IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 0 0 David Harris E. Caballero ST Number One Mesa, AZ 0 (0 - troll.assassins@cyber-wizard.com Defendant Pro Se AF Holdings, LLC vs. David Harris Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendant. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA INTRODUCTION Case :-cv-0-gms The Honorable G. Murray Snow DEFENDANT S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM Comes now the Defendant, David Harris a proud, law abiding natural born citizen of the United States of America, a layperson unschooled in the practice of law having reached the age of majority and living in Mesa, Arizona County of Maricopa. PLAINTIFF S MODEL What we are witnessing is phenomenons evolving exponentially across the United States Federal District Court System. They are societal parasites, and they have gained enough popularity that the host has named them: Copyright Trolls. This anomaly was spawned by the coupling of two sinister groups that have existed independently of one another for decades. Pornographers and corrupt lawyers. In the instant case these parasitical mutants of society, the masters of exploitation and experts of deception, the epitome of greed has bolstered their

2 0 0 arrogant delusions of being untouchable to the point that they have rendered themselves completely vulnerable to the very court system that they rely upon to execute leverage against there victims. Watch as the veil is pulled back exposing the bitterly ugly evil that is this Copyright Troll. GENERAL DENIAL Under authority of FRCP title III. Defendant denies each and every allegation in their entirety as stated in Plaintiffs Complaint including jurisdiction and venue, however for the purpose of Defendant s counterclaim against Plaintiff Defendant stipulates jurisdiction and venue is proper. Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff has any capacity or authority to bring suite in this court or any court in the United States of America against this Defendant for the cause(s of action claimed in the instant case and alleges the Plaintiff already had his day in court for the cause(s of action stated against the Defendant. Plaintiff originally filed this case in the District of Columbia [AF Holdings v Does -0 Case :-cv-0-rbw (DC case] The original case filed in the District of Columbia is closed, is not subject to appeal and for the purpose of res judicata was adjudicated on its merits. Only after Plaintiff was ordered to prosecute Defendant for the identical cause of action by March, 0 in the DC case [id at DC case minute order Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on --], did Plaintiff dismiss this case against Defendant [id at DC case doc no. ]. Plaintiff would have this honorable court believe Plaintiff s dismissal vacated Judge Walton s order to name and serve Defendant. It did not and Plaintiff s non compliance with Judge Walton s order and their failure to prosecute Defendant in a timely manor bars Plaintiff s instant case pursuant to the common law doctrine res judicata. They failed to prosecute the Defendant when they had the chance and now they are trying to sneak into this court and try it again. Page of 0

3 0 0 This explains Plaintiff s attorney of record being less than honest when he filled out and signed the instant case cover sheet, the attorney of record checked the box indicating this is an original case and that there are no related cases. Plaintiff had the opportunity provided by USC 0 to transfer the case to this court, but that would not work for him as he does not have a scintilla of evidence that Defendant infringed upon Plaintiff s copyrighted work. Defendant on the other hand, if need be will show this court beyond a preponderance of the evidence his innocence, as I rely on the truth not these sneaky little devious dirty tricks like the Plaintiff is trying to pull. Defendant can only speculate as to the reason why the attorney of record would risk filing so many cases he can t win. There is no record of the amount of money the attorney of record s law firm has extorted as no settlement offers were filed and served, but of the thousands, if not tens of thousands of copyright suits they have filed across the Federal District Court system the dirty little secret is: The only ones they have prevailed are wear the defendant defaulted, Defendant suspects this is why these cases have been illegally filed, it fits their modus operandi : Take the default judgements and dismiss the rest. The Defendant has not been impressed whatsoever with Plaintiff s insolence, lies and bully tactics to extort money from him. Defendant apologizes for comments that may not be appropriate, but I can t afford legal representation and I am really pissed off that there are people in this country who are supposed to be officers of the court and represent it in an ethical and proper manner, the likes of the Plaintiff s attorney of record can t handle that responsibility as manifest by his attempt to use this court as a tool to further his law firm s criminal enterprise, by the way that is another thing he lied about: The law firm that Troll Goodhue represents is Prenda Law Inc. one of the pioneers of copyright trolling and one of, if not the nastiest Trolls in the business. I pray to God I have the resources to bring them down, to save all the Page of 0

