Remember when Lawdit had to "payup" for linking ACS:LAW with Davenport Lyons?

Remember when Lawdit had to "payup" for linking ACS:LAW with Davenport Lyons? 

….Well it seems that Lawdit was RIGHT all along. Here is a "screenshot" from Lawdit concerning the issue. From 13th May 2009 

 

And here almost a year later, the truth is exposed from ACS:LAWs own mouth! 

[caption id="attachment_248" align="alignnone" width="450" caption="ACS Unexpected Admission (Click for larger image)"][/caption]

 Moral for you ACS is that when you LIE online, you will always be caught out! 

The News that Lawdit had been censured by ACS:LAW was a blow to many of us who had only then just received these letters. Lawdit have proved to be an excellent Solicitors and very generous with their time and advice. 

The Link in all this is again the Shadowy figure of Terence Tsang, who left Davenport Lyons just as the SRA were closing in on them to join ACS:LAW, and now true to previous form he has left ACS:LAW again just as the SRA are closing in on them to.  

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="225" caption="Terence Tsang - Ex Davenport Lyons Ex ACS:LAW"][/caption]

It remains to be seen if Tsangs new Firm Cramer-Pelmont will continue the sad and depressing episode of persuing innocent people with wild accusations. Of course we DO know that Terence has his OWN "Monitoring" Software now!

Brian Miller is "Virtuallyinhouse"!

A scary thought indeed but it seems that one of the "Davenport 2" has a Webpage on...... GOOGLESITES!.  Now don't take this the wrong way but, does it not seem rather amaturish for a so called "Specialist in the fields of interactive entertainment, e-commerce, music, computer games and the enforcement of related intellectual property rights on the internet." to have his pitch on a FREE webserver?

Even stranger is the fact that he has a link and it seems indeed that "Virtuallyinhouse" is a part of his Wifes larger business. Stranger still that a few years ago a group called "Davenport Cats" threatened to disclose details of a personal nature regarding Mr and Mrs Miller in light of the  "Bullying and Harrasment" that Davenport Lyons was conducting at the time and which has  now landed Mr Miller and his Co-Director David Gore in hot water with the SRA. 

 Now my point regarding this is that at the time it seemed unsightly that Mr Millers Wife should be dragged into an argument merely because she was married to a "Bully", and I agree she should not, however nor do I believe it is right that Mr Miller trades off his Wifes name if he feels that he does not want the spotlight to shine on her unfavourably.  Does that make sense? 

See for yourself.  Mr Millers Amateurish business site is here http://www.virtuallyinhouse.com/  See for yourself on the links.  Read how it describes Mr Miller then check out the link "Recomendations" and see that the link still shows Mr Miller working for Davenport Lyons.  Can we say shoddy? I thought we could

EDIT: Of course I realise that my little Blog may well look amateurish, but that is ok, I dont have money from people I have "bullied and harrassed" to build a better one......

FLASHBACK: Eyewitness to Davenport Lyons aiding ACS:LAW in Court hearing

This piece is from the Legendary Beingscammed. who was threatened by ACS:LAW for trying to help the Victims of their letters.  Originally posted on the 11th May 2009.  In light of the TWO Directors of Davenport Lyons being sent by the SRA to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, I though it good that this be posted so all new recipients could see the truth.  Thanks ACS:FLAW for pointing this out to me

Topware in Court

---

Well that was very interesting.I attended the court proceedings this morning between Topware and BE UN LTD, much to the angst of Andrew Crossley. Not sure if he even knew that courts are public and as such anyone may attend and observe (provided that you don't interrupt / interfere, and you ask the judge nicely).Now the link between Davenport Lyons and ACS: Law became oh so more clear. The link is about as close as possible without them being the same company. Even in the minutes preceding the hearing, a representative of DL was giving prepatory documents to Andrew Crossley for him to use at the hearing...

During the hearing the Master even had to ask if this was the same case that he saw previously with DL, and wasn't that them in the corridor?

Also in attendance was a Miss Camilla Balleny from  Arnold & Porter LLP - Camilla Balleny As far as I could tell, she was representing A&P who represent Virgin Media and BE UN Ltd.

The end result of the hearing today was that this hearing and two others (similar but with other ISPs) until Monday 8th June 11am, same place.

What was so interesting were the claims that Andrew Crossley made to Master Winergarten during the proceedings. That 1500+ letters had been sent out, and that a significant proportion of people pay the demand (35-40%). This is SO much higher than what we (collectively on the forums) had thought. Not sure if it's bull***t or bravado, but of course there wouldn't be any docs available to back that up. It was more that he was convincing Master Winergarten that they were doing the right thing, and having success, and that if they weren't guilty why would they pay etc.

That means that if some 500 people have paid up, each at around £600, that's £300k going into someone's pockets. Makes the whole thing worthwhile... almost... until you get stricken off as a lawyer for all this, and get made to pay the money back (perhaps).

I spoke to Camilla Balleny (think I freaked her out a little) after the hearing, and asked her if she knew how they got the IP addresses, and if she knew that the method that they got them was illegal or dubious at best, and had been thrown out of court in other European countries, and that a lawyer got struck off for 6 months for doing this.... Although I wasn't expecting any answers, her surprise, discomfort and silence spoke volumes. I even offered her to see the letter that ACS Law had sent me, though by this stage I think she just wanted to get the hell out of there.

Camilla - if you're reading this, the offer stays open, I'm sure plenty of us would be happy to send you format versions of our letters.

So, where from here? Well, I was going to go over to Hanover Square and visit Andrew Crossley, but after seeing him in the flesh, and having him validate in front of me all that we had previously suspected, I just didn't see the need.

He is taking this seriously, making a lot of money from it, and although seemed a little disorganised he was doing a fair job of convincing everyone else - who either didn't have the knowledge or information to know better.

The hearings were adjourned because the ISPs hadn't had time to verify all the facts (times, IPs etc) of the NEW batch of IPs to be churned through this ever growing fiasco. So thank you at least for that much, that the ISPs are checking that they're not giving out the wrong details this time.

I will continue with my stance of complete denial - although I'm not going to send any correspondence to ACS, as I would actually like for them to take me to court. I would LIKE to see all the EVIDENCE they have against me. I would LIKE to fight this, slam them down and stop all this bullying they are doing.

Stand strong people, and please use whatever means you have available to get the word out to the less informed people that they shouldn't pay (unless they really want to), to deny deny deny and let's see what happens when they try to take me to court.

Beingscammed, if you are still about, please email and say hi

The SRA refers Davenport Lyons to the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal

The SRA Refers Davenport Lyons to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Directors David Gore and Brian Miller will stand before a misconduct panel over the bullying letters sent out to people demanding payment and accusing them of illegally sharing copyright material.  A scheme since taken on by ACS:LAW with the help of Ex Davenport Lyons Paralegal Terence Tsang

A leading law firm is being investigated over claims that it bullied and harassed hundreds of people wrongly accused of illegal filesharing. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, an industry watchdog, said it is investigating a complaint brought against Davenport Lyons, the London-based solicitors' firm that has led a number of prosecutions against illegal filesharers. The consumer group Which? first made an official complaint in 2008, after a number of people contacted it to say that they had received letters from Davenport Lyons demanding payment for illegal downloads that were nothing to do with them.