-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
1/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David Harris4632 E. Caballero STNumber One
Mesa, AZ 85205(480) [email protected]
Defendant Pro Se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF
ARIZONA
AF Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff,
vs.
David Harris
Defendant.
)))))))))
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS
The Honorable G. Murray Snow
Motion for Security ofNon-Resident
Plaintiff
INTRODUCTION
C
omes 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.
MOTION
Under authority of LRCiv54.1[c].
1. Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC is not a resident of Arizona, in
fact it is not known if
they have ever experienced the pleasure of visiting our Great
State. Plaintiff probably
does not even live in the United States of America as they are
limited liability co. of St.
Kitts and Nevis [id at doc 1 caption] .
2. Defendant is of the opinion, they are here to peddle their
porn and shake down our
citizens like the instant case. Good men of conscience pray for
the likes of these people
that their souls be saved from an eternity of fire and
brimstone, but they run from them,
they run as fast as they can. Defendant will not run from this
vermin as this is his home.
Page 1 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 1 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
2/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDA
3. Your Honor, I know my language is a bit colorful in regards
to the Plaintiff, but I
promise you, soon you will understand why. Then you will
understand that I have shown
a great deal of restraint!
4. Your Honor, I come before you today to move this court to
provide a little
guarantee of the Plaintiffs performance in this lawsuit, by way
of a security bond.
5. Aforementioned security is both legal and necessary for
Defendant to continue to
defend himself in the instant action and to prosecute his
counter claim without being
gravely prejudiced. The PlaintiffsModus Operandi when facing an
unfavorable
outcome of the court is to duck or cut and run, never looking
back, even if that requires
the Plaintiff to deceive, conceal and omit legally relevant and
pertinent material facts to
the next district he trolls1.
AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE
6. Defendant realizes that he can not calculate fees and costs
based on lawyers
compensation. Laypersons wages rarely if ever rise to that of
the luxurious white collar
status of a lawyer.
7. To be fair Defendant uses the highest wage he has earned,
that of a Nevada
Licensed C-25 Contractor (license 0020631). Defendant averaged
$106.25/per hour.
8. In addition to hours spent researching and preparing briefs,
Defendant is also
entitled to costs to familiarize himself with the rules of this
court in order to defend
himself in these proceedings as mandated by this court [id at
doc 18 line18-21].
9. It should also be taken into consideration that Plaintiffs
actions have caused
Defendant to file and to prosecute counter claims against
Plaintiff. For which Defendant
would be entitled to costs and fees.
1 This is not conjecture or speculation, just look at Plaintiffs
acts andomissions outlined in 18 thru 20 this doc.
Page 2 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 2 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
3/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Finally Defendant will be entitled to damages caused by the
Plaintiff as set forth in
Defendants counter claim. As the cause of action for such claims
arose by Plaintiffs
improprieties in filing the instant case for inappropriate
reasons.
11. Defendant has conservatively calculated the amount Plaintiff
must deposit to
guarantee his performance in this matter at one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars
($150,000.00)2.
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT DEFENDANT WILL PREVAIL
12. Of the thousands of John Doe copyright infringement suits
filed by this copyright
trolls nationwide, as of the filing of the instant case, it
sticks out like a sore thumb. It is
different than the typical case of this type as the necessary
requisite for determining the
identity of a person connected to the alleged infringing IP
address is absent.
13. Plaintiff asserts:
The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocolis
extremely low. Because the protocol is based on peers connectingto
one another, a peer must broadcast identifying information(i.e. an
IP address) before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the
actualnames 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 doc114].
However, this assertion is erroneous in and of its own
contradiction, if an IP address is
identifying information, then it would be impossible to cover
ones identity under their
identity.
14. It seems that the Plaintiff is the only one not aware that
his theory does not stand to
reason, or is this confusing nonsense meant to be just, a
distraction?
