Upload
others
View
4
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFILLINOIS
EASTERNDIVISION
CLEARSKIESNEVADA,LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CaseNo.15CV6708
v. ) ) JudgeVirginiaM.KendallWILLIAMANDERSON,JASONRICHARDS )AndRENEEHANCOCK, ) MagistrateSusanE.Cox ) Defendants. )___________________________________RENEEHANDCOCK,onbehalfofherself )andotherssimilarlysituated, ) ) Counter-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) )CLEARSKIESNEVADA,LLC, ) ) Counter-Defendant. )___________________________________RENEEHANCOCK,onbehalfofherself )andotherssimilarlysituated, ) ) Third-PartyPlaintiff, ) ) v. ) )GERMANJOHNDOE,A/K/ADANIELMACEK )A/K/AJOSHUAGRIFFIN,MICHAELHIERL, )andMARKCISEK, ) ) Third-PartyDefendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
CLASSACTIONTHIRD-PARTYCOMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________________
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:491
NOWCOMESDefendantReneeHancockandstatesaClassActionThird-PartyComplaint
asfollows:
NATUREOFTHECLAIMS
1. This is a putative class action brought on behalf of Defendant/Counter-
Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff Renee Hancock on behalf of all others similarly situated Illinois
victims that arises from the conduct and business practices (the “Extortion Conspiracy”) of
copyright troll Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants named in the related
Counterclaimherein.
2. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Clear Skies Network (“CSN”) and Third-Party
Defendants German John Doe (a/k/a Daniel Macek a/k/a Darren M. Griffin), Michael Hierl
(“Hierl”) andMark Cisek (“Cisek”) have, and continue to, engage in a scheme and course of
conduct frequently referred to as “copyright trolling.”1The scheme requires that evidenceof
alleged infringement is presented to the Court as though it has been as procured by a
purported “expert” through use of purported proprietary “geolocation technology.” The
individual/entity is named herein as “German John Doe(s)” because, upon information and
belief, Plaintiff uses German corporations and/or German nationals, claiming they possess
“expert qualifications” they do not, so as to complicate and discourage depositions and
discovery.Whatismorelikelyisthattheallegedlycopyrightmaterialishoneypottedorseeded
byCSNand/ortheGermanJohnDoe.CSNand/ortheGermanJohnDoerelieson“fakeexperts”
1SeeMatthewSag,CopyrightTrolling:anEmpericalStudy,IowaLawReview(2014)availableathttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404950
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:492
and/orhoneypotsor seeds itsMotionPicture for theexpresspurposeofbeingable to claim
thatithas“caught”peopledownloadingthecopyrightedmaterial.
3. Co-conspirators’ “evidence” is insufficient as a matter of law to establish
infringement, and that evidentiary failure is known by all co-conspirators hereto at all times
material,especiallythelawyersfilingthecases.
4. CSN’sexistencehaslittletodowiththeprotectionofacopyright,andisinstead
an entity formed for the primary purpose of income generation through exploitation of the
courtsystem.
5. OnceGermanJohnDoeseeds/obtainsthealleged“evidence,”HierlandCisekfile
aformcomplaintintheNorthernDistrictofIllinoisagainstanumberofdoes,usuallybetween
30and50inacase,butagainsthundredsofdefendantsonthesamedateusingthesameform
complaint.
6. A few days after the case is filed, Hierl or Cisek then file a motion for early
discovery,includingaformdeclarationfrompurported“expert”DanielMacek,DarrenGriffinor
some other alias of the German John Doe who claims to be a “consultant,” “employee” or
representative of aGerman JohnDoe entity (Guardaly, IPP, Excipio, Crystal BayCorporation,
etc.) requesting thatComcastprovide the identitiesof the responsiblebillingparty for the IP
addressestheirGermanJohnDoeallegestohaveobtainedthroughuseofhis/her“geolocation
technology” but may have instead obtained through honeypotting or seeding. Upon
informationandbelief,Co-conspiratorshereinhavenotmadeasinglealleged“expert”witness
availablefordeposition.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:493
7. Hierl then sends threatening and misleading form demand letters under the
auspicesofFederalRuleofEvidence408.
