ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

Retired Forums => Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum => Topic started by: stevep on August 05, 2010, 10:59:06 AM

Title: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on August 05, 2010, 10:59:06 AM
Here is a summary of the case filed yesterday in Federal Court in Chicago against Riddick and Imageline. The filing goes on to explain why they believe Riddick's copyrights are essentially worthless.

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises from (1) Defendants’ false allegations of copyright infringement and threats of litigation against Bernina and its authorized dealers; (2) Defendants’ misuse of copyright to extort money and gain concessions from Bernina; (3) Defendants’ bad faith publication of defamatory statements about Bernina; and (4) Defendants’ malicious interference with Bernina’s valid and existing business relationships. Since Defendants, by their conduct, have created a real controversy between Plaintiff and Imageline, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed upon any valid copyright owned by Imageline. Plaintiff further seeks damages and injunctive relief as a result of Defendants’ defamation and tortious interference with Bernina’s business relationships with its dealers.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 05, 2010, 11:49:09 AM
This is an important posting.  Riddick definitely harassed the wrong people. This court action could change the ‘game’ entirely.  Additionally, I believe that a win by Bernina could set a precedent wherein the likes of other Copyright Trolls such as  Masterfile, Getty images and others could no longer risk sending extortion letters seeking payment for content that they cannot prove that they even own. Can you imagine a class action put forward by a large group of Getty extortion letter recipients?  It’s clear that the likes of Getty and Masterfile state hugely inflated prices in their demands, and try to claim damages that don’t exist (much like Riddick). This is already a victory for anyone who’s been a victim of Riddick’s extortion business.

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 05, 2010, 08:45:08 PM
Riddick never "got it" how his letter-writing tactics are so outrageous, they make Getty Images look respectable.  Riddick basically engages in outright lying and impersonation.  Getty Images may bully and bluff but Riddick goes way beyond.  Hence, he has generated so much bad karma that someone has decided to something about it and turn things against him.

For anyone that is interested in reading the full complaint as it has been submitted, click the link below.  It is pretty serious.

http://extortionletterinfo.com/imageline-suit-080410.pdf (http://extortionletterinfo.com/imageline-suit-080410.pdf)

Good reading. Thanks to my friendly anonymous contributor for providing me this Pacer file.  You know who you are.  We all appreciate your contribution.

MatthewC
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 07, 2010, 12:53:49 AM
I just received another email from my friendly contributor source containing 4 more court documents from the Pacer system relating to the Riddick, Imageline lawsuit initiated by Bernina of America.

Because I now have 5 separate documents (with more to likely come in this case), I have posted an editorial/article (bright yellow box) with links to each court document on the main Riddick/Imageline Information page (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/imageline.htm).

If that link doesn't work, this is the direct URL:  http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/imageline.htm.

Good reading all.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on August 09, 2010, 08:47:54 AM
I have reached out to the lawyer on this case and directed him to this site where he can get more background information on the issue. He reported back to me that he had gone through the site and found it very useful.   I will be keeping in  touch with him and the progress of the suit. Riddick picked on a company who can ill afford his defamatory bad-mouthing and can afford the litigation to put an end to it.  This could be very significant!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Lettered on August 09, 2010, 10:30:49 PM
This is great.  Nail on the head in my opinion:

"15. The majority of the images over which Imageline claims ownership are rudimentary depictions of commonplace things (such as balls, everyday objects, and exact likenesses of public figures and national landmarks) that cannot be distinguished from other works in their class and, therefore, are not sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection."
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on August 10, 2010, 08:33:05 AM
I know, in talking to the lawyer we pointed out the Riddick also claims copyright over the American flag, the Lincoln Memorial and the statue of Iwo Jima. This lawsuit is going to give Riddick a massive headache.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 10, 2010, 01:06:39 PM
Oscar,

I think everyone knows that this lawsuit was entirely preventable. I guess he wrongly assumed the no one had the stomach or resources to fight him.  Riddick was both relentless and outrageous in his approach. Makes Getty Images seem almost pleasant by comparison.

Riddick has so badly damaged his name that the only way he can enter Internet society again is under an alias. Anyone that does a Google search on him will show he now has a very bad reputation.

Bottom line, Riddick getting a massive headache is probably an understatement.  I think there are going to be a lot of people who will be empowered enough to jump on a retaliatory bandwagon.  There will probably be no shortage of people willing to support and speak out against Riddick.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 10, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
To be fair, as far as I know Getty Images, Masterfile, and the other stock photo companies are much tamer and professional in their tone and language compared to Riddick.  If you read his letters, they are just off the charts and screams lunacy.

Riddick is being sued not for having pursued Bernina. That in itself did not set off the lawsuit. It was the way Riddick went about it and the outrageous tactics and personal attacks he used.  He took it out of a business realm and started personalizing it to the point the folks at Bernina became angry and wanted to put a stop to Riddick.  My guess is Riddick has gone dark and into hiding at this point. But one never knows since Riddick was never that logical to begin with.

Bernina wants payback and retaliation against Riddick, that much is clear.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an important posting.  Riddick definitely
> harassed the wrong people. This court action could
> change the ‘game’ entirely.  Additionally, I
> believe that a win by Bernina could set a
> precedent wherein the likes of other Copyright
> Trolls such as  Masterfile, Getty images and
> others could no longer risk sending extortion
> letters seeking payment for content that they
> cannot prove that they even own. Can you imagine a
> class action put forward by a large group of Getty
> extortion letter recipients?  It’s clear that
> the likes of Getty and Masterfile state hugely
> inflated prices in their demands, and try to claim
> damages that don’t exist (much like Riddick).
> This is already a victory for anyone who’s been
> a victim of Riddick’s extortion business.
>
> S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 10, 2010, 11:41:09 PM
Yeah, Riddick's the worst.  Masterfile and Getty are Copyright Trolls.  But, Riddick's the Copyright Nazi.

The Copyright Trolls do bully and even stretch the truth quite a bit in their claims in order to intimidate.  But, the tactics employed by Riddick are really over the top.  He took on quite a bit of risk by doing this.  I wonder if this is just his nature, or has he become braver and more bold over time due to past conquests - the thought of which I find chilling indeed.

