, monitor, and participate in the forums due to our "real lives", I have decided to suspend the forums.

The forums will still be available as an information resource for new readers and victims. There may be periodic updates as warranted. If there are any changes to the hiatus status, we will post them here.

2
Because I cannot be here to moderate the forums as much as I used to, I am forced to place this forum on hiatus (read-only mode). I am not sure how long the hiatus will last. It may be temporary or it may be permanent.  I simply cannot be here to respond to every question, comment, issue, complaint, criticism, or outlandish statement that is posted. I cannot catch every spam-bot that invades this forum with adware. Unfortunately, all discussion forums need a moderator/moderation team or it loses direction and goes off in weird, inexplicable directions. Or it gets overrun by spambots or trolls.

I have been doing a terrible job moderating lately simply because I have been absent for days and sometimes weeks at a time. I simply cannot be here to monitor, moderate, or participate. My closest and trusted ELI friends are also busy with their own lives and businesses to monitor, moderate, or participate. Given this, it is best to put this forum on hiatus.

Over the years, we have tried to help thousands of copyright extortion victims by encouraging information exchange, debate, unconventional ideas, and openly sharing our information and thoughts on these forums. Some of it was conventional wisdom, some of it was unconventional and unorthodox.  There seems to be a faction that believe that the only suggestions we should give out is "settle or go hire a lawyer".  If that was the case, there would be no need for a forum that contain thousands of messages discussing and debating the subject on different cases and people's situations. Last time I checked, lawyers charge hundreds of dollars per hour. Hence, for years ELI ha been at the forefront of seeking out unconventional ideas, tactics, and strategies for the "little guy".

Copyright trolling and copyright extortion is still alive and well. The names and players have changed over the years but many of the underlying tactics are still the same. Unfortunately, most victims will have to learn how to fend for themselves or find alternative resources.  I still believe people need to get educated because there are few places to get "affordable help". Given this, I believe new victims are well-served by delving into the forum archives.

For now, every forum has either been "retired" or placed on indefinite hiatus. If anything changes, we will let you know here.

3
Getty Images Letter Forum / This Forum is on Indefinite Hiatus
« on: March 12, 2019, 01:25:26 AM »
Because I cannot be here to moderate the forums as much as I used to, I am forced to place this forum on hiatus (read-only mode). I am not sure how long the hiatus will last. It may be temporary or it may be permanent.  I simply cannot be here to respond to every question, comment, issue, complaint, criticism, or outlandish statement that is posted. I cannot catch every spam-bot that invades this forum with adware. Unfortunately, all discussion forums need a moderator/moderation team or it loses direction and goes off in weird, inexplicable directions. Or it gets overrun by spambots or trolls.

I have been doing a terrible job moderating lately simply because I have been absent for days and sometimes weeks at a time. I simply cannot be here to monitor, moderate, or participate. My closest and trusted ELI friends are also busy with their own lives and businesses to monitor, moderate, or participate. Given this, it is best to put this forum on hiatus.

Over the years, we have tried to help thousands of copyright extortion victims by encouraging information exchange, debate, unconventional ideas, and openly sharing our information and thoughts on these forums. Some of it was conventional wisdom, some of it was unconventional and unorthodox.  There seems to be a faction that believe that the only suggestions we should give out is "settle or go hire a lawyer".  If that was the case, there would be no need for a forum that contain thousands of messages discussing and debating the subject on different cases and people's situations. Last time I checked, lawyers charge hundreds of dollars per hour. Hence, for years ELI has been at the forefront of seeking out unconventional ideas, tactics, and strategies for the "little guy".

Copyright trolling and copyright extortion is still alive and well. The names and players have changed over the years but many of the underlying tactics are still the same. Unfortunately, most victims will have to learn how to fend for themselves or find alternative resources.  I still believe people need to get educated because there are few places to get "affordable help". Given this, I believe new victims are well-served by delving into the forum archives.

For now, every forum has either been "retired" or placed on indefinite hiatus. If anything changes, we will let you know here.