8. IfanindividualcontactsHierlorCisektodiscussthematter,theyarethreatened
withexaggerateddamagesandlitigationcostsinanefforttomaximize“settlement”amounts.
9. IfHierland/orCisekarenotsuccessfulinthreateningaDoeintosettlementthey
amendtheircomplainttonamethedefendantindividually.
10. Thus, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants, as co-
conspirators, have obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in “settlements” or default
judgments and/or attorneys’ fees and costs, from threatened and/or actual litigation against
theestimated360IllinoisvictimsofthisparticularPlaintiff’sExtortionConspiracy.2
THEPARTIES
11. Defendant/Third-Party-PlaintiffReneeHancockisa62-year-oldAfricanAmerican
residentofthestateofIllinois.
12. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Clear Skies Nevada, LLC, (“CSN”) is a Nevada LLC.
Plaintiffclaimsit isa“motionpicturedeveloperandproducer”andfurtherclaimstoownthe
copyright to themovieGoodKill. TheNevada secretaryof stateprovidesa corporation filing
dateof11/1/2013andlistsVoltageProductions,Inc.,anotherNevadaLLC,asanofficer.Upon
2Hierl’snameisassociatedwith451casesontheIllinoisECFsystem,avastmajorityofthemcopyrighttrollmattersfiledforapproximately30trollplaintiffssince2012.Mostcasesnamebetween20-40Does.(SomenameasfewasasingleDoeandsomenamedasmanyas110.)IfHierlissuccessfulinreaching20Doesin400cases,thatis8000potentialvictims.IfevenhalfofthoseDoes(4000)havepaidHierlhalfofaverageofhis$3900pre-litigationand$4900post-litigationdemand($2200)that’s$8.8milliondollars.(DeclarationofLisaL.Clay(“ClayDec.”)¶13.)(ExhibitAhereto.)
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:494
information and belief, the entity is an alter-ego or front for the real party in interest, the
ExtortionConspiracydescribedherein.
13. Third-PartyDefendantMichaelHierl(“Hierl”)isanindividuallicensedtopractice
lawintheStateofIllinois,andisapartnerwiththelawfirmofHughes,Socol,Piers,Resnick&
Dim. At all times relevant hereto, Hierl has represented this Plaintiff and countless other
copyrighttrollplaintiffsintheNorthernDistrictofIllinois.3
14. Third-PartyDefendantMarkCisek (“Cisek”) isan individual licensed topractice
lawintheStateofIllinois,andisanassociatewiththelawfirmofHughes,Socol,Piers,Resnick
& Dim. At all times relevant hereto, Cisek has represented this Plaintiff and countless other
copyrighttrollplaintiffsintheNorthernDistrictofIllinois.
15. Third-Party Defendant German John Doe (a/k/a Daniel Macek a/k/a Darren
Griffin) is/are a German corporation(s) and/or German national(s), claiming they possess
“expert qualifications” they do not, so as to complicate and discourage depositions and
discovery. Upon information and belief, the German John Doe(s) has/have at various times
beenreferredtobyco-conspiratorsheretoandothertrollplaintiffsas“DanielMacek,”“Darren
3Hierlbeganfilingcopyrighttrollcomplaintsin2012.Sincethattimehehasrepresentedover30trollsintheNorthernDistrict,including,butnotlimitedtoElfMan,LLC,RGInvestmentsGroup,Inc.,LLC,R&DFilm1,LLC,DragonQuestProductions,LLC,andthePlaintiffherein,amongothers.DeclarationofLisaL.Clay(“ClayDec.”)¶14.Alloftheseentitiesfileformdeclarationsfromthesame“experts,”DanielMacekandDarrenGriffin.(ClayDec.¶¶3,14,Ex.3.)Exceptforprovisionsrelatedtojoinder,thenamesofthepartiesandcertainfactsaboutthemovies(alongwiththefactthatPlaintiffstoppedprovidingaddressinformationfortheirclients)thecomplaintsandexhibitsforallplaintiffexceptforElfManLLCareidenticalinformandcontent.(ClayDec.¶14,Ex.9.)
