Blizzard vs Project Ascension: 4 Days Before BlizzCon

A quick timeline up before we start. I

recorded this episode after documents 25

through 28 were filed and before

documents 29 through 31 appeared on the

actual docket. So, what you're about to

watch reflects the case as it stood at

that moment. Episode 4.5 covers what

happened next, the new attorney

appearances, the Turtle Wow connection,

and Blizzard withdrawing its early

discovery request without prejudice.

This is public commentary. The

allegations are not findings and I do

not represent anyone in this case. Hey

guys, it's Cody.

Now, BlizzCon opens Saturday, September

12th.

And on the current court schedule, Derek

Powell and three other defendants appear

due to answer Blizzard's complaint or

file a motion under rule 12 on Tuesday,

September 8th.

Interesting timing, don't you think?

Four days before BlizzCon, Blizzard's

biggest event.

That calendar is real. The filings do

not tell us who wanted that timing or

why. The date can also move if the

parties agree or the court orders

something different. But right now, the

response clock in Blizzard's lawsuit

runs directly into BlizzCon week.

And the most important new filing for

this episode is document 28.

Derek Powell has waived formal service

of the lawsuit through an attorney.

So, the case has moved from Blizzard

naming Derek to Derek's response clock

actually running.

Last episode, I ended with a promise.

Blizzard keeps using one word, [music]

defendants. But if Blizzard wants

liability against a person, it has to

prove what that person did.

This is episode four. This [music] is

the Derek audit.

Welcome.

And this is commentary, public

commentary.

I do not represent Derek Powell, Project

Ascension, Blizzard, or any defendant in

this case. Blizzard's allegations are

allegations unless they are admitted or

proven.

Today, I'm doing one thing, separating

what Blizzard's complaint actually

attaches to Derek Powell from what it

says about defendants as a group.

Blizzard gets to allege. Blizzard still

has to prove. What the new filings do.

Now, documents 25 through 28 were filed

on July 9th. They are four waivers of

service. One is for Online Success

Partner, which identifies itself in the

filing as doing business as Online

Management Partners.

One is for Brian Mannion. One is for

Exalted Management Services. And one is

for Derek Powell. This batch covers four

of the 10 named defendants. [music]

It does not resolve service or for

anyone else, everyone else. That same

attorney, Frederick Douglass, signed all

four.

That shows coordination around this

service step. A later appearance or

substantive filing will tell us how far

that representation goes on the merits.

These waivers acknowledge receipt of the

complaint and save Blizzard the expense

of formal service.

The forms also say that defendants keep

their defenses and objections to the

lawsuit, personal jurisdiction,

as well as the venue.

The service-related objection they give

up is one based on a defect in the

summons or service of the summons.

These forms complete the service step

for those four parties.

Now, an answer or motion still has to

come, and signing the waiver admits none

of Blizzard's allegations.

The defense theory has not arrived yet,

but for these four parties, the service

question is now resolved and the

response clock

>> [music]

>> is running. Hey y'all, real quick, I

wrote this book called Lawyer Without

Law School. There's a lot of tips and

tricks on how you can get started with

studying the law without actually going

to law school, without actually putting

yourself in supreme debt. There's even

states where you can become a licensed

attorney

through passing the bar. Just pass the

bar. You find a supervising attorney and

you get to work studying the law. No

[ __ ] just the law.

Lawyer Without Law School, check it out.

The BlizzCon clock,

well, each waiver says the request was

sent on July 7th and gives 60 days to

file an answer or a rule 12 motion. The

60th day is indeed Saturday, September

5th. The following Monday is Labor Day.

Under the federal counting rule, that

points to Tuesday, September 8th, as the

apparent deadline, unless something

changes on the docket. Now, BlizzCon

begins Saturday, September 12th. That is

a four-day gap. If the schedule holds,

Derek's first substantive response could

land during the biggest public week on

Blizzard's calendar. That could become a

major story heading into the event. The

timing itself does not prove a strategy,

if you will. The record gives us the

dates, sure. It does not give us

anyone's motive for choosing them. So,

I'm keeping those two things separate.

The calendar is worth reporting,

of course. The intent still needs

evidence. Blizzard's best case against

Derek. Now, as we talked about before,

before anybody turns 196 versus 14 into

a trick. Blizzard's Derek allegations

are serious.

Paragraphs 20 and 49 allege that Derek

Powell and Brian Manion were the owners,

operators, administrators, and driving

forces behind Project Ascension.

Blizzard alleges they directed

operations, development, servers,

finances, staff, marketing, payment

processing, and the corporate entities

around the project. Blizzard alleges

money from donation points was collected

for their benefit.

Paragraph 66 names Derek inside a group

of six people accused of repeatedly

altering the World of Warcraft client.

Paragraph 72 alleges Derek was among the

people providing technical support.

Paragraph 78 says Blizzard contacted

Derek and Manion through email, hand

delivery, and telephone, told them the

project violated Blizzard's rights, and

says the conduct continued.

Blizzard also places Derek near the

center of its RICO leadership theory.

That is Blizzard's case against Derek at

its strongest.

If records show Derek controlled the

money, approved releases, directed the

people doing the work, managed the

infrastructure, personally benefited,

and received Blizzard's warnings, then

this case becomes dangerous for him.

14 [snorts]

mentions can be enough when the evidence

attaches. The count is not the legal

test, no.

The count tells us where to perform the

audit. 196 versus 14.

I took Blizzard's complaint, 51 pages

and 171 numbered paragraphs, and counted

two things. The first

capital D plural word defendants. It

appears 196 times. Then I counted the

surname Powell

in the body of the complaint. That was

14 times. That gap does not mean Derek

wins. Complaints commonly define a group

and use that group throughout the

claims. Plaintiffs also use discovery to

obtain records they do not possess when

the lawsuit begins.