4
I stumbled across this Techdirt article from October 2018. It is about the Higbee law firm issuing a letter to Something Awful owner, Rich Kyanka, over a hot-linked Christopher Sadowski image that was uploaded by another party, not the letter recipient. What is included are the colorful responses of Mr. Kyanka.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181008/22025640795/stupid-law-firm-decides-to-threaten-something-awful-over-hot-linked-hitler-picture.shtml

The way the guy responded to Higbee law firm is funny and eye-popping. People know I can be outspoken and I have used my share of 4-letter words as I deemed fit but I don't hold a candle to Mr. Kyanka. 

The source article is here:
https://www.somethingawful.com/news/higbee-hitler/1/

A big takeaway is not to fall for the BS argument that you infringed if you hot-linked an image. You can. However, I don't recommend it simply because of the time-suck involved in an altercation like this. But that doesn't mean you cannot do an image-hotlink if you really want to.

However, if you read Higbee's employee's response, it is clear some of them are really clueless. If they even had paralegal training, I would be shocked. To her credit, she was pretty calm overall if terribly offbase.

The owner of Something Awful stood his ground and played other cards (albeit in a more flamboyant way than I would advise) in his responses.  There is something to be said for the "little guy" telling a misinformed person to piss off. It just so happens, he knew his shit too. He was on solid ground. Good on him, I say.

On a side note, according to LinkedIn, the Higbee employee named by Mr. Kyanka left the Higbee law firm in Dec. 2018, less than 2 months later after that incident. Probably a coincidence. She lasted barely a year at the Higbee Law firm.


5
The title of this post comes from Paul Alan Levy's (lawyer for Public Citizen based in Washington DC) recent surprise and meaty expose of Higbee & Associates and their demand letter shenanigans.

https://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2019/02/consumer-warning-copyright-trolling-by-higbee-and-associates.html

As a matter of disclosure, Mr. Levy and I became acquainted a few years back over a legal matter unrelated to copyright extortion. He was a valued and outspoken ally and advocate to which I am grateful to this day. However, even before that, his reputation preceded him because his name would come up on several other matters and issues I follow.

What I am saying is that Mr. Levy is a legal powerhouse and takes no prisoners if he sees something bad happening to people. He calls it how he sees it. He is a pit bull (I mean that in a positive way) when he wants to get information and results. He has no qualms reaching out to potential adversaries/bullies and asking (demanding?) them to explain what they are doing and get their side of things. Further, he isn't going to just sit and wait around hoping that things will work out. He will outright insist for a resolution.

Many of his write-ups are not for the faint of heart. Aside from the very high signal-to-noise ratio in which he writes, he famously includes many piercing links to letters, emails, documents, and other supporting documents to support his argument.  For me, I have to go and click each and every link he provides because there is just some good juicy stuff in there!

Because of time constraints at the moment, I can't extract and quote the juicy stuff he writes. But I will. There is some real "meat and potatoes" he offers and I want to point them out.

ANYONE WHO GETS A HIGBEE DEMAND LETTER ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO READ HIS POST! There is no single article or post I have seen anywhere that comes close to what he has put together. The stuff he is writing and analyzing makes me look like a 6th-grader. It is that freaking good.

There is a lot to unpack and I will do my best to bring out the goodies that will be helpful to newcomers in the near future.

6
I was made aware of an ongoing lawsuit, UrbanLip.com vs. Lereve Skin Institute. It caught my interest because it is a Higbee client suing a Pro-Se Defendant. I am always intrigued to see how a pro-se defendant defends themselves. It can be painful rubber-necking experience.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8086148/urbanlipcom-ltd-v-lereve-skin-institute-inc/

The docket thus far appears to show a bunch of clerical errors (deficiencies) made by someone at the Higbee office. That, in itself, seems a tad embarrassing. It took 13 entries to get the lawsuit off the ground and overcome the deficiencies.

