Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 1 of 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 Harris 4632 E. Caballero ST Number One Mesa, AZ 85205 (480) 297-9546 troll.assassins@cyber-wizard.com Defendant Pro Se IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AF Holdings, LLC vs. David Harris Defendant. Plaintiff,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS The Honorable G. Murray Snow Motion for Security of Non-Resident Plaintiff

INTRODUCTION

C
1.

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]. 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 2 of 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 6. 3.

MEMORANDA 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. 5. Your Honor, I come before you today to move this court to provide a little Aforementioned security is both legal and necessary for Defendant to continue to guarantee of the Plaintiffs performance in this lawsuit, by way of a security bond. defend himself in the instant action and to prosecute his counter claim without being gravely prejudiced. The Plaintiffs Modus 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 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. 8. To be fair Defendant uses the highest wage he has earned, that of a Nevada In addition to hours spent researching and preparing briefs, Defendant is also Licensed C-25 Contractor (license 0020631). Defendant averaged $106.25/per hour. 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.

This is not conjecture or speculation, just look at Plaintiffs acts and omissions outlined in 18 thru 20 this doc. Page 2 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 3 of 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 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 114]. 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. 15. It seems that the Plaintiff is the only one not aware that his theory does not stand to Plaintiffs claim states: reason, or is this confusing nonsense meant to be just, a distraction?

Plaintiff was ordered to post a $48,000.00 bond to guarantee fees and costs for defending the case only, a case that follows the typical progression of a copyright infringement case of this type, while the instant action also includes prosecuting its counter claim and damages to Defendant by Plaintiff [AF Holdings v Trinh no12-02393 Northern District of California] . Page 3 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 4 of 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 16. and:

Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software to perform exhaustive real time monitoring of the BitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the Video. This software is effective in capturing data about the activity of peers in a swarm and their infringing conduct. Defendant, using IP address 70.176.202.3. . . Plaintiffs investigators detected Defendants illegal download on June 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 Plaintiff uses forensic software to identify IP addresses that it claims are those addresses within a certain federal district that are associated with a particular swarm that shared a particular file, and files a complaint naming numerous John Does associated with the IP addresses as defendants. The plaintiff requests permission to conduct pre-trial discovery to obtain the name, address, and phone number of the people associated with the IP addresses from their ISPs. (emphasis mine) [id at Collins v does no 11-1602 AZ page 3 line 16-21] (cite is for Plaintiff as Im sure Your Honor recalls his own words) 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 a prima 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 a prima facie case. 18. 19. 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B) provides that an ISP not disclose a subscribers personal Defendant intentionally raised this issue in a numbered paragraph in his counter claim: Plaintiff without authority of law violated Defendants right to privacy in order to appear in this court and did so by Page 4 of 8 information without a court order.

Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 5 of 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 ordering Plaintiff not to disclose the personal information obtained by a rule 45 subpoena, for any purpose outside of the original complaint [id at DC case doc 4], but he did anyway by using the Defendants name and address to file the instant case otherwise all the Plaintiff has is the Defendants IP address and 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 denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Defendants 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 a prima 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. 22. The aforementioned issue is not primary to the Defendants defense, but it Mr. Goodhue may establish plausible denial-ability, after filing his last brief with certainly shows Defendant is more likely than not to prevail. 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 6 of 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 noncompliance 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 7 of 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 Harris 4632 E. Caballero St. Number One Mesa, Arizona 85205 Defendant Pro Se

Page 7 of 8

Case 2:12-cv-02144-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/30/12 Page 8 of 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 Goodhue 9375 East Shea Blvd., Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (480) 214-9500 Facsimile: (480) 214-9501 E-Mail: sjg@sjgoodlaw.com By: /s/ David Harris

Page 8 of 8