15. Plaintiffs claim states:
2Plaintiff was ordered to post a $48,000.00 bond to guarantee
fees andcosts for defending the case only, a case that follows the
typical progression of acopyright infringement case of this type,
while the instant action also includesprosecuting its counter claim
and damages to Defendant by Plaintiff [AF Holdingsv Trinh
no12-02393 Northern District of California] .
Page 3 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 3 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
4/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network
forensicsoftware to perform exhaustive real time monitoring of
theBitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the Video.
This software is effective in capturing data about the
activityof peers in a swarm and their infringing conduct.and:
Defendant, using IP address 70.176.202.3. . .
Plaintiffsinvestigators detected Defendants illegal download onJune
3, 2011 at 00:49:34"[id at doc 12123].
One does not have to look beyond this court to establish a flow
chart for this type
of copyright infringement case:
The progression in this case is typical. First, the
Plaintiffuses forensic software to identify IP addresses that
itclaims are those addresses within a certain federal district
that are associated with a particular swarm that shared
aparticular file, and files a complaint naming numerous JohnDoes
associated with the IP addresses as defendants.The plaintiff
requests permission to conduct pre-trialdiscovery to obtain the
name, address, and phonenumber of the people associated with the IP
addresses fromtheir ISPs. (emphasis mine) [id at Collins v does no
11-1602 AZpage 3 line 16-21] (cite is for Plaintiff as Im sure Your
Honor recallshis own words)
16. Defendant is aware that emphasized proceedings are held
ex-parte so Defendant
would not be aware of Plaintiff being granted leave to issue
rule 45 subpoenas to ISPs,
until notified by his ISP of service of said subpoena. That does
not, however explain why
this court has no knowledge or record of any pre-26 discovery
required in this type of
case to name a John Doe or in this case a David Harris
Defendant.
17. Plaintiff at minimum fails to establish aprima facie case
and can not proceed.
However Defendant possesses personal knowledge and persuasive
evidence that, that is
not the case at all. Plaintiffs omissions to this court rise to
a much higher level than that
of merely failing to establish aprima facie case.
18. 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B) provides that an ISP not disclose a
subscribers personal
information without a court order.
19. Defendant intentionally raised this issue in a numbered
paragraph in his counter
claim:
Plaintiff without authority of law violated Defendants rightto
privacy in order to appear in this court and did so by
Page 4 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 4 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
5/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directly violating a court order in the original DC case
orderingPlaintiff not to disclose the personal information obtained
bya rule 45 subpoena, for any purpose outside of the original
complaint [id at DC case doc 4], but he did anyway by usingthe
Defendants name and address to file the instant caseotherwise all
the Plaintiff has is the Defendants IP addressand date and time of
alleged infringement[id at doc 149].
Defendant propounded this allegation deliberately to allow
Plaintiff the opportunity to
to disclose to this court, on his own that Defendant caught him
misrepresenting a material
fact to this court, in violation of FRCP 11.
20. Plaintiff faced with having to show cause to justify his
non-compliance with the
aforementioned order of the district court, Plaintiff showed his
remarkable disdain for this
court and for the Pro Se Defendant by responding to Defendants
allegation:
Plaintiff admits that it filed the instant case, but deniesthe
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 ofDefendants
Counterclaim [id at doc 179].
Plaintiff opted to deny a material fact, giving credence to
Defendants assertion that
Plaintiff failed to connect Defendant to the IP address
allegedly observed downloading
the work, thereby effectively killing his own pleading by
refusing any attempt to correct
his fatal error of not meeting the bare minimum of aprima facie
claim, that being; naming
a party capable of being sued. An IP address fails to meet the
definition of a person, an
IP address is no more a person than is a telephone number, or a
physical address, or a car,
or a ham sandwich, none of which has the capacity to be
sued.
21. The aforementioned issue is not primary to the Defendants
defense, but it
certainly shows Defendant is more likely than not to
prevail.