In a past post, he did say that he was going after larger companies rather than the small guys such as bloggers.  I guess that he was serious.  Yes... there are surely some past (or present) victims watching this closely.  I mean, was he only concentrating on Bernina?

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 11, 2010, 08:51:01 AM
This lawsuit comes as great news to all of us long time Riddick victims.  This man is clearly disturbed and a threat to himself and the public.  I truly believe that he will one day face criminal charges.  Maybe then, the threatening emails from Riddick will stop and we can all move on in peace.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 11, 2010, 08:16:31 PM
Yes, Getty has a propensity to exaggerate and prey on the legal ignorance of the people they pursue. They also do a good job training their $15/hr interns the sing the party line.  IN my mind, I always think about how it will actually play out in a reasonable court of law.

Regarding Riddick, I honestly believe he thinks what he is doing is right and he is fighting for a cause.  The problem with his position is that some of it is irrational and illogical.  His long-winded threats and windbag explanations tries to mask that he has little or no bullets in his gun. He also relies on the ignorance of his victims.  The sheer persistence of his attacks can be overwhelming to some people.  Some people cave in, others fight back and lash out.

I am quite certain Getty, Riddick, and Masterfile hate this website and the fact a heavy-hitter like Oscar Michelen is on the case.  I honestly think this website and Oscar Michelen are the biggest thorns against their ongoing demand letter campaigns. We have educated too many people on the issues.

I don't necessarily think he singled out Bernina.  It is just when you hit enough people, the "right" party will actually do something about it and fight back.  My own story was not terribly unlike many other people's situations.  The biggest thing that was different with me is that I don't like being bullied and threatened.  So I am willing to aggressively fight back.  If someone points a gun my way, they better shoot to kill because when I get back up, I am coming after you.  I do hold grudges and I believe in payback. That is the whole reason why this website was created to begin with.  Obviously, the anger I originally had has since subsided but this website continues to exist to help others.  :-)

MatthewC

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Riddick's the worst.  Masterfile and Getty
> are Copyright Trolls.  But, Riddick's the
> Copyright Nazi.
>
> The Copyright Trolls do bully and even stretch the
> truth quite a bit in their claims in order to
> intimidate.  But, the tactics employed by Riddick
> are really over the top.  He took on quite a bit
> of risk by doing this.  I wonder if this is just
> his nature, or has he become braver and more bold
> over time due to past conquests - the thought of
> which I find chilling indeed.
>
> In a past post, he did say that he was going after
> larger companies rather than the small guys such
> as bloggers.  I guess that he was serious.  Yes...
> there are surely some past (or present) victims
> watching this closely.  I mean, was he only
> concentrating on Bernina?
>
> S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 11, 2010, 11:12:09 PM
And we are extremely grateful for your efforts, Matthew!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 12, 2010, 12:10:11 AM
Matthew,

I think that you're probably right about Riddick.  He should have sought legal advice before he did anything, too.

The type of product that Riddick's Imageline sells appears to be of the type that was more popular about 12 -15 years ago.  I don't mean this as any kind of insult.  When people had much less bandwidth and things took a long time to download, "vector" type clipart could be made into GIFs that were of extremely small file size.  These days bandwidth is much less of an issue, with photographic or sophisticated graphic art taking precedence.  He's probably seen the value and market of whatever collection that he has shrink greatly.  That is no excuse for his actions, of course.  Perhaps, he should have changed with the times?

I think that Riddick's actions may already have damaged the reputation of the stock image industry as a whole.  Many companies and individuals are getting wind of the "extortion letter" schemes.  People that are well-read on the subject may recognize that some companies are much worse than others in their tactics.  But, the average person who hears about what's going on would likely think to themselves, "look at what these scamming stock image companies are doing!"  They're just thinking of the "industry" as a whole, unless they dig further (and how many people actually take the time to research it?).  In such cases, some damage has been done.  How many of these people were potential customers is anyone's guess.  

I'm surprised that some of the news media hasn't picked up on the "extortion letter" schemes yet.  I'm tempted to approach a few news-magazine style shows, and I'd love to see some cameras and a reporter stop by the offices of Getty, Masterfile, or whatever dank swamp Riddick lives in.

I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that when a situation like yours arose, I fought them every step of the way like an immovable object.  Of course, there's always a possibly that they could have won, but they would have had to go through every single step of a very annoying and torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never just "give" them anything just because I got few letters and calls.  They should "prove their case", and if they can't actually go to court, then they can't be very confident in their position.

You and Oscar have definitely set up a great resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody else took the time to do it.  How many people have stopped having so many sleepless nights after coming to the site - we may never really know.  But, it's probably a significant number of people. No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 12, 2010, 12:14:04 PM
I have read the complaint twice now (it gives me such pleasure) and will likely read it again several more times.  The exhibits are a disturbing look into Riddick's world.  The baseless, utterly unprofessional and personal attacks on the attorney in this case are reminiscent of the brash and distasteful verbal attacks unleashed upon Matthew by Mr. Riddick through this very forum.  These are the rants of someone unstable and with obvious anger issues.  I do chuckle at the George'isms such as "over there," "up there." and "down here."  "The pirates are on the shores of Montezuma!"
I know that you are careful to monitor these post, Matthew, for relevancy and adherence to the facts involved.  I would expect however, that there may be many posts to come expressing adulation for Bernina USA, Mr. Michelen and yourself.  
I will again make a contribution via PayPal to support this vital resource.
Keep up the good fight, Matthew!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 12, 2010, 04:38:49 PM
Here's a question for Oscar:  Imagine that a company or person(s) sent letters, made calls, etc in the spirit of these "extortion letter" schemes, and the recipient simply disagreed with their claims.  How far can the company or person(s) sending such letters escalate the issue before it becomes "harassment"?  If the recipient of the letters says, "I've made note of your claims, please don't harass me further" does the sender of the letters have to stop their actions?

Isn't there a point wherein the company or person(s) have to either give up, or seek a solution through litigation?