Interestingly, once Urbanlip filed the complaint on Sept. 25, the defendant Lereve wasted no time and filed an answer on October 15, 2018. In fact, I am not sure Lereve was even officially served but Lereve answered promptly. It saved Higbee and Urbanlip the expense of hiring a process server.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273.1.0.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273.18.0_2.pdf

A cursory reading of the complaint seems to indicate this all began in 2012 when Urbanlip purportedly discovered infringements.  But they didn't pursue litigation during that time frame. However, it seems that earlier this year, the matter was revived when Urbanlip purportedly found additional infringements. It appears this time around, they were not going to let this go.

In reading Leveres' answer, it appears this is is a small business which has been a bit sloppy and haphazard in its image management. However, it also shows that they appeared to make substantial efforts and bought many photos from Masterfile.

There are assertions that the infringements from 2012 was from another company, Merveille, that ultimately dissolved/suspended in 2013, not not the current corporation Levere. The assertion is that the current owner, Yu, worked for another Merveille (with not shareholder interest) in a marketing capacity in a similar line of business and entirely rejects the idea that she was personally liable for any such infringements.

Fast forward to 2018, Yu is now an owner of Lereve (current defendant), and purportedly uses Shutterstock as well as images from real patients and rejects Urbanlip's assertion that Yu had previously infringed upon Urbanlip's images.

Big picture, Urbanlip believes Yu has culpability because of her roles at both companies. Merveille appears to be a short-lived venture that folded up fairly quickly.  And Lereve appears to be a very small business as well since Yu, the owner, has undertaken the burden to represent herself and the corporation and not hire a lawyer. That is a good indication that the company has few assets and not well capitalized.

Higbee's lawyer, Ryan Carreon, is rightfully contesting Yu's ability to represent the corporation. Only lawyers can represent corporations. Yu will have to decide whether or not it is worth hiring a lawyer to represent this small corporation which may have few meaningful assets.

However, it seems evident that Yu is determined to represent herself and has done so. In the Dec. 3, Joint Report of Early Meeting, it is unsurprising that both parties seem motivated to settle the matter.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273/gov.uscourts.cacd.723273.26.0.pdf

It seems that Urbanlip believes there are far more assets and profits with Levere than Yu asserts and there is a dispute in the amount to settle for.

Certainly, Urbanlip has the upperhand in terms of legal maneuvers but I wonder how much endurance they have to continue going after a determined pro se defendant with very limited legal experience. It has to be a painful experience for Carreon. Lawyers have to exercise extra care in how they treat pro se defendants or there can be blowback if they take unfair advantage. Lawyers have great exposure if they try sneaky stuff.

Carreon has asked for the right of discovery but small businesses are notorious for being disorganized and having scattered records even with the best of intentions. Certainly, Urbanlip will prevail in principle in discovery requests but I have seen up close the operation of many small businesses. It is like making sausage, you never really want to see how sausage is made.

I wonder how much time and energy Carreon and Urbanlip really want to spend on this messy case. It is clear Yu is not legally experienced and stumbling her way through the process. In my non-lawyer view with very limited information on Levere, the important thing Yu needs to really defend is herself personally. If Yu has worked and operated on behalf of Levere and a paid employee, chances are Levere will be held responsible for the mishaps/sloppiness of its contractors, not Yu personally. If Levere is found to have infringed, then so be it. Get the empty judgment.

I know some people might think the corporation needs to be defended at all costs but in my own life experience, I have and heard of many small investors and small business owners over the years abandon their corporations by not paying the annual fee forcing the state to administratively dissolve a corporation.

7
Yesterday, I unexpectedly received an unsolicited "thank you" email from Mathew Higbee of Higbee & Associates. It was a cordial and respectful email for the supposed purpose of "thanking" me for giving "benefit of the doubt" of an ELI contributor who shared his story that he was receiving another demand letter over a matter that had been previously settled. https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/settled-with-picrights-now-getting-harassed-by-higbee-for-the-same-image/msg23151/#msg23151

Quote
I appreciate your giving Higbee & Associates the benefit of the doubt in your answer to a recent post on your forum about us pursuing a claim that PicRights had previously settled.  We had a clerical error.  Those mistakes very rarely happen, but when they do, we apologize and fix it as fast as possible.