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:495
Griffin,”“TobiasFieser”and“MichaelPatzer”workingforoneormoreofthefollowingentities:
“CrystalBayCorporation,”“IPP,”“Gaurdaley,”and“Excipio,”amongothers.”4
16. This cause of action arises under the common law of Illinois. This Honorable
Courthasjurisdictionoverthestatelawclaimsunderthesupplementaljurisdictionprovisions
of28U.S.C.§1367.
17. ThisHonorableCourthaspersonaljurisdictionovertheseThird-PartyDefendants
because they all have significant minimum contacts with this jurisdiction. These Third-Party
Defendantshaveoperatedandperformedsubstantialbusinesstransactions, includingbutnot
limited to, the actions comprising the Extortion Conspiracy described herein, as well as
employmentofresidentsthroughoutIllinoisandtheNorthernDistrictofIllinois.
18. Venue isproper in thisHonorableCourtunder28U.S.C.§1391(b).Third-Party
Plaintiff resides in the Northern District of Illinois, and all acts and omissions of Counter-
DefendantandThird-PartyDefendantssubjectoccurredintheNorthernDistrictofIllinois.
FACTUALALLEGATIONSCOMMONTOALLCLAIMS
19. Third-PartyPlaintiffreallegestheprecedingparagraphsasthoughsetforthfully
herein.
20. ThefilmGoodKillwasfirstshownatanItalianfilmfestivalinSeptemberof2014,
andfirstshownintheUnitedStatesatafilmfestivalinAprilof2015.Thefilmwasnotshownin
wide release until May of 2015 and not available on DVD or other video formats until
September1,2015.4SeeexamplesofformdeclarationsfiledbyHierl,CisekandothertrollPlaintiffattorneys.(ClayDec.¶10,Ex.3.)SeealsogeneralresearchregardingGuardalay,IPP,Excipio,CrystalBayCorporation,DarrenGriffin,DanielMacek,TobiasFieserandMichaelPatzer(ClayDec.¶¶10-12;Exs.3–8.)
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:496
21. CSNisnotregisteredwiththeIllinoisSecretaryofStateandisnotauthorizedto
hireemployeesortransactbusinessintheStateofIllinois.
22. SinceCSN filed itsCertificationofRegistration in Februaryof 2015,CSN,Hierl,
Cisek andGerman JohnDoe(s) havebeenengaged in a conspiracy tomonetize infringement
whereby they use questionable means to entrap unsuspecting Illinois residents who have
allegedly violated CSN’s copyrights, and then extort money from these individuals using
threateningandmisleading settlementand litigation tacticsunder theguiseof theCopyright
Act.AstothisPlaintifftrollonly,thisExtortionConspiracyhasalreadydirectlyaffectedover350
Illinois residentswhohavebeen threatened and intimidated into paying legally unsupported
“settlements” or who have had legallymeritless default judgments entered against them in
Illinoisfederalcourts.
23. Uponinformationandbelief,CSN,GermanJohnDoe(s),oroneofhis/her/their
agents seeded a copy ofGood Kill after copyright protectionwas requested, but before the
movie was released in American theaters The date on CSN’s Certificate of Registration is
February27,2015.ThefirstdateofallegedinfringementonanexhibitisApril4,2015,atleasta
monthbeforethemoviewasreleasedintheaters.
24. Upon informationandbelief,CSNand itsco-conspirators intentionallyreleased
Good Kill into the bit torrent environment knowing, authorizing and inviting its copying and
distribution.
25. GermanJohnDoe(s),claimingtorelyonthepurportedproprietary“geolocation
technology”allegestoobtainevidenceofinfringementanddraftsformdeclarationssuggesting
acomplextechnicalbasisforthat“evidence.”GermanJohnDoehasneverdescribedhis/her/its
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:497
alleged qualifications or described the “propriety nature” of this allegedly proprietary
“geolocationtechnology.”
26. Hierl and Cisek, with the knowledge and consent of co-conspirators CSN and
German John Doe, and more importantly, with the knowledge that evidence provided by
German John Doe is insufficient to meet evidentiary standards, filed suit against 360
anonymousDoesinsevencasesfiledonJune29,2015andeightcasesfiledonJuly31,2015.