Thank you!!

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on August 13, 2010, 12:10:37 PM
Good question SG.  I guess it will depend on the state, but most states say repeated phone calls (or texts or emails) are "harassment" if they are for "no legitimate purpose."  So how is that defined? Its a case by case analysis usually. The best way to try to turn phone collectors into criminal defendants would be to issue a clear statement (preferably in writing) that says something like:   "I have received repeated phone calls from you on this issue. In each of those calls I have advised you that  I have no intention of settling this matter with you. Therefore I insist that you no longer call me about this. Any further call will serve no legitimate purposes and will constitute harassment. Therefore if you call me again, I intend to refer your name and behavior to the appropriate authorities."

Will it work? I don't know. Prosecutors are likely too busy to try and turn boorish collection behavior into criminal conduct.  But if it gets bad, you never know.  Also, you can try and refer the matter to your State Attorney General. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  prohibits repeated phone calls after they've been told to stop and prohibits calls before 8AM or after 9PM.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 17, 2010, 07:13:00 PM
Apparently, domain squatting did not pay off for Mr. Riddick.  His Islandview company website is down for non-payment (as of this post).
www.islandview2.com
I also see that the corporate website upgrade for Imageline is right on schedule.
www.imageline2.com
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on August 17, 2010, 07:22:44 PM
Thanks for the update!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 17, 2010, 10:26:49 PM
It sounds like we are kindred spirits.  Oscar and I appreciate informed contributors such as yourselves because you guys provide extra eyes and ears to the situation.  And yes, there is a significant number of people caught up in all this.

This website averages nearly 4000 unique visitors per month (not hits).  That is a LOT of readers for such a niche subject. And nearly 17% of our readers spend from 5 to 60+ minutes reading the content of our website. When they visit, they are reading 6 pages or posts per visit.  People certainly are hungry for information.

However, a tiny minority actually post or participate on the discussion forums.  LOTs of readers though.

MatthewC

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that
> when a situation like yours arose, I fought them
> every step of the way like an immovable object.
> Of course, there's always a possibly that they
> could have won, but they would have had to go
> through every single step of a very annoying and
> torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never
> just "give" them anything just because I got few
> letters and calls.  They should "prove their
> case", and if they can't actually go to court,
> then they can't be very confident in their
> position.
>
> You and Oscar have definitely set up a great
> resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody
> else took the time to do it.  How many people have
> stopped having so many sleepless nights after
> coming to the site - we may never really know.
> But, it's probably a significant number of people.
> No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!
>
> S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on August 20, 2010, 07:14:43 AM
According to recent court documents, Riddick is having difficulty finding an attorney and thus represented himself against Bernina's attorneys in Federal Court. The judge issued a temporary restraining order against Riddick, and ordered the parties back to Court for August 31.

The highlight of the court transcription was this classic exchange between Riddick and a Senior Federal Court Judge with 30+ years experience on the bench:

MR. RIDDICK: I said I don't really appreciate that, because I do know what I'm talking about, having worked on this for 25 years. However, I know --

THE COURT: You know, I'm glad you've been at this 25 years. I guess I had a misspent youth, because I've been 30 years at the bench here just last month; and I appreciate your education, but I've got to tell you, it doesn't seem to work the way you seem to think it does. So, you'd better have something professional in the way of a response.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 20, 2010, 05:30:31 PM
OMG! Classic Riddick! He has respect for no one other than himself.

Thank you, stevep. Please keep us posted. Is there any way to get a look at the transcripts?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 20, 2010, 07:01:15 PM
The courtroom scene described above reminds me of a scene in the Wizard of OZ movie.  You know, the part wherein The Wizard is projected as a scary, powerful, malevolent monster of a man.  But then, from behind a curtain, the real wizard is revealed.  In reality, he's a weak, powerless pathetic little douchebag.  In the courtroom, the "curtain" has been pulled aside to reveal... Riddick.  Without an attorney.  By the way, he's so 'correct' that he doesn't need an attorney.  Anyone who received a threatening letter from him or "his team" and paid him money was a sucker.

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: YetAnotherRiddickVictim on August 21, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
Some people told Riddick to go piss up a rope. He then came back with a lawyer and sued them. He filed 9 or 10 law suits over the last year and change.

He got the SIAA to back some of the suits, got contingency lawyers on others. Whether or not he can win, he can force you into bankruptcy just paying for the legal team to fight him, which has allowed him to get settlements from companies and individuals just happy to be done with it. And he appears to count a settlement as a win, even if all he got were pennies and promises.

The sad thing is that our laws make it possible for Riddick to terrorize small players without repercussions, simply because they can't afford to fight back the way Bernina is doing. I hope Bernina wins, wins any appeals, and wins hard enough to put Riddick out of business for good.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 21, 2010, 12:24:49 PM
Yes, I have a number of documents that have been sent to me that I need to review and post to our website.

I am currently out of town for 2 weeks and will be slower than normal in responding but rest assured as I get the court documents, they will be posted here on this website.

MatthewC

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMG! Classic Riddick! He has respect for no one
> other than himself.
>
> Thank you, stevep. Please keep us posted. Is there
> any way to get a look at the transcripts?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 21, 2010, 12:40:11 PM
This is a broad general statement I am making here but. the reason why many people "lose" is they were never taught to fight by their own rules, not your opponents rules.

Somehow, people have it in their heads that there is a "proper" protocol in fighting someone. Now, I am not condoning breaking the law or doing anything illegal. Outside of that, ANYTHING goes. Even if lawyers are involved, too many people do not understand how lawyers and courts work in the fact that they are people too and whatever they do hinges on what the plaintiff wants.  In other words, you find a plaintiff's weaknesses, use it to your advantage, and legal actions can fall away pretty quickly.  But there has to be an incentive for the plaintiff to stop what they are doing.

I almost never go out of my way to pick a fight. But over the years, I have learned to represent my own interests and fight back in ways my opponents absolutely hate.  And in most cases, they did not involve hiring a lawyer. One day I may find time and a way to share some of the info I have but I don't think I will be doing it in a public format because of the sensitivity of the information and the potential for abuse.