4 0 0 unsophisticated victims of this criminal enterprise, to see justice properly doled out to these craven reprobates. PARTIES Under authority of FRCP Rule (a( Plaintiff failed to join defendants: The Plaintiff s attorney of record stated and signed the cover sheet to the instant case claiming there are no related cases, I beg to differ. Defendant found eight cases filed by Troll Goodhue in this court that are identical, only the date and time of the alleged infringement, the name of the defendant, and the IP address are changed. I guess Goodhue can fallaciously argue these cases are not related, to save himself from sanctions, in for a penny, in for a pound. However he can not argue this nexus: The defendants named on the eight cases have already been joined by the Plaintiff in the original DC case. THE DEFENDANTS JOINED ARE:. A.J. CHUBUCK Case :-cv-0-dgc. RICK FRIEND Case :-cv-0-nvw. ANDREW GUTIERREZ Case :-cv-0-spl. CHRISTOPHER HEGGUM Case :-cv-00-loa. STEVEN LAIZURE Case :-cv-0-dgc. JOHN SONG Case :-cv-0-gms. WALTER SZAREK Case :-cv-0-spl. DAVID HARRIS Case :-cv-0-mhb These defendants were named after the deadline of March, 0 given by Judge Walton [id at DC case docket minute order by Judge Walton]: [i]t is ORDERED that the limited discovery authorized by this Court's September, 0 Order shall close on March, 0It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall name and serve the defendants in this action by March, 0. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton... The Plaintiff failed to comply with Judge Walton s order, in the alternative filed a rule Notice to Dismiss [id at DC case doc ] without prejudice in and attempt Page of 0

5 0 0 to backdoor vacate Judge Walton s order. However the Plaintiff has no more authority than does the Defendant to vacate a valid court order, therefore Defendant submits to this court Plaintiff s Notice to Dismiss without prejudice became with prejudice when Plaintiff let the deadline of March, 0 pass without naming and serving the aforementioned Doe defendants. Based on the fact that this sneaky little trick by the Plaintiff by filing it s Notice to Dismiss before the deadline set by Judge Walton that would have closed the case if Plaintiff did not comply, left no forum for the Defendant to move for an involuntary dismissal for Plaintiff failing to comply with a court order and for failing to prosecute and therefore operates as an adjudication on the merits under FRCP (b. If this case is closed, then Plaintiff violated the order granted them for discovery [id at DC case doc ]: [O]RDERED that any information disclosed to the plaintiff in response to a Rule subpoena may be used by the plaintiff solely for the purpose of protecting the plaintiff s rights as set forth in the Complaint... Therefore: Plaintiff has illegally used information obtained from a previous court case to file the aforementioned cases. Effectively naming IP addresses as persons. I give Troll Goodhue credit for being creative, but it is difficult to fathom he was taught this in any law school in the United States of America. That might be the way they do things in St. Kitts and Nevis, but it s not they way we do it here under the Law of the United States of America! AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant assert the following affirmative defenses: res judicata ; unclean hands ; failure to state a claim; lack of standing; Page of 0

6 0 0 arbitration and award; assumption of risk; contributory negligence; duress; estoppel; failure of consideration; fraud; illegality; laches; license; payment; release; statute of frauds; waiver. Defendant reserves the right to assert such further affirmative defenses as may be supported by matters discovered hereafter and by further acts and omissions by the Plaintiff. COUNTERCLAIM. Because of the FACT that damages to Defendant are base solely on illegal and fraudulent behavior of the attorney of record s firm Prenda Law Inc. Or in the event that Steven Goodhue is acting independently of Prenda Law Inc. Liability is charged against they(m, not AF Holdings as lawyers licensed to practice law here are bound by the jurisdiction of the United States of America whereas Foreign Corps are not and of coarse Troll Goodhue and Troll Prenda Law was hired by the Plaintiff as legal counsel.. Under authority of FRCP (b Defendant alleges and states that Plaintiff s attorney of record filing and serving this complaint upon the Defendant is not in the interest of justice, has no legal basis to exist in this court and is being Page of 0

