clear skies nevada, llc, ) counter-defendant. ) third-party … · 2017. 1. 4. · united states...

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 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


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.


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.)


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.)


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.)


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.)


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.)


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.


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.


COUNTI–CONSPIRACYTOIMPROPERLYPROSECUTECOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT


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.


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:


(a) actualmonetarydamagesinanamounttobedeterminedattrial;

(b) punitivedamagesinanamounttobedeterminedattrial;

(c) allcostsandattorney’sfees;

(d) anyadditionalamountsthecourtdeemsjustandreasonable.

CLASSACTIONALLEGATIONS


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.


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.


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


CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

LisaL.Clay,anattorney,certifiesthatonJanuary3,2017shefiledacopyoftheforegoingClass

ActionThird-PartyComplaintviatheECFfilingsystem,whichwillprovidenoticetothe

following:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

________________/s/LisaL.Clay__________


clear skies nevada, llc, ) counter-defendant. ) third-party … · 2017. 1. 4. · united states...

Documents