The best analogy I can give anyone is think "guerilla warfare", "street fighting", and "going personal". I know it might be cryptic and it is meant to be. And NONE of it is to imply getting violent despite my references.

Having said all that, for most people, I publicly recommend attorney Oscar Michelen. He is best suited for most people's sensibilities. You do not have to go broke defending yourself, you have to get educated.  I get emails from people who are too lazy to read the contents of this website or post their stories. I have no inclination to type a customized response when people have not done their homework. Whereas Oscar gets paid to do the work, I don't.  My contribution are primarily through the articles I have written, my occasional posts, and overseeing this website and online community. I have to draw the line somewhere.

MatthewC

YetAnotherRiddickVictim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> He got the SIAA to back some of the suits, got
> contingency lawyers on others. Whether or not he
> can win, he can force you into bankruptcy just
> paying for the legal team to fight him, which has
> allowed him to get settlements from companies and
> individuals just happy to be done with it. And he
> appears to count a settlement as a win, even if
> all he got were pennies and promises.
>
> The sad thing is that our laws make it possible
> for Riddick to terrorize small players without
> repercussions, simply because they can't afford to
> fight back the way Bernina is doing. I hope
> Bernina wins, wins any appeals, and wins hard
> enough to put Riddick out of business for good.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 21, 2010, 05:25:51 PM
YetAnotherRiddickVictim, Thanks for the info about the Riddick lawsuits.  However, I'm having difficulty finding any references on the Web about the lawsuits mentioned.  I'd like to know how many lawsuits he has actually brought forth and how many lawsuits he has won. Can anyone point me in the right direction?  Oscar mentioned in a separate post that in reality, Riddick wasn't suing hardly anyone:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?3,429

Obviously, people (lawyers included) cannot live on bankrupting companies and "collecting pennies and promises", as you say; so what's the point of suing?  If he's never won any lawsuits, but people are paying him anyway, I'd personally consider them to be suckers; but that's just my opinion.  By that yardstick, what's to stop me from suing people for treading on my lawn, and making them pay just because it costs a lot to fight my allegations in court?  

From his recent court behavior, he certainly doesn't sound to be legally savvy.  I mean, here's a litigious guy who's allegedly sued people ten times this year.  But, he arrives in federal court without an attorney?  It just doesn't add up up for me.  It doesn't sound like he's been to court before.

I totally agree with Matthew.  It's time to fight.  I can't say too much about my fight either; but I can tell you that making it incredibly painful and labor intensive for your adversaries to deal with you is essential.  Stay quiet at first, but if they come after you, study everything that you can and make it clear that you're the most educated person on the planet on the subject.  Never, ever show fear.  They want money?  Fine... show them that it'll cost them ten times what's allegedly owed just to get it.  Every minute that they spend harassing or chasing you costs them money.  Every piece of paper, fax and phone call costs them money.  You owe 10,000 dollars they say?  Surely they'll come after you relentlessly?  Maybe for a while.  But, not as long as they can make 11,000 by chasing other people who don't fight back.  People who pay without much of a fight are like "low-hanging fruit" in the jungle... guess which gets eaten first?

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on August 22, 2010, 12:01:19 AM
Can not wait to see them, Matthew!  Thanks!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on August 23, 2010, 06:55:43 AM
As far as lawsuits, near as I can tell, he won one, lost one, and settled three or four. This link should provide a list:
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Imageline

Most of these appear to be people who were selling clipart.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on August 23, 2010, 01:20:47 PM
Thanks for the link!!  It seems that Riddick/Imageline were quite busy in 2009.  It'll be interesting to see if he will come out ahead monetarily after all is said and done with Bernina.  If he loses money in the end, then his efforts would seem to be pointless.  Time to get a real job, maybe?

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on August 27, 2010, 01:04:15 PM
Here's an interesting Federal Court document that explains that Riddick cannot represent his company himself without an attorney, unless he is one. Now THAT is funny...
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2010cv04917/246135/14/
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 28, 2010, 02:57:16 PM
I have posted the latest set of court documents regarding the Bernina vs. Riddick/Imageline case (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/imageline.htm) for our community.  (Look for the bright yellow box) This was a big update and lots of educational reading.

These documents come from our anonymous supporters and contributors. Thank you for sharing this with us.

It does not paint Riddick in a very professional light and clearly puts him in the defense mode.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on September 01, 2010, 12:40:41 PM
Yes!!  Thanks very much to those who have submitted these documents regarding Bernina vs Riddick, and for extortionletterinfo.com for kindly posting them.  These documents are indeed educational for anyone who may be caught up in copyright/licensing issues now or in the future.  They really shine a light on the motivations, tactics and attitudes of the major players, and especially the workings of law/courts as it relates to these issues.  

I also like that many of the documents are in actual "text", and not just a snapshot of the pages; search engines can index the text.  Will extortionletterinfo.com become the foremost authority on George P. Riddick?  I hope so.  I just checked Google.  Type in "George Riddick".  "George Riddick, III is an Ass!" comes up at the top of the list; Riddick's "Imageline" is listed at number seven.

I'm sure that many are curious about the man (Riddick), who is regarded by most to be the poster boy for over-the-top extortion tactics.  To me, it seems that it was his intention to "control" and "lead" the proceedings.  The judge is really in control, however; he's seen it all before.  This is a situation that illustrates why lawyers are a valuable asset.  In court proceedings, the average person usually cannot effectively make a sound argument as to how a law or court precedent supports their case.  It is especially so when one is under pressure.

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 01, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
SoylentGreen,

Some of these documents I posted are quite large and I may be looking for an alternative place to co-host them so our hosting company doesn't have to take all the hits.

Thanks for supporting us and our efforts. But I am sure you don't mind if I say that Oscar and I have no desire to make a name for ourselves based on Riddick's ongoing antics!  :-) It's sort of like making a name for yourself as the people who has the largest inventory of spoiled fish!