Mathew Higbee further wrote:

Quote
Your forum is in a unique place to provide information and to receive feedback from people who are interacting with Higbee & Associates.   You can feel confident in knowing that anyone, including you, can reach out to me directly if you ever have reason to believe that the H&A team has violated any of these key components of its training:

    Treat all people with respect and professionalism, no exceptions
    Never knowingly represent facts that are not true
    Never knowingly misstate the law
    Never do things to increase costs or make resolution less efficient or likely
    Do not pursue a claim without a good faith basis for doing so
    Earnestly try to resolve claims prior to litigating 
    Do not hold grudges or make cases personal

I base my opinions on what I have seen, been reported (or not reported) to me. I am not going to blindly accept his PR statements and talking points however nice and honorable they might sound. Actions speak way louder than words.  I have no love of Higbee & Associates but I can step back and look at the bigger picture.

1. His front line people are low-level clerks. I currently have no reason to believe they are paralegals but they could be law students/paralegal or lawyer-wannabes one day. My guess is they are hourly people who have an incentivized-bonus program in place. In all the communications that have been reported to me, most clerks do appear to exercise restraint, not overstep their boundaries, or engage in outrageous or egregious behavior.  That is smart because things have a way of going viral as has occurred in years past.

2. Despite what a lot of victims think, these demand letter cases are generally not personal. They are simply one of many. The Higbee operation is a full-time operation with a team in place. They don't generally have an axe to grind against anyone starting out. But I do believe they "lean on" some parties more than others over time.

3.  I think Higbee hugely inflates the upfront settlement numbers. Smart, informed, and educated folks know they have to aggressively argue their side and stand their ground if they want a more favorable settlement. Admittedly, there are some parties who get very good settlement amounts due to their personal circumstances and arguments.

4.  I think Higbee has a very liberal interpretation of the value of infringements that he goes after. PDF infringements come to mind. So do images that come through Twitter or other social media feed. Or those dumb Nick Youngson/RM Media $10 images.

5. I don't think he is particular fond of very challenging legal fights. I definitely believe he prefers to settle if he can.  Because litigation can get ugly, time-consuming, and an energy suck. My guess is he can inadvertently drag his clients into a bad public situation if he is not careful. Not all clients are the same. Not all values of images or infringements are the same.

6.  I posted the principles he and his law firm supposedly follows so people can hold him accountable. Sending it to me does very little good if I don't share them. It requires many eyeballs and an extended period of time to assess if those principles are followed. Time will tell.

Mathew Higbee took the time to address a big criticism of how he operates his "national law firm"  from California and rents large numbers of virtual offices throughout the U.S. I wrote what we thought of his network of virtual offices:
 https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/mathew-higbee-of-higbee-associates-bullshits-people-about-'national-law-firm'/

He claims in his email to me it is "common practice" with law firms. I don't buy it. Many law firms may rent an executive suite/virtual suite or two or partner with other lawyers/law firms to expand their presence but not to the degree he does it. And they don't say they are a "national law firm". He claims it is to accommodate immigration clients. But I don't see many immigration law firms engaging in such practices.

Let us not forget that the NY Supreme Court informed his law firm that virtual offices are insufficient: https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/ny-supreme-court-disqualifies-higbee-lawyer-virtual-offices-not-sufficient/

I tend to believe that New York cannot be alone in that opinion that all it takes is to rent a virtual office and they can represent clients in that state, immigration practice or not.

Mathew Higbee has invited me to reach out to him directly for questions I might have. I don't really see that happening anytime soon because I don't encourage people to communicate with me over demand letter matters unless they are paid clients or reporting something notable or noteworthy. I am not his law firm's quality control person. That is his job. It is not my job to tell or inform him how he should operate his law firm. He is a grown man and can live and die by his business decisions.