But group language can only take the

case so far. A judgment against Derek

still needs a factual and legal bridge

to Derek. One group word covers

individuals, companies,

alleged developers, support staff,

payment entities, and people with

completely different alleged roles. So,

I went through the Powell reference and

asked one question. What does each one

actually attach to him? The four piles.

The first pile is the job description.

Paragraphs 20 and 49 describe Derek and

Mannion as owners, operators,

administrators, masterminds, if you

will, and the people primarily directing

Project Ascension. Those are powerful

labels.

In court, every leadership verb becomes

a request for records. Directed whom?

Managed which account?

Approved which release?

Supervised which person?

Controlled which server? Collected which

payment? Now, the second pile is the

companies and the money. Blizzard

characterizes several entities as shells

or alter egos used for Derek and

Mannion's benefit. That is Blizzard's

allegation.

It should rise or fall on corporate

records, accounting, processor records,

ownership documents, bank records, and

actual distributions. Gross revenue is

not automatically personal profit.

Corporate money is not automatically

Derek's money. If Blizzard can trace it

to him, show it.

The third pile is the technical

allegation.

Paragraph 66C names Derek, but it names

him inside a group of six people accused

of repeatedly altering the client. The

complaint does not identify a specific

file, commits, date, device, repository,

or individual act by Derek in that

particular paragraph. [music]

Blizzard may obtain those records in

discovery.

If it does,

we follow them.

Right now, the Derek specific questions

are simple. Which file? Which commit?

Which accounts? Which release? Which act

by Derek?

The fourth pile contains three issues

[music] we covered earlier. Support,

donation points, and Blizzard's warning.

I'm keeping them defendant specific

here. Which support message came from

Derek? Which payment account or

distribution benefited Derek? Which

warning reached Derek and what happened

after he received it?

Document 28 proves that Derek has now

acknowledged receipt of the complaint

through the waiver process. It does not

prove he received Blizzard's earlier

warnings before the lawsuit. That

requires the emails, delivery records,

phone records, and response history

Blizzard says exist.

That is the bridge Blizzard still has to

build.

This is Blizzard's own receipt.

Blizzard's early discovery, the filing,

helps explain why that bridge is

incomplete. In document 21, Blizzard

told the court its pre-filing

investigation relied on publicly

[snorts] available information. It said

it did not have internal party or

third-party documents. It said it could

not be certain that every person and

entity was properly named or that it had

identified every necessary defendant.

That is not Blizzard admitting it has no

case. It is Blizzard explaining [music]

why it wants subpoenas.

Discovery is supposed to test

identities, roles, accounts, payments,

and control.

And we already seen

one naming issue develop. That was the

one the complaint named Online

Management Partners as an [music] entity

of unknown form. The new waiver

identifies the responding party is

Online Success Partner doing business as

Online Management Partners, while still

saying the complaint named it

incorrectly. [music]

That does not decide the identity issue.

It shows why exact names and exact

records do indeed matter. Blizzard's

filing is more careful than a lot of the

internet discussion.

It says in effect, we have a theory, we

need records to verify it.

Fair enough. Now we watch whether those

records verify Derek.

Records

both ways.

Here is the scoreboard in both

directions. Blizzard's Derek case gets

stronger if and only if discovery

produces payment records tied to him,

repository or admin access tied to him,

release approvals, server control,

communications where he directs the

proof or the money, and proof that he

received. Blizzard's warnings.

If

so, it gets stronger if those records

connect Derek personally to the alleged

client changes, financial benefit,

inducement, or RICO conduct. The defense

gets stronger if authority sets

somewhere else.

If Derek had no relevant repository

access, no control over the payment

accounts, no authority over the servers,

no personal distributions, no client

commits, or no receipt of the pre-suit

warnings, those facts matter.

The waiver itself answers none of those

questions. It moves us toward the filing

that might.

Well, what happens next? The next

response could be an answer. It could be

a Rule 12 motion challenging

jurisdiction, venue, or the legal

sufficiency of some claims. It could

come before September.

The parties could also agree to more

time, or the court could change the

schedule. An online success partner

previously asked to file a substantive

opposition to Blizzard's early discovery

request by July 10th. So, this docket

needs another check before I record and

before this video goes live.

The important point today [music] is

that four parties have acknowledged the

lawsuit. Derek is one of them, and the

case is moving toward an actual defense

response. So, here is where episode 4

leaves us. Derek Powell has acknowledged

receipt of the lawsuit through a waiver

signed by the same attorney who signed

for three other defendants.

On the current calendar, his response

appears due Tuesday, September 8th.

BlizzCon begins four days later. If that

schedule holds, we may see an answer or

motion during the most important public

week on Blizzard's calendar. And when it

arrives, the question stays the same.

Does the filing address what Derek

personally controlled, directed,

received, knew, or did?

Blizzard wrote defendants 196 times.

Powell appears 14 times in the body of

the complaint. Neither number decides

the case.

>> [music]

>> Records do.

Blizzard named Derek Powell. Now, it has

to prove Derek. One final reminder,

because this episode discusses a real

named person. Analyze the filings. Do

not dox, threaten, contact, brigade, or

publish private information about anyone

involved. Next episode, I want to ask

where Blizzard's protected World of

Warcraft expression ends, and where

shared creative language and player

imagination begin.

Blizzard gets to allege. Blizzard still

has to prove.

Thank you for watching.

>> [music]

[music]

[singing]

[music]

[singing]

[music]

[singing]

[music]

[music]

[music]

>> Wait.