Maybe the Bernina case will resolve itself quickly and Riddick will go away.  But, then again, it might not happen.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on September 01, 2010, 04:39:12 PM
Of course, you are 100 percent correct!!  I appreciate that kind of professionalism.

I shouldn't have used your site in my example.  I only meant to highlight that we don't see Imageline at the top of the search listings saying "Provider of Fine Quality Images Since XXXX".

The court documents will carry a lot of weight, since there will be a lot of facts in them, not just opinion...

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 01, 2010, 10:09:51 PM
SG,

I have not made an official announcement but take a look at this link.

http://scribd.com/extortionletterinfo

Google likes this site and will index this content.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on September 01, 2010, 11:13:52 PM
Matthew,

This is pretty amazing.
What a great way to present documents; thanks for this!!

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on September 01, 2010, 11:34:11 PM
Love it Matt
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on September 07, 2010, 02:11:02 PM
Can't wait to see the latest court transcripts.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on September 11, 2010, 12:14:43 AM
The case got adjourned again, he still has no lawyer representing his company
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on September 20, 2010, 08:33:19 AM
Riddick still has apparently not been able to find an attorney, according to court records. Riddick filed an inappropriate response and was told to correct it by month-end. Bernina filed a motion for default judgement and permanent injunction last week, as Riddick cannot represent his companies without an attorney and those companies have therefore not responded in the case at all. There is a status conference scheduled for tomorrow in front of the judge.

It is clear from the court transcripts that the judge is growing weary of Riddick's unprofessional responses. At one point the judge said, "You seem to think you can thumb your nose at the processes of the Court."
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on September 20, 2010, 08:51:34 AM
His dilemma is that a corporation cannot appear pro se and apparently he cannot afford or find a lawyer to appear for the company.  The default seems likely and then he will also lose personally because he has no leg to stand on.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on September 20, 2010, 10:03:03 AM
Thank you, stevep and Mr. Michelen for the updates.  As a victim, it is healing to read the transcripts as justice is meted out to this arrogant criminal by a well seasoned judge.  Is there a chance that the recent and ongoing court transcripts will be posted here?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 20, 2010, 11:34:47 PM
Yes, I have been receiving file updates but since maintaining this site is a volunteer and non-paying job, it has secondary priority. I squeeze in updates when I find moments to spare.

MatthewC

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you, stevep and Mr. Michelen for the
> updates.  As a victim, it is healing to read the
> transcripts as justice is meted out to this
> arrogant criminal by a well seasoned judge.  Is
> there a chance that the recent and ongoing court
> transcripts will be posted here?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 20, 2010, 11:38:22 PM
Adding to what Oscar wrote, there is a high likelihood that Riddick's corporations are shell companies with little or no assets. Hence, there is very little worth protecting.  Not that I am taking up for Riddick but I wouldn't spend much money defending a shell or worthless corporation.  It is easier to simply dissolve the corporation and start another.

MatthewC

Oscar Michelen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His dilemma is that a corporation cannot appear
> pro se and apparently he cannot afford or find a
> lawyer to appear for the company.  The default
> seems likely and then he will also lose personally
> because he has no leg to stand on.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on September 21, 2010, 01:52:36 PM
Riddick reportedly found a Chicago law firm to help him out, and from the sounds of it the SIIA (www.siia.net) may be involved as they have in the past in supporting him. This group helped him on some suits last year, which ended with mixed results.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on September 21, 2010, 04:57:28 PM
Yes he is apparently being represented by Holland & Knight. Holland & Knight is a huge firm with an international reputation. Their partners charge in the range of $750 to $1,200 per hour. I believe SIIA must be footing this bill. I am sure SIIA recognizes that having Riddick as the person making these complicated legal arguments is not good and that it may be worth it to represent him so that they can take the best shot at it.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on September 22, 2010, 11:47:21 PM
Oscar,

What's Riddick's connection to SIIA; why would they feel the need to pay for his defence in this matter?

Thanks,

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 23, 2010, 02:11:52 AM
I am clearly not Oscar but I surmise that the SIIA doesn't want a "dangerous" ruling to occur, hence a legal precedent to be set, simply because Riddick is unqualified to make legal arguments.

The SIIA supposedly represents a consortium of players or industry that have a vested interest in not having unfavorable laws or rulings occur.  Hence, the SIIA assists in spite of what they think of Riddick.

That is an educated guess also based on Oscar's prior remarks on the subject.

Matthew

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oscar,
>
> What's Riddick's connection to SIIA; why would
> they feel the need to pay for his defence in this
> matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: VinceS on September 24, 2010, 12:14:27 AM
I can assure you the SIIA is not helping Riddick with his defense.  The SIIA is done with Riddick and will never work with him again.  

-Vince
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 24, 2010, 05:17:59 AM
Vince,

If it is not SIIA helping Riddick, then who is helping him? All indications point to the idea that Riddick cannot afford expensive legal counsel.

Also, why would SIIA not help Riddick again?  Is there a story you can share here?

MatthewC
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: VinceS on September 24, 2010, 04:11:18 PM
It's a long story but the SIIA and Riddick have parted ways and will never work together again.  Let's just say that Riddick was extremely difficult to work with.  He wouldn't sit back and let the SIIA handle things.  When the SIIA represents one of their members they handle ALL the legal stuff.  Of course Riddick still wanted to control EVERYTHING.  The SIIA also doesn't guaranteed the customer will received any rewards from a settlement or win.  This is because they use their own counsel to represent their members and they use a majority of their settlement or winning funds to pay off their lawyers.  However Riddick demanded to be paid anyway and refuse to accept a reasonable settlement offer that the SIIA was willing to accept.  This is just a few of the reasons why the SIIA will never work with Riddick again.

-Vince
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 24, 2010, 08:06:42 PM
Vince,

Very interesting and certainly very plausible based on his past behavior. Thanks for the info.