Last but not least, his signature line includes this:

Quote
Serving all of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington.

California Bar License # 241380
Illinois Bar License # 6319929
Michigan Bar License # P73890
Minnesota Bar License # 0388759
Nevada Bar License # 11158
Ohio Bar License # 0094107
Oregon Bar LIcense # 106514
Texas Bar License # 24076924
Utah Bar License # 11133
Washington Bar License # 42755

Admitted in several federal courts in additional states. 

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
1504 Brookhollow Suite 112
Santa Ana, CA 92705

I have to give the guy credit for having so many bar licenses. The downside to this is that if someone ever wanted to hit him with a state bar complaint, that is a lot of places to have to defend.

8
This was brought to my attention by a lawyer who wished to be anonymous. It is a Plaintiff Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Higbee Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2018cv03353/418211/11/0.pdf

As far as I can tell, the lawyer who brought it to my attention has no connection to the parties of the lawsuit. However, he appears to be interested in the topics we discuss here (as some of our other forum participants who might also be lawyers and who contribute valuable insights and perspective).

I am going to come right out and say, some of this is very difficult reading for a non-lawyer such as myself. But we have some smart legal minds who participate here and this might be right up their alley.  Some of the points makes sense to me. Other parts are more difficult. Additionally, there are references to many cases I am unfamiliar with.

The plaintiff is: Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein.  https://www.msek.com/

The four Higbee defendants are: Mathew Higbee, Nick Youngson, RM Media, and Higbee & Associates.

The case is listed here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7088874/meyer-suozzi-english-klein-pc-v-higbee/

The complaint can be downloaded here: 
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.418211/gov.uscourts.nyed.418211.1.0.pdf

I am very impressed with the complaint because it includes and expands upon the many gripes I have against the whole Nick Youngson and RM Media's Creative Commons scheme that has entrapped so many victims.  I have been shouting and warning people about the scheme the last few years and it is satisfying to see a victim fight back so hard back and aggressively on the legal front.

Higbee & Associates have happily hooked their reputations on Youngson's & RM Media's ongoing Creative Commons entrapment scheme and now they are being called out on the legal front whereby a lawsuit was filed against the four Higbee Defendants.

I have repeatedly said over the years, these copyright "enforcers" get a little too money-happy, they become greedy, careless, and then hits the wrong defendant. That is when things start to unravel.

Youngson & RM Media ESPECIALLY (out of all the Higbee clients) has been asking for this to happen to him. He sits comfortably in the UK (way outside of the US) running his offensive, detestable Creative Commons $10 image entrapment scheme using a California lawyer to do all the collections dirty work scamming victim after victim. And I keep getting support call requests month after month over this.

There is no doubt I will be following this case. I am not qualified enough to digest and understand everything being argued but it won't stop me from trying...

I will have more to write after I further digest what is going on in this case.

11
This news nugget was submitted by a loyal ELI reader. Thank you to that person who wishes to remain anonymous.

The number of firms pursuing copyright infringement and issuing extortion letters is growing again. It appears that Attorney Mathew Higbee and Litigious Photographer Michael Grecco has launched Image Defenders.

http://imagedefenders.com/about/

Higbee has previously represented Grecco on various copyright infringement cases which can be found on Justia and Pacer. Apparently, their pre-existing relationship has led to this new Image Defenders venture and business partnership. It is safe to say that we will soon see the first Image Defenders Settlement Demand/Extortion Letters.

The domain ImageDefenders.com was registered in February 2018. That means this is a very new venture. With Grecco's credentials, I imagine he will be able to find some photographers to sign up for the new service.