27. All fifteenof thecomplaintsuse thesameformthatHierlandCisekuse forall
copyright troll matters and the same “declaration” in support of their motion for early
discovery.5Noneof the complaints are verified by CSN, its principals, nor any otherwitness.
Eachofthefifteencomplaintsattachesaformchartallegingtoshowthedateandtimeofthe
allegedinfringement–alloccurringbeforethemoviewasingeneralrelease–alsonotverified.
28. Uponinformationandbelief,CSNdoesnotpayforanyoftheservicesnecessary
tooperate theExtortionConspiracy, i.e. legal feesor theservicesof the“German JohnDoe”
reliedupontoprovidepurportedevidence.Alternatively,ifthosepaymentsaremade,theyare
de minimus and intended solely for the purpose of evading claims of barratry and/or
maintenance, and ethics violations resulting therefrom. Rather, CSN, the attorneys and the
German JohnDoehavemaintainedcontracts for the solepurposeofoperating theExtortion
Conspiracy described herein. The attorneys are provided substantial autonomy in identifying
potentialvictims,decidinghowmuchmoneyandwhatotherremediestodemand,negotiating
payments, and whether to file an amended complaint if the demands are not met. Upon
5SeeClayDec.¶10,Ex.3andClayDec.¶14,Ex.9.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:498
information and belief, CSN and Hierl have sent over 350 misleading and threatening form
letterstoIllinoisresidentssinceAugustorSeptemberof2015.
29. CSN, Hierl, Cisek and the German John Doe receive no compensation or de
minimuscompensationunlesstheireffortsresultina“settlement”thatcanbedividedbetween
themembersoftheExtortionConspiracy.Alternatively,Hierl,CisekandtheGermanJohnDoe
receive deminimus payments fromCSN that are intended solely for the purpose of evading
claimsofbarratryand/ormaintenance,andethicsviolationsresultingtherefrom.
30. WhileHierlandCisekdonotlimittheirExtortionConspiracytominorityvictims,
it appears they actively target minority victims with the belief that minorities often do not
speakEnglishasafirstlanguageandarethereforeeasiertointimidate;aremorefearfulofand
lessfamiliarwiththelegalsystem;andarelesslikelytoobtainlegalcounsel.
RENEEHANCOCKANDHEREXPERIENCE
31. Renee Hancock maintained an internet account with Comcast at all times
materialhereto.
32. She does very little on the internet, and her husband and two adult children
denyanybittorrentorimproperactivity.
33. At some point in 2015 the Hancocks notified Comcast that they were having
difficultywiththeirrouter,andComcastprovidedareplacement.
34. NooneinthehouseholdhadeverheardofthemovieGoodKilluntiltheywere
notifiedoftheinstantallegations.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:499
35. WhenaletterarrivedfromComcastsuggestingthattheidentityoftheComcast
accountholderwouldbeprovidedaspartofongoing litigation,nooneinthehouseholdpaid
anyattentionortookanyaction.
36. When the standard form letter from Hierl arrived in November of 2015, the
family reviewed it and assumed it was a scam, as Renee had been approached by a debt
collectorintherecentpastaboutanobligationthatwasnothers.
37. Theformslettersalwaysclaimthat“[y]ourcontactinformationwassuppliedto
us by your ISP as one of the Defendant who has illegally obtained or shared our client’s
copyrightedmotionpicturethroughapeertopeernetwork…”andsuggestingtotherecipient
victimthattheyhave“placedamediafilewhichcontainsthecopyright-protectedfilmcontent
for our client’s motion picture [insert film name here] in a shared folder location on your
computer…” The form letter goes on to suggest damages of up to $150,000 per work,
“dependingonthecircumstancessurroundingtheinfringement…”Theletterdemanded$3,800
pre suit and suggested that after a suit is filed “our clientwill accept no less than a sumof
$4,800.” The form letter makes reference to an out-of jurisdiction case, Sony BMG Music
Entertainmentv.Tenenbaum(D.Mass.)from2007,involvinga$675,000juryverdict,andcloses
thatparagraphbysuggesting“[w]ebelievethatbyprovidingyouwithanopportunitytosettle
ourclient’sclaimfor$3,900 insteadofyou incurring thousandsofdollars inattorneys’ fees
andbeingatriskforahighjuryverdict,ourclientisactingreasonablyandingoodfaith.”
