I was floored when I saw this. A proactive John Doe Defendant (Dan Krebs) wrote Judge Facciola asking him why he ordered copyright trolls in the Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-72 (Case No. 1:11-cv-00058) case not to contact Doe Defendants until they are named and served, but in the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01741) case, the judge continues to allow John Steele and his Prenda Law Inc. gang to do whatever they want with the Doe Defendants (and consequently, Steele is sending out “scare” letters to the unnamed defendants).
While the lack of consistency between rulings from Judge Facciola is not surprising, I cannot help but to think of the words, “bias, corruption, and perhaps cronyism” when I think of his treatment of these bittorrent cases.
What floored me, however, was the “F’you” order he issued in response to Dan’s letter to the court. In short, he stated,
“The Court notes that it will not answer this correspondence since an extra-judicial comment about matters pending before it is inappropriate.”
Or, in other words, “F’You. Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do in my own court. This is MY WORLD, MY PLAYGROUND, and I will play however I want to!”
My opinion: Kudos to you, Dan. Your letter was proactive, and you called out the judge on his inconsistent rulings. It is my opinion that all judges should have watchdogs like you to force them to adhere to their own precedents.
Attached is Dan’s Letter sent to the court.
And, attached is Judge Facciola’s response.
[NOTE: Scribd is experiencing issues right now. Will update links later.]