As reported previously, it has been my estimate that Higbee and other lawyers in his line of work get a 30% to 40% (roughly a third) commission for their collection/extortion efforts. However, Image Defenders claim to only want to charge 20% collection fees in the pre-lawyer stages with the other supposed 80% going to photographer. However, I am not convinced that the 20/80 split will stay for long.

http://imagedefenders.com/faq/

Image Defenders is the only service that has NO upfront fees. The service is through acceptance, we are looking for artist with high value to their work and registrations with the copyright office. We then assume all cost for the search, any filing fees with the court and services fess. Image Defenders also takes the smallest percentage of any agency of its type, we charge 20% of the gross after expenses. The core law firm works for a rate of 30% deliver 50% of the gross settlement to the artist or their representative.

Supposedly, the advantage that Image Defenders as is, of course, the direct connection to the Higbee law offices existing staff and infrastructure. Another interesting "competitive edge" is reading between the lines. Image Defenders is touting that they are using search technology to find potential infringements, not proprietary search/scanning software (such as PicScout which Getty Images uses and acquired for $20 million).

We know our strengths. Rather than spending our time and resources developing proprietary search technology like many other services, we utilize three different proven search engines developed by companies who are experts in search.

By utilizing three different search engines, we can offer unparalleled search capabilities worldwide. The technical aspects of Image Defenders do not distract our network of lawyers from their primary task, which is getting you paid.


Reading between the lines, we can probably assume Google and Bing are two of the major search engines they are using. I am not sure what the third search engine might be. Yahoo Search doesn't count because as far as I know it has been reliant on Bing for years.

On good point that Image Defenders make is this statement:

http://imagedefenders.com/how-it-works/

Unlike most other services, Image Defenders does not charge a monthly fee for our services. You pay nothing out-of-pocket. There are no fees until your claim has been settled.

Once any claims have been settled, you retain 50% of the actual settlement. While others claim to pay 40-50%, in most cases, that percentage is calculated after the lawyers take their cut of up to 40%. Which means you are actually only getting 20-30% of the initial settlement.

Image Defenders was formed with the idea that photographers should be paid for their work. That is why we strive to pay the highest percentage in the industry.


It is no secret that most photographers are not very business-savvy and most are desperate to collect any monies on their photography however small it might be. It is not a surprise that photographers get relatively very little money in the extortion letter business because the other firms all have to get their share first before the photographer gets anything. And that assumes that these firms are honorable in reporting monies collected. Quite frankly, most photographers have no way of verifying what anyone collects. They are at the mercy of these "service firms".

I have to say Higbee is quite clever and entrepreneurial. The Image Defenders venture feeds his law firm with new clients.  Image Defenders can simply send a couple of weak, token letters to potential infringers. When they don't pay or answer, they can transfer the case to Higbee's own law firm and claim his 50%.

If we use our in house legal services, you get paid 50% of the actual settlement, not what’s left over after everyone else has been paid.

I find it hard to believe the photographer Grecco would incur any labor costs himself. I think Grecco will be leaning heavily (or entirely) on Higbee's existing office operations and staff. I think ImageDefenders will largely be represented and operated by Higbee's inhouse non-lawyer, clerical staff, perhaps a paralegal might be involved. And for victims who refuse to pay ImageDefenders, the "case" will be "transferred" to another Higbee inhouse staff member.

It seems very likely existing Higbee employees will be working in the Image Defenders venture. To the general public, there will be an Image Defenders extortion letter.  And then there will be a separate the Higbee Law Firm extortion letter. They will refer to each other in the third-person as if they were really separate firms when, it is quite likely in a practical sense, they are one and the same. At best, if they are not one and the same in a practical sense, it would be an incestuous arrangement.

Most of the public who are new victims and do not read ELI will not make the connection between the newly formed Image Defenders and Higbee & Associates Law Firm. They will be fooled into thinking that Image Defenders and Higbee Law Firm are two different entities. Based on my read, it is likely an incestuous operation. Grecco will be the "networking cred" to attract photographer clients into the venture to earn his keep in the venture.  But it looks to me, Higbee's non-lawyer, clerical staff will be getting more work now that Image Defenders appears to have come online.

Overall, I have to say it is quite clever and entrepreneurial for Grecco and Higbee to work together in ImageDefenders. It is something to watch and observe in the months and years to come.

13
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...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
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.