38. Despite knowing their purported evidence and the “expert” who claims to
presentitarequestionableatbestandfraudulentatworstCSN,throughco-conspiratorHierl,
madefalsestatementsofmaterialfactandlawintheirNovember9,2015formdemandletter.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:500
Specifically,itwasuntrueatthetimeandremainsuntruethat“informationwasprovidedtous
by your ISP as one of the Defendants who has illegally obtained or shared our client’s
copyrightedmotionpicture throughpeer-to-peernetwork…”This sentence ismisleadingand
outrightfalseforthreereasons.First,“yourISP”hasnotprovidedanyinformationotherthan
therequestedidentityoftheiraccountholder.Second,allCounter-Defendantscaneverclaim
topossessabsent forensic reviewofanamed-Defendant’s computerand relateddevices isa
PCAPfilethatmayormaynotestablishthatsomeoneusingtheIPaddress–nottherecipientof
thedemandletter–mayhaveillegallyobtainedorshared.Third,uponinformationandbelief,
Plaintiff’sarenever inpossessionofevidence linkingthePCAPfile toapeer-to-peernetwork
unlesstheyhoneypotorseedthefilmthemselves.
39. Despite knowing their purported evidence and the “expert” who claims to
presentitarequestionableatbestandfraudulentatworst,Hierlreferencedanon-precedential
juryverdictof$675,000inhisNovember9,2015formdemandlettersolelyforthepurposesof
threatandintimidation.
40. AsecondletterfromHierlsentinFebruaryof2016wasalsoassumedtobepart
ofthescam,althoughitdidpromptRenee’ssontoresearchAttorneyHierl.
41. That internet research suggested thatHierlwas a troll attorney, andbasedon
adviceonvariousblogsandwebsites,theHancocksdecidedtoignoretheletters.
42. Atsomepoint inMayof2016HierlfinallyservedRenee,throughherhusband,
withacopyofthesummonsandcomplaint.
43. HierlfiledaMotionforDefaultthatwassentviafederalexpressandreviewedby
Reneethedaybeforeshewasdueincourt,July21,2016.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:501
44. Renee Hancock and her husband Dwight both appeared at the hearing and
suggestedthattheirfailuretofileananswerwasbasedontheirbeliefthatthiswas“fraud.”
45. Judge Kendall said shewould give the Hancocks time to find an attorney and
askedthemtotalktoCisekinherattorneywitnessroom.6
46. Once in the room with Dwight and Renee, Cisek claimed that “his client”
“needed”$4900tosettlethematter.
47. Dwight quickly advised Cisek that wasn’t happening, and offered to pay him
$39.99,thecostofaDVDofthemovie.
48. DwightandReneeattemptedtoshowCisekevidencethatBitTorrentactivityhad
beenblockedfromtheirrouter;evidencethattheIPaddressintheComplaintwasnottheirs,
andotherevidenceoftheirinnocence.TheirsonDJjoinedtheconversationandattemptedto
explainthedocumentstoCisek.
49. After Renee’s son DJ joined the conversation Cisek became angry and
confrontational,andkeptsuggestingthat“hisclient”had“evidence.”WhenDJpushedabout
the information they had brought in hopes of discussing itwith the judge, Cisek claimed he
would“lookintoit.”
50. Cisek never followed up with the Hancocks about the information they had
provided.6JudgeKendallinformedtheHancocksthatCisekwas“theonewhofiledthecomplaintagainstwhatwasoriginallytheIPaddressforthecomputerthatdownloadedthemovie…”andthat“he’sgotsubscriberinformationforwhohasthatcomputer,andit’syou…”JudgeKendall’scommentsservetohighlightthesuccessofPlaintiff’scampaignofmisinformation.Plaintiff’sonly“evidence”relatestotheIPaddressassignedtoDefendantHancock,nottoHancock’scomputer.AndPlaintiffisnot,anddoesn’tevenclaim,tohave“subscriberinformationforwhohasthatcomputer…”(SeetranscriptfromJuly21,2016hearing,ClayDec.Ex.2.)