MatthewC
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on September 25, 2010, 02:13:15 PM
Vince Thanks for the info and I heard the same about his relationship with his prior lawyers, but this issue is very big to SIIA and digital image companies are pouring money into lobbying etc to try and gain control of the law in this area. So it could be that it is too important to them that they will even get back into bed with Riddick for this case rather than have an adverse ruling on an issue that is vital to their existence. Recall that the ACLU represented the Ku Klu Klan whenit was denied a permit to marchin Skokie Illinois. I am sure the ACLU and the Klan hardly spoke but the issue was too important for the ACLU to let it be lost because of ineffective lawyering and the Klan was happy to receive the free highly qualified legal advice.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on September 26, 2010, 12:16:56 AM
This is a very interesting discussion, indeed.  There's definitely a 'bigger picture' to all of this.

I have to ponder however, how long it will be before Riddick turns on his 'friends'?

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: YetAnotherRiddickVictim on September 26, 2010, 03:58:50 AM
Oscar,

Just one correction, the ACLU represented the Nazis in their quest to march through Skokie, not the Klan. Small difference, but a vital one.

It may not be SIIA, but another benefactor paying Riddick's bills in Chicago. But I've been told that any rulings in this case would not be precedent that could be cited outside of this jurisdiction. Could be Getty or some other angel.

If the companies do suffer default judgement, It is my understanding that some of Riddick's copyrights are owned by those companies and not by Riddick personally. That means those copyrights that remain could be sold to the highest bidder to satrisfy Imageline's debt to Bernina and any other creditors that might exist in a bankruptcy proceeding.

It's interesting to see how fast this is progressing.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on September 26, 2010, 10:43:43 AM
Where are you gentlemen getting all of this current information regarding this case?  Can someone point me in the direction of information regarding Riddick vs Bernina?  

I understand that some of the legal sites charge a fee for access but I would be happy to pay it.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 26, 2010, 11:09:00 PM
No need to pay for it.  Follow the links in the yellow box.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/imageline.htm
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on October 05, 2010, 02:40:18 PM
Hey "Yet Another Victim": Of course, you are correct, thanks for spotting the error
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: YetAnotherRiddickVictim on October 07, 2010, 12:49:55 AM
Is there anything new since Holland & Knight stepped in? Or have they filed a few motions to slow everything to a crawl while they get up to speed and generate 6 figures in billable hours for Riddick's angel to pay?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on October 07, 2010, 10:05:50 AM
Very good question, YARV!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on October 08, 2010, 12:44:02 PM
Looks like Riddick filed a response to the original complaint Wednesday that basically says "not guilty". And it was filed by himself without an attorney. Wondering what that means?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on October 08, 2010, 01:09:48 PM
Very interesting, stevep.  Thank you.  
What happened to his angel-provided legal team?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on October 08, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
Recall that Riddick is still representing himself.  H & K are only representing the company.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on October 08, 2010, 07:38:03 PM
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Michelen.  I makes sense that they would not want Riddick setting precedent on the copyright issues.  I am glad to know that he is on his own for the charges regarding his behavior.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 09, 2010, 12:24:48 AM
Hello all, the latest batch of court documents have been uploaded to our documents collection on Scribd. This is a large update because the documents have been accumulating in my "to-do" list.

There are a considerable number of documents to track and read. Unfortunately, Scribd does not allow me to arrange the order of the documents. You will have to rely on the document numbers we have assigned based on date.

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2602887

Enjoy!

MatthewC
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on October 14, 2010, 07:35:06 AM
In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events, Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland & Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The motion states that the defendants (Riddick's companies) did not meet the conditions on which his engagement was based.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on October 14, 2010, 11:02:37 AM
It looks like it did not take long at all for Mr. Stevens to discover the truth behind Riddick, his shell companies, and his elaborate yet unsophisticated con game.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 14, 2010, 12:23:02 PM
The statement about "conditions" is a bit vague.  The "conditions" might refer to Riddick not able or willing to make payment. I am guessing that most attorneys will not move forward without some kind of advance payment or retainer especially in the case of Riddick.

stevep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events,
> Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland &
> Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...
>  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The
> motion states that the defendants (Riddick's
> companies) did not meet the conditions on which
> his engagement was based.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 14, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
These latest documents have been posted into our Scribd documents collection:

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2602887

Short and sweet.

MatthewC

stevep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events,
> Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland &
> Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...
>  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The
> motion states that the defendants (Riddick's
> companies) did not meet the conditions on which
> his engagement was based.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on October 14, 2010, 02:46:53 PM
Major blow to Imageline. Its unusual for a firm as reputable and established as H & K to do something like this so quickly.  Normally, a firm won't make an initial appearance until the "conditions" are secure.  They will advise the court of their intentions to appear and ask for some time to finalize the conditions. If I were Bernina's counsel I would pounce on this and see if the whole thing was not a sham by Riddick to delay the matter. Not that he made the whole thing up of course, because obviously H & K did appear, but inquire as to whether Riddick scammed H &K somehow.  The issue could be addressed by the court privately, in camera, as the legal term goes, so any client confidences can be maintained. That way the judge can meet privately with H &K and Riddick to see if there ever was a realistic  ability by Riddick to meet these "conditions."  While it is a victory to have Imageline now scrambling for counsel, if they were my adversary I would definitely ask for more information and not just let this go.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on October 21, 2010, 08:12:25 AM
Looks like Riddick has (for now?) found a new attorney:
http://www.tolpinlaw.com/people/bio2.php
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on October 21, 2010, 10:49:22 AM
Looks like he went with a small father and son IP firm. They seem very qualified in the field of IP, but they do not seem to be litigators.  I hope they got a good upfront retainer because they are about to be papered to death by Bernina's lawyers. Riddick may be a difficult client to control as well.  I see him as being someone who calls and emails constantly.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on October 21, 2010, 06:10:43 PM
Father and son should keep a close eye on their firm's letter head.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 21, 2010, 07:27:04 PM
I know it is unprofessional and inappropriate for me to laugh but I couldn't help myself on that comment.  LOL!

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Father and son should keep a close eye on their
> firm's letter head.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on October 29, 2010, 10:15:33 PM
that was classic but true
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: bullyriddick on November 03, 2010, 05:37:30 PM
don't want to sound too smart, but in my post 1.5 years ago in one of many exchanges with Mr. Riddick on this forum, I accused him of maintaining shell site which for long period of time was defunct but always came with "Major web site upgrade coming in ......". I remember his answer back then was that his designer is sick and that new site will be up in few months. I knew he was not telling the truth because I was following his site since 2008 when he started to harass me with his emails.