7 0 0 propounded in bad faith for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the Defendant in hopes of successfully albeit illegal, below the ethical bar set by the Arizona Bar Association and nefarious acts of abuse of the justice system as a form of leverage against the Defendant for the purpose of maliciously getting even with the Defendant for daring him to file a suite in this venue.. Sad to say greed and arrogance blinded this morally bankrupt character of the fact that it is a highly visible fact that he is barred from this action against the Defendant, that it is a matter of The District Courts record and can not be erased or changed. In spite of that fact the Troll took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.. The basis for challenging the Plaintiff s attorney of record resulted from his attempt to intimidate me into giving his law firm thirty four hundred dollars, when this extortion attempt failed he continued to have some goon named Mark Lutz repeatedly harass me on the phone from Florida and California.. Defendant merely wanted the harassment to stop and thought that it would when the Defendant changed his phone number, filed criminal charges against him with the Mesa Police Department, FBI s Cyber-crime Unit and wrote a letter to the Plaintiff s attorney of record explaining my position.. The Defendant grossly underestimated the depth of depravity and the extent Plaintiff attorney of record would go to in order to satisfy his baleful thrust at the Defendant for not cowering to his demands. Indeed to the point of filing and serving this complaint in retaliation for Defendant standing up to the cowardice acts of the Plaintiff s attorney of record, acts that would surely shock the conscience of any reasonable minded person. COUNT I: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Plaintiff is attempting to access this court in order to re-litigate the original case that is now closed, not subject to appeal and for the purpose of Defendants counterclaim adjudicated on the merits of the case brought by the Plaintiff. Page of 0

8 0 0. Plaintiff failed to prosecute in favor of spending his time in violation of the rules of this court and the criminal statutes of Arizona [ARS -0 A.(] by attempting to extort thirty four hundred dollars from the Defendant. Only after these attempts failed and the Defendant challenged him to bring suite in this venue did the Plaintiff do so. COUNT II: ARIZONA CONSTITUTION Article II. Plaintiff without authority of law violated Defendant s right to privacy in order to appear in this court and did so by directly violating a court order in the original DC case ordering Plaintiff not to disclose the personal information obtained by a rule subpoena, for any purpose outside of the original complaint [id at DC case doc ], but he did anyway by using the Defendants name and address to file the instant case otherwise all the Plaintiff has is the Defendant s IP address and date and time of alleged infringement. 0. Plaintiff then directed one of his payed thugs to go to the Defendant s home and invade his privacy by harassing him, loudly knocking on the front door until she woke the Defendant and the Defendant had to respond in order to get the agent of the Plaintiff to stop disturbing me. COUNT III: DEFAMATION. Plaintiff libeled the defendant by authoring the fraudulent complaint in the instant case falsely accusing the Defendant of viewing and distributing a pornographic movie and then the Plaintiff published the complaint on his law firms web page [ for the whole world to read, causing untold damage to the Defendant s reputation. COUNT IV: INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Plaintiff has caused the Defendant enormous emotional distress intentionally and negligently by his repeated criminal acts and omissions, behavior that shocks the conscience of any reasonable minded person. Page of 0

9 0 0 WHEREFORE having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant prays that it be dismissed; that Plaintiff take nothing thereby; that Defendant be discharged with its lawful costs herein incurred; that this court find for Defendant and against the attorney of record in all matters of Defendant s counterclaim and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. I swear or affirm and declare or certify, verify or state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct so help me God. Executed this th day of November, 0. By: /s/ David Harris David Harris E. Caballero St. Number One Mesa, Arizona 0 Defendant Pro Se Page of 0

10 0 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this th day of November, 0, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served upon the following by operation of the Court s electronic filing system. Steven James Goodhue (#0 Law Offices of Steven James Goodhue East Shea Blvd., Suite 00 Scottsdale, AZ 0 Telephone: (0-00 Facsimile: (0-0 sjg@sjgoodlaw.com By: /s/ David Harris Page 0 of 0