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:502
51. Atthenexthearing,onAugust3,2016theHancockshadbeenunabletoretain
anattorney.7
52. InopencourtJudgeKendallaskedCisekwhathisclientwaslookingfor.Despite
knowingtheirpurportedevidenceandthe“expert”whoclaimstopresentitarequestionable
atbestandfraudulentatworst,Cisekreferencedsix-figureawardssolely for thepurposesof
threatandintimidation.
53. JudgeKendallremindedCisekhewouldnotbegettingthat,andagainaskedthe
partiestotalk.
54. OnceReneerealizedshewasbeingsuedforsomethingshedidn’tdo,andthat
thePlaintiffwasdemandingsumsofmoneyshedidnothave,sheimmediatelybegantoshow
the physical manifestations of stress in the form of headaches, high blood pressure and
difficultysleeping.She lackedthefinancialmeanstoobtainpropermedicaltreatmentforher
symptoms.
55. TheHancocks eventually obtained counsel, the undersigned,who appeared in
courtonSeptember26,2016.
56. The partieswere once again instructed by Judge Kendall to try to resolve the
matter.
57. AttorneyCisekrefusedtoprovideasettlementnumbertotheundersigned,and
insteadsuggested thatRenee’s sonDJwas the responsiblepartybecauseofhis “videogame
degree.”(ClayDec.¶7.)
7Onewell-knowncopyrighttrolldefenseattorneyclaimedheneeded$5000to“getstarted,”andpushedtheHancockstopayhim$3500andoffersomethingtosettle.(ClayDec.¶5.)
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:503
58. TheundersignedremindedAttorneyCisekverypointedlyofthefinancialposition
of this Defendant, and suggested that any settlement fundswould be diverted frommonies
currentlyneededformedicaltreatment.Cisekwasunmoved.(Id.)
59. Instead,Cisekforwardedtheundersignedthefollowingemaillaterthatday:
Todayyouaskedmetogetyouasettlementofferintheabove-referencedmatter.Ourclientwouldbewillingtosettletheabove-referencedcaseagainstyourclientinexchangeforapaymentof$2,800.00,andyourclientagreeingtothestandardlanguageinoursettlementdemand.Paymentwouldbeduewithintendays.Thisofferrepresentsa$2,100reductioninthe$4,900offerourclientmadeyourclientbackinJuly.Understandthatifwehavetobriefamotiontodismissorengageindiscovery,ourclientwillinsistonraisingitssubsequentsettlementdemandstooffsetitsraisedcosts.(Id.)60. Despite knowing their purported evidence and the “expert” who claims to
presentitarequestionableatbestandfraudulentatworst,CSN,throughco-conspiratorCisek,
continuedtodemandsumsinexcessofthevalueoftheirallegedclaimevenafterDefendant
Hancockhadprofessedherinnocence,providedevidencetosupportsame,notifiedCisekand
Hierlofseriousmedicalconditionsthatshelackedthefinancialabilitytoaddress,andoffered
topayforthevalueoftheDVD.
61. TheHancockshadnochoicebuttorejectPlaintiff’sofferforlackofabilitytopay.
(ClayDec.¶7.)
62. Third-PartyPlaintiffHancockcontinuedtosuffersignsofphysicalandemotional
distress, including anxiety, headaches, high blood pressure and difficulty sleeping. Her
symptomsremainuntreatedbecauseshelacksthefinancialmeanstoseekmedicalcare.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:504
63. On or about December 19, 2016, several days after indictments of Paul
Hansmeier and John Steele had been announced, Hierl approached the undersigned about
settlement. Attorney Clay reminded Attorney Hierl that her clients had no money. Hierl
suggested, “[m]aybe we can work something out for those who don't steal with impunity.”
(ClayDec.¶8.)
64. When theHancock’swere advised thatHierl had suggested, after all theyhad
been through, that hewasnowwilling to “work somethingout” theHancockswere furious.
Why, they wondered, had they been subjected to 18 months of stress and hassle? The
Hancocksinstructedtheundersignedtoinvestigatecounterclaimsandmechanismsforseeking
compensationforReneeandothertrollvictims.(ClayDec.¶9.)
