Case 2:12-cv GMS Document 21 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 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 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Defendant. Under authority of LRCiv. c Case :-cv-0-gms The Honorable G. Murray Snow Defendant s Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion for Order to Show Cause Plaintiff s motion amounts to nothing more than an amateurish diatribe against the Defendant, however I must admit and believe the court will agree that it is quite amusing reading allegation of contempt by a pro per litigant who is unfamiliar with the rules of Court [id at doc ], when the very first thing written on Plaintiff s proposed order [id at doc 0] that being the courts name written on line., violates LRCiv.(a( which states that is must be written on line or below, also does not conform to LRCiv.(b( as the left margin is less than the." minimum and the proportional font size used by the Plaintiff is the rule requires a minimum of. Now that is funny, but I digress. Plaintiff s motion is also in violation of LRCiv.(b lacking the required memorandum of law. If your honor grants Plaintiff s motion and signs the proposed order you will be a laughing stock compliments of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has the audacity to accuse me of not respecting this court. Plaintiff s motion wants the defendant to show cause as to why he has violated this Court s Rule Order of November, 0" [id at doc page lines and 0] Page of

2 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 0 0 the Plaintiff asserts defendant did not violate the Rule order as none of the deadlines have passed [id at doc page lines -] Plaintiff quotes my reply to him Mr. Goodhue, I respect your position, but your proposal is thoroughly rejected. If by some crazy mishaps this conference has to take place, it will be at latest possible date. I believe in good faith that your case will be disposed of shortly. [id at doc page line -]. I do not want to meet or confer with the Plaintiff whatsoever, but I will if I have to. Plaintiff may not like it, but I have that right and it does not violate any rule or order of this court and the little cry baby needs to grow some skin, if he doesn t like it, then he should not have brought me here for the reasons he did, as I will show this court the Plaintiff has misrepresented this case to the court over and over. prima facie The name of the copyrighted work (work is sexual obsession [id at doc ], copyright registration no. PA --0. Plaintiff s complaint lacks prima facie to establish subject matter jurisdiction. In fact on it face Plaintiff asserts that this court lacks subject mater jurisdiction by asserting that the Plaintiff at the time of the alleged infringement did not own the copyright: On June, 0, Plaintiff received the rights to this Video pursuant to an assignment agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached [id at doc ] and Plaintiff s investigators detected Defendant s illegal download on June, 0 at 00:: UTC. [id at doc ]. Therefore Plaintiff has no standing to bring this suit whatsoever as Plaintiff cannot be damaged by infringement of a copyright he doesn t not own. We can verify Plaintiff s copyright information as this court ordered it filed and the Plaintiff complied [id at doc ] oopsy, copyright information form filed by Plaintiff as ordered by this court [id at doc ] is blank. Plaintiff failed to comply with order to file copyright info, but attempted to fool the court into thinking it did by filing a blank form. Under FRCP Rule (h( this court must dismiss Plaintiff s claims against the Defendant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant is not asserting this court Page of

3 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 0 0 does not have subject matter jurisdiction that the Plaintiff claims it does. The Defendant is alleging Plaintifff does not have copyright ownership of the work at the time of the alleged infringement, this is not legal conclusion it is a matter of record. The court has no discretion, the record of this court determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, therefor it must dismiss Plaintiff s claims. Plaintiff states in it s complaint that Defendant, using IP address 0..0., without Plaintiff s authorization or license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff s Video, purposefully loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff s Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous third parties. [id at doc ] and Plaintiff said this: The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low. Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast identifying information (i.e. an IP address before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the actual names of peers in a swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute under the cover of their IP addresses. [id at doc ] so the identifying information is an IP address because as the Plaintiff explained names are unknown because the users are allowed to download and distribute under the cover of their IP addresses. That is the extent of the Plaintiff identifying the Defendant in his claim. Plaintiff made a quantum leap from IP address to David Harris with no explanation whatsoever of how he got there. Plaintiff states: This Court has personal jurisdiction because, upon information and belief, Defendant either resides in or committed copyright infringement in the State of Arizona. [id at doc ] However Plaintiff leaves it at that, again failing to meet the required prima facie. Unless Page of

4 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Plaintiff can explain how he got from an IP address to a name, Defendant objects to this court assuming facts not in evidence. Plaintiff has not offered one shred of evidence connecting Defendant to the IP address his investigator allegedly observed downloading the work. Plaintiff states: Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to U.S.C. (b and 00(a because Defendant resides in this District, may be found in this District, or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this District. [id at doc ] and here is what Plaintiff also stated about IP address 0..0.: Venue in this District is proper under U.S.C. l(b and/or U.S.C. 00(a. [id at AF Holdings v. Does -0 no -0 DC doc (DC case That s right Plaintiff cited the same federal law claiming venue is proper in two cases against the IP address 0..0., one in the District of Columbia and the other in the District of Arizona. Plaintiff is wrong. Plaintiff has not asserted so much as a scintilla of evidence to support proper venue in the instant case. Plaintiff has utterly failed to establish a prima facie case. This case will be thrown out it is just a matter of when and this is just the beginning of Plaintiffs misrepresentations to this court. The Plaintiff s unsavory behavior is quite easy to understand and will become more and more clear to Your Honor as more of the Plaintiff s scheme is revealed. In my opinion the reason the Plaintiff came unhinged is because he was anticipating that Defendant would disclose information to the court, no questions asked, that the Plaintiff thinks he has persuaded the court to assume facts are already in evidence. He has not. If the Plaintiff can not connect the infringing IP address to a person without breaking the law, then he has a real problem. Your Honor, I am here to tell you, the IP address in question will be connected to a person. Not at the direction of the Plaintiff and Page of

5 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 0 0 certainly not the way the Plaintiff has planned. I regret now I did not confer with Plaintiff for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss. If I had it to do over I would. CONCLUSION Defendant pointed out five violations of the Rules of this court in the Plaintiff s motion one violation is fatal if not corrected. Plaintiff did not comply with LRCiv.(b without any legal support Plaintiff s motion can not succeed, therefor Plaintiff s motion must be denied. Plaintiff s closing paragraph: Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests This Court issue an Order to Show Cause and require Defendant to appear before the Court and explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating this Court s Order of November, 0; or in the alternative that Defendant s Answer and Counterclaim be stricken. [id at doc page line -] Defendant is easy to get along with. If that is what the Plaintiff really wants, then I stipulate to striking Defendant s Answer and Counterclaim. 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

6 Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed // Page of 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 of