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