22. Mr. Goodhue may establish plausible denial-ability, after
filing his last brief with
this court it certainly would not be a stretch for him to claim
utter incompetence as a
lawyer. However, prior to Plaintiffs denial of a material fact
demonstrated by the
Defendant to be a matter of the record of the district court, a
person appeared in this case
who can not deny his personal knowledge and criminal action
perpetrated against the
Defendant, yes I said criminal action and no I am not being
harsh, just merely stating
fact, albeit not introduced into evidence . . . yet.
Page 5 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 5 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
6/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. That person is Paul Andrew Duffy [id at doc 12.1]. Your
Honor as God is my
witness I have spent hours preparing evidence to bring Duffy
before this court, when I
saw his declaration on the docket sheet it felt like I had won
the lottery!
24. After this motion is ruled on, this as well as other key
issues that are the
foundational structure of Duffys artifice to appear as a
legitimate litigant in a legitimate
lawsuit(s) are going to be discussed in great detail and weighty
evidence is going to be
submitted in my favor, I am almost giddy, as I have been hoping
for almost a year, but not
really believing this day would ever come. Your Honor, hold on
to you robe, as this case
plays out. Because for me to state that this case in not typical
to its type would be the
understatement of the century!
CONCLUSION
25. LRCiv54.1[c] provides that a plaintiff not a resident of the
Sate of Arizona may be
ordered to post a security for costs. LRCiv54.1(d) provides that
the prevailing party is
entitled to costs.
WHEREAS; Defendant having timely filed and served this motion
and having
presented a reasonableness that Defendant will prevail.
Defendant prays this court grant
his motion;
Ordering Plaintiff post aforementioned bond to guarantee his
performance in these
proceedings;
Further order that Plaintiff shall not engage in further
activity in this case, staying it until
such a time that he can guarantee his performance by posting
said bond.
NOTICE TO THE COURT
Your Honor I must clarify when I said you would be a laughing
stock if you signed
Plaintiffs proposed order. That sir is reference to the dismal
form itself, for the non-
compliance to the rules of this court. I remind the court it
directed the Defendant to
become familiar with the rules of this court and Plaintiff has
to in his words:
Page 6 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 6 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
7/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accommodate a pro per litigant who is unfamiliar with the rules
of Court Plaintiff
admits his formatting of his documents is in violation of LRCiv.
I strongly object that the
rules of the court apply to one party and not the other as Mr.
Goodhue would have it, that
a lawyer would argue this in, of all things a document to
sanction for contempt when the
very document itself is in contempt. I submit to this court that
is the purest form of
hypocrisy. Any reasonable thinking person would expect to come
under close scrutiny
himself when claiming fault in another, not Mr. Goodue, he is
the pot calling the kettle
black. Regardless of Mr. Goodues opinion, every American citizen
has the right to
access the Federal Judiciary to defend himself and to seek
damages caused by others
regardless of financial status, believe me when I say I would
not hire the likes of Mr.
Goodhue to defend me under any circumstances, he may not like
being called out by
someone inferior to him and I feel for his embarrassment, but he
should be embarrassed
and if he chooses to continue his coarse of action in this case
he had better get use to it,
until he can accuse me of something containing a little
substance I am far from done.
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 30th day of November, 2012.
By: /s/ David Harris
David Harris4632 E. Caballero St.Number OneMesa, Arizona
85205
Defendant Pro Se
Page 7 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 7 of
8
-
7/30/2019 Def.23.Motion for Security
8/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of November, 2012, a copy
of the foregoing
was filed electronically and served upon the following by
operation of the Courts
electronic filing system.
Steven James Goodhue (#029288)Law Offices of Steven James
Goodhue9375 East Shea Blvd., Suite 100Scottsdale, AZ
85260Telephone: (480) 214-9500Facsimile: (480) 214-9501E-Mail:
[email protected]
By: /s/ David Harris
Page 8 of 8
Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 8 of
8
