Appeals Court Upholds Sanction Against BitTorrent Download Attorney

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld sanctions awarded by a District Court against one of the lawyers bringing copyright infringement cases against individuals for BitTorrent movie downloads, in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670. The Court's opinion (PDF) described the lawyer's 'strategy' as 'suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars — a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.'"

Comments

The worst part of it....

[Anonymous Coward]

He numbered his Does 1-670 instead for 0-669. For shame.

Plea bargains?

[DoofusOfDeath]

But if capitalizing on the accused's inability to weather the risks and costs of trial are an unacceptable tactic, doesn't that mean plea deals by prosecutors are also unacceptable?

Re:Plea bargains?

[Archangel Michael]

I always thought, that the fairest court of all, would be the one where the "prosecutor" (for lack of better term) would be searching for the "truth", not necessarily going for "conviction". This would remove the adversarial nature of the whole court process, it would be about discovering the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The flip side is, that if you "did the crime" you'd be offered two choices. Plead or trial, with much stiffer penalties for trial than for pleading. How many trials are for people so obviously guilty that everyone in the court already knows they did it (film, witnesses, caught in the act etc) that get trials because they want the charade of a trial.

To Temper the Prosecution's zeal, they would be held accountable for all the prosecutions they have, and if they get a "conviction" of someone who is later proved innocent (i.e. DNA proof), that they are tossed in Jail for the remainder of the plaintiffs sentence.

All Lawyers would be "public" lawyers, and would be assigned randomly to one side or the other side of the case. Lawyers with extensive experience and a proven record would be eligible for Judgeships.

I'm sure it isn't a perfect system, but I suspect that it would function better than the crapshoot and Lawyer Wars we have now.

Using the power of the court, without permission,

[hamjudo]

The District Court is unhappy, because the lawyer issued the subpoenas without the permission of the District Court. In fact, it was after the District Court told the lawyer to stop doing that. The Appellate Court agreed.

So the Appellate Court is upholding the rights of the lower court.

Don't expect the courts to start ruling against media companies that follow the laws that they paid the legislatures to write. Don't even expect significant sanctions when they break the law, as long as they stop when they're told. It looks kind of like this is a media ruling, but its more a "respect the judges" ruling.

Re:Lawyers are professional Bullshitters.

[TheRealMindChild]

You can also blunder like an idiot, like most people under pressure, and get circles ran around you by a legal circus act of a well paid attorney.

He missed step 2

[whoever57]

a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country"

Should have got a patent on the process!

And what do "Sanctions" mean?

[Drishmung]

Drawn and quartered?

I don't think we do that any more.

"For the term of his natural life"?
I'm betting not.

Some time in prison?
After all, as an officer of the court, he's undermined the institution. Surely this should be treated seriously?

A large fine?
???

...and of course, disbarment.

I really don't know, but I'm guessing none of the above.
So, what are the consequences of his actions?

Re:And what do "Sanctions" mean?

[Ravensfire]

From the ruling,
"the court imposed $10,000 in sanctions on Stone and also required the following:
1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and
to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose
in these proceedings.
2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing
proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in
the United States, federal or state.
3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds,
either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig
received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated
with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe
Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig
to Stone).
4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably
incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. The Ad
Litems shall file an affidavit or other proof of such fees and expenses
with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Stone may contest such proof within seven (7) days of its filing.
Stone shall comply with these directives and supply the Court with
written confirmation of his compliance no later than forty-five (45)
days after the date of this Order."

-- Ravensfire

Re:Using the power of the court, without permissio

[Baloroth]

That is the specific grounds for the sanctions, but if you read the actual court order they make it pretty clear they despise his tactics overall, which is a good sign (not sure if it sets any kind of precedent, but it might). The judge seemed pretty pissed over the idea of what he was doing, not just the fact that he was breaking the rules. I may be reading slightly too much into it, but I don't think so.

Re:Lawyers are professional Bullshitters.

[TapeCutter]

That's why you instruct a good lawyer to write them a " So sue me, motherfucker!" letter for $100 tops, then do nothing unless they actually proceed with their bluff (which in the US is a small but non-zero risk)*. Enaging them by responding to subsequent threats allows you (or your lawyer) to say something silly and them to get a foot in the door of the negotiating room. There's and excellent TED talk on precisely this subject that I'm too lazy to look for but it doesn't just apply to copyright. I had personal experience of a roof tiling company who attempted to take advantage of a freind's elderly mother by charging her $9K for what was a $6K job on the open market. They were at the point of harrasing her with heavy handed debt collectors. A properly worded letter from my lawyer which he kindly did for FREE and a cheque for the $6K she and the family had originally agreed to was sent to the roof company by registered mail, we never heard another word about it.

*In most western countries outside of the US, this sort of behaviour is called "extortion".