I guess he thought that the first thing a victim of his letter would do is to check out Internet to see what kind of company he has to deal with. Although he didn't have a website, he decided to create a single web page, making illusion to potential victim that the site is just about to be reopened. I followed "works" on his site for 1 year and during that time message about upgrade changed several times, with different dates. The single page is the same though.

In the meantime, Mr. Riddick started cybersquatting company Islandview, buying among others 100's of silly domains for presidential elections in 2008. He did this rather late though and my guess is that this business went down the drain as well. I remember back then that he hired one of those online press release distributors, so his new venture would look serious enough (press release about his new company opening for business was published on many websites). However, anyone familiar with internet and domains, knows that this kind of business can be started with $1000, even less, so his big profile was more of a joke despite big words in his messages to media.

I am 99% sure that Mr. Riddick operates shell companies and that he does not have a single healthy, profitable business with physical assets. He does not own anything except maybe some copyright to outdated, ugly clipart, which certainly is not the reason to harass anybody.

Greetings to all Riddick victims on this forum and many thanks to Oscar and Matthew for their courage and effort.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: YetAnotherRiddickVictim on November 03, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Bullyriddick,

He has a number of subpages you can find through google.

http://www.google.com/search?&ie=UTF-8&q=site:imageline2.com
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: bullyriddick on November 04, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
yes, but you cannot navigate from the main page. the site is defunct with only working link, as far as I can see, "More" which leads you to initiatives which never appeared online. If you read the text there one can think, wow, there are half-dozen high profile projects in the making, but of all these things, you can only find with great effort some unfinished pages scattered all over place. I think he was never serious about this stuff, but instead he created these pages to impress the victim with big mouth. There was nothing real behind any of it.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on November 04, 2010, 05:50:34 PM
You draw conclusions but please understand that you are merely scratching the surface of what many victims, and this website, have uncovered.  
What is frightening about Riddick, is that he is arrogant enough to believe that those initiatives would ever work in the first place.  His significant investment in totally worthless domain acquisitions is proof that he really believes in his delusions, and if you are relentless in your search, you will see that they are many.  
Who on earth would purchase domains that contain expiration dates as part of the domain name?  Yet Riddick purchased such worthless domains by the hundreds.  Sure, most have since expired but I can assure you, he owned them at one time.
Keep digging, Bullyriddick.  There is a very disturbing iceberg below the surface.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on November 05, 2010, 12:38:07 AM
Good posts guys
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: YetAnotherRiddickVictim on November 27, 2010, 03:38:01 AM
Sounds like Riddick is having more trouble. Heard from a case follower that Riddick's lawyer submitted 5 affirmative defenses and the judge has taken some level of issue with 4 of them.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on November 29, 2010, 10:45:49 PM
Yes, the judge has ordered Riddick's lawyers to supplement their affirmative defenses - in federal Court you can't just allege an AD that could get the lawsuit dismissed, you have to be specific enough and support it with facts so the plaintiff will know what  your basis for it is. For ex., you can't just say "The court lacks jurisdiction." it has to be  something like "The defendant was not served at his actual residence" Also, if you have an AD that can cause a dismissal, your supposed to move for dismissal or show your adversary and ask them to withdraw.  While this may sound complicated to a layperson, this is basic stuff to a practitioner and is inexcusable.  Thats why the court is frustrated.  The judge gave the new lawyers until 12-9-10 to make a motion to dismiss based on the ADs or they will be deemed forfeited.  That was for 3 of the ADs. As to another one, the court ruled it was inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint.  Again, just denying something is the routine part of an answer - a denial. You  cannot reallege a denial of one of the elements of the plaintiffs case as an AD. For ex., if a complaint alleges in a paragraph that " The defendant infringed on the plaintiff's copyright." You simply can deny that in a paragraph in your  answer.  You cant then have an AD that says "The defendant did not infringe on plaintiff's copyright."  This is another sign of inexperience on the part of Riddick's counsel.

More bad news for RIddick - on the case that I am representing folks he (and Imageline) is suing  in Georgia, his lawyer there has moved to be relieved as well. Will keep you posted!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on January 15, 2011, 09:07:46 AM
Yesterday, Bernina's lawyers filed a response to counter-claims made by Imageline and Riddick (defendants) which was very well done. This paragraph from their response sums up the case well:

One or more of the Defendants has engaged, or is engaging in, misuse of copyright
with regard to its registrations by attempting to improperly leverage its limited monopoly over
compilations of clip art images in order to gain control of the unprotectable underlying images.
Specifically, one or more of the Defendants has engaged in a practice of identifying potential
users of unprotectable individual images, which may or may not even be included in the
registered compilations, and extorting and threatening them with legal action based on the
registrations if they do not make demanded payments and/or become a “strategic partner” with
Defendants. Essentially, Defendants are attempting to use compilation registrations to cover the
underlying unprotectable images and force companies like Bernina to either settle or incur
litigation expenses.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on March 07, 2011, 07:20:26 AM
Riddick's new attorneys filed a motion on Friday to be removed from the case. Their motion states, "Defendants have been unable to meet the conditions on which the movants’ representation of them was based. In light of this failure, movants are unable to continue to provide legal services to Defendants."

A hearing is set for Wednesday on this request to be removed. Thus, it would appear Riddick will be once again looking for a new attorney. Anyone left willing to take the case?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on March 10, 2011, 12:11:41 PM
Looks like Riddick needs a new attorney once again. This was just posted on the court's website:

Motion to withdraw as attorney is granted. Motion hearing held on 3/9/2011. Attorney Mark R Bagley and Brett M.
Tolpin terminated. Status hearing set for 3/17/2011 at 09:15 AM
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on March 16, 2011, 03:28:18 PM
I expect he will get the Florida lawyers I am litigating against to represent him in Chicago. They also took a over a Georgia case I am defending against Riddick when he lost the lawyer who was representing him in that case.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on March 17, 2011, 01:02:48 PM
Looks like Riddick (defendant) didn't show up in court today...