65. HierlandCisek,throughouttheseproceedings,despiteknowingtheirpurported
evidenceandthe“expert”whoclaimstopresentitarequestionableatbestandfraudulentat
worst, and despite knowing or having reason to know, upon reasonable inquiry, that
declarationsfromGermanJohnDoewerequestionableatbestandfraudulentatworst,have
continued to rely upon this “evidence” and “expert” in making statements of law and fact
knowntothemtobeuntrue.
66. ThroughouttheseproceedingsHierlandCisekmadethesestatementswiththe
intent to scare Renee Hancock and other Class members, and for the express purpose of
extorting an unreasonably high and legally unsupportable “settlement” from Hancock and
otherClassmembers.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:505
COUNTI–CONSPIRACYTOIMPROPERLYPROSECUTECOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
67. Third-PartyPlaintiffreallegestheprecedingparagraphsasthoughsetforthfully
herein.
68. Atalltimesrelevanthereto,Illinoisrecognizesacriminalcauseofactionfortheft
bydeceptionandthelesserchargeofdeceptivepractices.720ILCS5/16–1;720ILCS5/17-1.
69. At all times relevant hereto, Illinois recognized a criminal cause of action for
barratry.720ILCS5/32-11.Thestatuterequiresthesuspensionofanyattorneyconvictedofthe
offense.
70. At all times relevant hereto, Illinois recognized a criminal cause of action for
maintenance.720ILCS5/32-012.
71. Co-conspirator CSN, individually and through its agents, knowingly and with
intentwasaparticipantintheactionsdescribedherein.
72. Co-conspirator German John Doe(s), individually and through his/her/their
agents,knowinglyandwithintent,wasaparticipantintheactionsdescribedherein.
73. Co-conspiratorMichaelHierl,knowinglyandwithintent,wasaparticipantinthe
actionsdescribedherein.
74. Co-conspiratorMarkCisek,knowinglyandwith intent,wasaparticipant in the
actionsdescribedherein.
75. The purpose of the Extortion Conspiracy was to create the appearance of a
lawfulpurpose–prosecutionofallegedcopyrightinfringement.
76. The presumed lawful purpose was being undertaken by unlawful means, i.e.
theftbydeception.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:506
77. The presumed lawful purpose was being undertaken by unlawful means, i.e.
barratry.
78. The presumed lawful purpose was being undertaken for unlawful means, i.e.
maintenance.
79. In the furtheranceof theirpurported lawfulpurpose (prosecutionof copyright
infringement) these co-conspirators, each one individually and all collectively, actually have
committed and presumably continue to commit the unlawful acts of theft by deception,
barratry,andmaintenance.
80. Each co-conspirator named herein was a knowing and willing participant in a
schemetocommittheftbydeceptionfromCounter-Plaintiffaswellasotherssimilarlysituated.
Participants in the Extortion Conspiracy named herein have wrongfully obtained substantial
sums of money from the scheme. Counter-Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been
damagedbytheExtortionConspiracyanditsco-conspirators.
81. SaidExtortionConspiracywasaschemeemployedtimeandtimeagain for the
sameor similarpurposeandseeking the sameresult (prosecutionof copyright infringement)
throughunlawfulmeans(theftbydeception,barratryandmaintenance).
82. Duetotheircourseofconduct,Counter-DefendantandThird-PartyDefendants
haveengagedinacivilconspiracytocommittheftbydeception,barratryandmaintenance.
83. Therefore,Counter-Plaintiffseeksmonetarydamagesonbehalfofherselfandall
otherssimilarlysituatedwithintheStateofIllinois.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court order damages
resultingfromthisfraudasfollows:
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:507
(a) actualmonetarydamagesinanamounttobedeterminedattrial;
(b) punitivedamagesinanamounttobedeterminedattrial;
(c) allcostsandattorney’sfees;
(d) anyadditionalamountsthecourtdeemsjustandreasonable.
CLASSACTIONALLEGATIONS
84. Third-PartyPlaintiffreallegestheprecedingparagraphsasthoughsetforthfully
herein.
