# USCG sues lawyer that helped copyright defendants: Is this real? Valid?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 28, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176 "2010-11-28T16:57:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176/21 "2010-11-29T18:15:01Z")

</div>

> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> This would be separate from the USCG lawsuit, though, wouldn’t it? Would USCG have legal standing to bring a lawsuit against Syfert on this basis?

It would most likely be separate, although perhaps they are claiming that by authoring the forms, Syfert is acting as counsel for the parties involved, even though he’s not entered an appearance on their behalf.

Actually finding the pleading would be helpful. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176/22 "2010-11-29T18:20:05Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> This is apparently the text of the motion – [http://www.slyck.com/misc/moneymakingscheme.pdf](http://www.slyck.com/misc/moneymakingscheme.pdf)
> 
> Apparently the court’s docket just hasn’t been updated yet.

Interesting. I’m not a lawyer, so i’m not sure how these things work exactly, but it seems to me that there is a basic problem or conundrum regarding the law, on the one hand, and the purpose of the motions to quash, on the other.

According to the above-linked motion, one problem with the motions to quash is that the form motions are “procedurally defective” because none of the defendants “attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel.” The motion cites the rule on this issue, which appears to say plainly that “counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel” before filing the motion.

Now, i have two questions here:

1. This rule says “counsel.” Does it apply in the same way to a defendant filing on his or her own behalf, and not represented by a lawyer?

2. The main purpose of the motions by the defendants is to prevent the plaintiffs from getting the defendants’ identities from the ISPs. Wouldn’t it then be rather detrimental to the defendants’ interests in this case to “meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel”? Such a meeting would surely provide the plaintiffs with exactly what the defendants are seeking to prevent: the identity of the defendants.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176/23 "2010-11-29T18:32:03Z")

</div>

I opened this to find out why the Coast Guard cares about copyright issues.

Apparently they don’t.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uscg-sues-lawyer-that-helped-copyright-defendants-is-this-real-valid/562176.md?page=1)