"Honorable Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held on 3/17/2011. Failure of defendant to appear either personally or through counsel at the next status hearing will result in the striking of the counterclaim and answer. Status hearing set for 4/1/2011 at 09:00 AM"
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: riddickvictim2 on March 22, 2011, 04:19:29 PM
What does this mean exactly?  What "actually" happens if he is a no show on 4/1, in layman's terms?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on March 22, 2011, 04:45:25 PM
His pleadings will be stricken and Bernina will win automatically!
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on April 01, 2011, 01:22:53 PM
This is the entry from today's status hearing: Status hearing held on 4/1/2011. Status hearing set for 5/25/2011 at 09:00 AM. It is ordered that Mr. Riddick appear personally or through counsel at the 5/25/11 status hearing
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Oscar Michelen on April 07, 2011, 10:34:41 PM
Looks like court gave him one last chance
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: SoylentGreen on May 17, 2011, 06:54:42 PM
Yes, like many others, I'm anxiously awaiting the resumts of this.  It's pretty interesting.

Much has been made of "copyright infringement" in the case of Bernina vs Riddick.
However, isn't the quesion before the court actually whether or not Riddick damaged Bernina's business?
That is, even if Bernina had infringed on Riddick's copyright, that didn't give Riddick the right to seek compensation through his alleged threats and malicious actions.

I'm not sure if the readers here are familiar with some of Bernina's history;

"In the embroidery world, no company has led that charge like Bernina, which owns several embroidery and sewing-related companies, including Great Notions, an online catalog of digital designs. Bernina organized the short-lived Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC), a group of several companies that went after alleged copyright abusers in 2005 and 2006. The proliferation of pirated designs around the Internet, often sold on sites such as eBay and Etsy, has deflated profits for companies that produce and sell them legitimately."

http://www.stitches-digital.com/article/Intellectual+Property+Copyright+Is+Might/587572/56485/article.html

It's quite ironic to see Bernina on the other side of the issue, given the above information.


S.G.

Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on May 27, 2011, 08:28:06 AM
Sounds like Imageline and Riddick (defendants) and going to lose this case. This is the docket entry from yesterday:

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 25, 2011:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Milton I. Shadur:Status hearing held on
5/25/2011. Plaintiff's filings as to default are due on or before 6/6/11. Defendant Riddick's
response is due 6/20/11. Plaintiff is to submit a proposed order regarding default as to the
corporate defendant. Status hearing set for 6/28/2011 at 08:45 AM.Mailed notice(srn, )
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Digitizer3k on June 05, 2011, 04:11:31 PM
The 6/1/2011 filing is "Not electronically available".  Some from Feb 2011 and some from Sept 2010 were also not electronically available.  Any idea why that would be? 

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/61976/bernina-of-america-inc-v-imageline-inc/official-court-documents/

Thanks!

D3K 
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: tansmitty on June 29, 2011, 02:23:27 AM
So there was supposed to be a hearing on the 28th. Anyone know what happened?
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 29, 2011, 02:58:29 AM
SG,

The news media hasn't picked up on it because they tend to focus on something more "tangible" as a lawsuit.  Threatening to file a lawsuit is not the same as threatening to beat up someone although psychologically may have the same impact.  I also think that the news media hasn't yet picked up on it because it has not yet critical mass and it has to hit the "right person".

It is sort of like Righthaven hitting Brian Hill who is mildly autistic, hobby blogger on disability.  The media loves to report stories when a big corporate bully tries to disproportionately and overwhelmingly attack or beat down a weaker and much less sophisticated opponent. It is a rallying cry and call to arms.

Getty Images has been careful so far to not go there. Riddick himself really is a low-capitalized, under-funded small-timer trying to talk a big game.

Regarding you being like me on fighting back?  LOL. I guess I will take that as a compliment. I really don't like conflict but I learned many years ago that not everyone plays by the same rules. Hence, learning the art of the defensive fighting is an important skill. I agree with you. Even if I lost the fight against Getty (had that come to be), they would have worked very hard for it and there would be scars and fallout of all kinds.

Last thing, you say we are popular.  It is not hard to be popular when you are the only organized game in town with real names and faces attached to it.  :-)

Matthew


I'm surprised that some of the news media hasn't picked up on the "extortion letter" schemes yet.  I'm tempted to approach a few news-magazine style shows, and I'd love to see some cameras and a reporter stop by the offices of Getty, Masterfile, or whatever dank swamp Riddick lives in.

I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that when a situation like yours arose, I fought them every step of the way like an immovable object.  Of course, there's always a possibly that they could have won, but they would have had to go through every single step of a very annoying and torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never just "give" them anything just because I got few letters and calls.  They should "prove their case", and if they can't actually go to court, then they can't be very confident in their position.

You and Oscar have definitely set up a great resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody else took the time to do it.  How many people have stopped having so many sleepless nights after coming to the site - we may never really know.  But, it's probably a significant number of people. No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!

S.
Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: stevep on July 01, 2011, 09:06:02 AM
In a Final Default Judgement signed by the Federal Court Judge on June 28th, Riddick has lost the case. It is stated that he owes damages to Bernia (to be yet defined), must pay Bernia's costs and attorney fees, and most interestingly states "Imageline, Inc. does not have any protectable rights in any of the underlying images contained in the Copyright Registrations. Furthermore, the Copyright Registrations are invalid copyright registrations."  !!!

Title: Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
Post by: Matthew Chan on July 02, 2011, 04:30:00 PM
I think this is one of the situations where Imageline did more damage to the stock photo industry through setting a new precedent than help.

This sends a clear message to would-be-plaintiffs that they better have their paperwork in order before they make these claims.  Both Righthaven and Imageline has shown that judges will not be fooled or tolerate bogus copyright transfers simply for the purpose of filing lawsuits. Also, they expose themselves to countersuits, repayment of defendant legal fees, and other potentially punitive measures.

Matthew