85. Thisactionisbroughtandmayproceedasaclassaction,pursuanttotheFederal
RulesofCivilProcedure23(a).
86. Third-Party Plaintiff seeks certification of a Class composed of and defined as
follows:CLASS:All individualsintheStateofIllinoiswho,atanytimeonorafterthedayfour
years prior to the date on which this Class Action Counterclaim is filed, received
correspondencewhichwas the sameor similar to theNovember 9, 2015 letters sent by the
Third-PartyDefendant,MichaelHierl,regardingallegedcopyrightinfringementonbehalfofhis
client,ClearSkiesNevada,LLC.
87. The members of the Class are known to exceed 300 individuals and are so
numerousthatjoinderofallmembersisimpracticable.
88. Therearequestionsof lawandfactcommontothemembersoftheClassthat
predominateoverquestionsaffectingonlyindividuals.Thesecommonquestionsinclude:
(a) WhethertheExtortionConspiracyallegedconstitutesacivilconspiracyunder Illinoislaw; (b) WhetherThird-PartyPlaintiffandthemembersoftheClasssufferedlossesasa resultoftheallegedExtortionConspiracy;
(c) What relief Third-Party Plaintiff and themembers of the Class are entitled tounderIllinoislaw.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:508
89. Third-Party Plaintiff’s claims are typical of claims of themembers of the Class
which she represents because all such claims arise out of the same policies, practices, and
conduct,andthesameorsimilardocumentsusedbytheExtortionConspiracymembersintheir
dealingswithCounter-Plaintiff.
90. Third-PartyPlaintiff’sinterestsarealignedwiththoseoftheClass.
91. TheClassisreadilyidentifiable.
92. Third-PartyPlaintiffwill fairlyandadequatelyprotect the interestsof theClass
and has retained competent counsel experienced in the prosecution of consumer litigation.
Proposed Class Counsel has researched and investigated copyright troll claims and related
“monetization of litigation” schemes for nearly three years. Proposed Class Counsel has
experienceinhandlingcomplexlitigationandclaimsofthetypeassertedhere.
93. A class action is superior to other availablemethods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. While the
economicdamagessufferedbytheindividualmembersoftheClassaresignificant,theamount
ismodestcomparedtotheexpenseandburdenofindividuallitigation.
94. ThequestionsoflaworfactcommontothemembersoftheClasspredominate
overanyquestionsaffectingonlyindividualmembers.
95. Theprosecutionof separateactionsby individualmembersof theClasswould
run the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish incompatible
standardsofconductfortheExtortionConspiracymembers.Prosecutionasaclassactionwill
eliminatethepossibilityofrepetitiouslitigation.
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:509
96. ExtortionConspiracymembershaveacted similarly towardThird-PartyPlaintiff
andallClassmembers,therebymakingafinaljudgmentastoliabilityanddamageswithrespect
totheClassasawholeappropriate.
97. Aclassactionwillcauseanorderlyandexpeditiousadministrationoftheclaims
oftheClass,andwillfostereconomiesoftime,effortandexpense.
98. Third-PartyPlaintiffdoesnotanticipateanydifficultyinthemanagementofthis
litigation.
WHEREFORE,ReneeHancockonbehalfoftheclassoutlinedabove,respectfullyrequestthat
uponthefilingofanappropriateMotionforClassCertificationthisCourtenteranorder:
(a) CertifyingtheClassdescribedabove;
(b) AppointingReneeHancockclassrepresentative;
(c) Appointingtheundersignedascounselforthenamedclasses;
(d) AnyandallotherrelieftheCourtdeemsjustandreasonable.
JURYDEMANDED
Respectfullysubmitted,
____/s/_LisaL.Clay_______________ LisaL.Clay,AttorneyatLaw345NorthCanalStreet,SuiteC202Chicago,Illinois60606Phone:[email protected]#6277257
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:510
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
LisaL.Clay,anattorney,certifiesthatonJanuary3,2017shefiledacopyoftheforegoingClass
ActionThird-PartyComplaintviatheECFfilingsystem,whichwillprovidenoticetothe
following:
________________/s/LisaL.Clay__________
Case: 1:15-cv-06708 Document #: 65 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:511