Prenda Law: Let The Other Shoes Hit The Floor


All of my coverage of the Prenda Law saga is collected here.

Last week I described how Prenda Law principals John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer a federal judge's questions about Prenda Law's litigation campaign. I predicted that attorneys defending against Prenda Law cases would begin to use that assertion against Prenda. Behold: they have.

Georgia On Their Mind

We begin in in the Northern District of Georgia, where AF Holdings LLC brought suit against a Mr. Patel. AF Holdings' local counsel voluntarily dismissed the case on March 18 as part of Prenda's wave of dismissals. Too late, too late. Mr. Patel has filed a motion for sanctions. Since AF Holdings had already dismissed, Patel was forced to rely — as I explained — on the court's inherent powers.

Patel's Motion is a blockbuster. It weaves together information and documents from cases across the country to present its argument against Prenda law and its lawyers. The exhibits to the Motion are here: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit I, Exhibit J, Exhibit K, Exhibit L, Exhibit M, Exhibit N,
Exhibit O, and Exhibit P. Among the most notable exhibits are transcripts. Exhibit C is the transcript of the utterly bizarre Florida hearing involving John Steele and Mark Lutz; Exhibit F is a transcript of the jaw-dropping March 11, 2013 hearing before Judge Wright at which Alan Cooper and Brett Gibbs testified, and Exhibit G is a transcript of the April 2 hearing at which Prenda's representatives took the Fifth. These are, on their own, very powerful, for reasons I have discussed before.

But that's not all. Patel has also submitted documents illuminating the conduct and seemingly inconsistent statements of various Prenda Law attorneys. Patel shows a pleading electronically "signed" by "Salt Marsh," one of the elusive figures behind Prenda Law's purported clients — it was also purportedly e-signed by Brett Gibbs. Patel shows that in January 2012, John Steele's attorneys wrote to the Florida State Bar on his behalf representing that "Mr. Steele is actually a client of Prenda — Mr. Steele maintains an ownership interest in some of Prenda's larger clients." It's difficult to reconcile this admission with Mr. Steele's assertion at the April 2 hearing that the attorney-client privilege would prevent him from answering questions about Prenda Law's clients. There's also a rather hilarious quote from a March 15, 2013 email on behalf of Prenda. The Motion doesn't make it clear whether this email was sent by Prenda local counsel or a Prenda principal:

I understand that there is an insane liberal group which is flying around Mr. Alan Cooper for its own benefit. This group is akin to "Anonymous". It doesn't believe in copyright laws. It does believe that computer hacking should be legal. I'm not certain if these southern courts (unlike liberal San Francisco Courts) will hold the same beliefs that this crazy "its ok to hack websites" group holds.

Bear in mind that assertion about the Electronic Frontier Foundation was uttered four days after Alan Cooper testified that his name had been misappropriated by Prenda and that John Steele had left him threatening voice mail messages when he complained. Whoever sent that email either isn't following what is going on, or believes he can bluff it out. Good luck with that.

Patel's motion is well worth reading for anyone interested in an exposition of the growing evidence concerning Prenda Law.

Annoyed In Illinois

Prenda's troubles don't end in Georgia.

In Illinois, Prenda — using its putative client "Lightspeed Media Corporation" — filed state law claims. One defendant — a Mr. Smith — removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. Prenda recently began to retreat in that case — Paul Hansmeier and John Steele moved to withdraw, leaving Paul Duffy holding the bag. Duffy, in turn, dismissed the case during the great strategic repositioning of March 2013. Once again, they were too late.

Smith has filed a motion seeking attorney fees as a sanction. The exhibits to the motion are here: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, and the Forbes article attached as an unlettered exhibit.

Smith is represented, in part, by Jason E. Sweet of Booth Sweet LLP, who also represents Alan Cooper and Paul Godfread in the defamation litigation Prenda recklessly brought against them. Sweet was responsible for what I called a Perry Mason moment during the March 11 hearing; he stood up from the gallery to tell Judge Wright that Brett Gibbs had, in fact, represented himself as "national counsel" for Prenda. Sweet knows the case and knows Prenda, which shows. The Smith motion is a helpful addition to the Patel motion: it focuses more on Prenda's methods of identifying defendants, it attacks Prenda's state law theories, and then it piles on with Prenda's recent misfortunes in courts across the country. A representative sample of the latter:

Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy have orchestrated a nationwide campaign through Prenda Law and other related entities that several courts have found extends beyond vexatious litigation into fraud on the court. For one example that beggars description, Duffy, a prinicpal of Prenda Law, wrote a letter to the court disclaiming any role in representing the plaintiff, a Prenda Law client, though Prenda Law’s local counsel admitted having been retained to represent the plaintiff by Prenda Law principal Brett Gibbs. Hr’g Tr., Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Nguyen, No. 12-cv-1685, pp. 10-12 (M.D. Fl. Nov. 27, 2012) (Exhibit D hereto). Mark Lutz, formerly a Prenda Law paralegal, represented himself as the plaintiff’s “corporate representative,” but conceded that he had no knowledge of the corporate officers and was paid on a contract basis to make courtroom appearances as a corporate representative for Prenda Law plaintiffs, including Hard Drive Productions and Guava LLC. Id. pp. 13-17 (misidentifying Mr. Lutz as “John Lutz”). The Sunlust Court dismissed the case from the bench “for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative.” Id. p. 20. Steele, who happened to be present at the hearing, represented to the Court, “I don’t represent Sunlust or anybody anymore. I no longer actively practice law. … I do appear occasionally at hearings on an ad hoc basis, but I do not have any current clients.” Id. p. 19. (At the time, Steele was listed as lead counsel in this action.)


Prenda's Dilemma

Here's the dilemma of Prenda Law's principals: they can't both take the Fifth and fully respond to motions like these. They can't assert good faith and explain seeming inconsistencies without submitting declarations. If they want to continue to refuse to answer questions, they can only respond with legal arguments and bland generalities.

Paul Duffy has just tried that in San Francisco. In response to a racous motion for fees in an AF Holdings case in the Northern District of California, Paul Duffy has responded with a dry and academic argument about the circumstances in which the Copyright Act permits a court to award fees to a defendant. Duffy's response is not badly written, and doesn't seem to be wrong on the law, but it's not at all the response you'd expect from a lawyer being accused of what amounts to a nationwide criminal enterprise. It's like someone said "Ken, I have it on good authority that you routinely molest squirrels in a public park near your house," and I responded "your accusation is without merit because that park is private."

Paul Duffy, and Prenda Law, might get lucky, and courts might summarily ignore or deny the sanctions and fees motions. But if any judge seeks to make an inquiry even a fraction as involved as Judge Wright has, then Prenda Law and its principals will find themselves choosing between warding off sanctions and maintaining their prudent silence.

This is only the beginning. Stay tuned.

Last 5 posts by Ken White



  1. bonez565  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:40 pm

    How is it possible that this just keeps getting better and better.

  2. John Ammon  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:43 pm

    Well, there goes my productivity…

  3. John Henry  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:44 pm

    Down down down. Prenda's going down.

  4. Andy (not Andy)  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:46 pm

    Thou shalt not piss off the judge too often.

  5. Stephen  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:46 pm

    Dear gods, there is not enough popcorn on Earth to go with this circus.

  6. Steve Simmons  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:47 pm

    The massed response to anything Prenda does has become an exercise in crowdsourcing for lawyers.

  7. MattS  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:51 pm

    To paraphrase a line from a 'B' science fiction movie staring a pro wrestler:

    I come here to eat popcorn and laugh my ass off and I am all out of popcorn.


  8. Jim Tyre  •  Apr 8, 2013 @2:56 pm

    I understand that there is an insane liberal group which is flying around Mr. Alan Cooper for its own benefit. This group is akin to "Anonymous". It doesn't believe in copyright laws. It does believe that computer hacking should be legal. I'm not certain if these southern courts (unlike liberal San Francisco Courts) will hold the same beliefs that this crazy "its ok to hack websites" group holds.

    So nice that Prenda has welcomed us (EFF) to the big leagues! (And so nice that, as always, they're spot-on on the facts.)

  9. Joe Carl White  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:00 pm

    /Howard Cosell voice

    BTW, anyone point out yet that Prenda is an anagram of PA Nerd? Is there a connection to Pennsylvania that we're missing?

  10. Shkspr  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:01 pm

    You should also mention the pejorative use of the word "routinely". I have every confidence that when you molest squirrels, you do so with careful attention to each squirrel's individual needs, varying your repertoire day by day with the mood. There's nothing routine about that, and I support your refutation of that horrible accusation.

  11. Blarf  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:07 pm

    Are these cases sufficiently similar that one of the defendants could seek to create an MDL before Judge Wright? That could be the real way to shut the whole thing down.

  12. Raul  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:11 pm

    Look to AZ (12-cv-2144) for future Prenda problems/hilarity.

  13. ThadCo  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:37 pm

    To me, Prenda's business model amounts to one big RICO act violation.

  14. Lucy  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:40 pm

    Lawyers doing good. Refreshing.

    Crowdsourcing is such a beautiful thing.

  15. Joe Schmoe  •  Apr 8, 2013 @3:59 pm

    understand that there is an insane liberal group which is flying around Mr. Alan Cooper for its own benefit. This group is akin to "Anonymous". It doesn't believe in copyright laws. It does believe that computer hacking should be legal. I'm not certain if these southern courts (unlike liberal San Francisco Courts) will hold the same beliefs that this crazy "its ok to hack websites" group holds.

    Sounds like Paul Hansmier

  16. Mike  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:14 pm

    I should buy stock in some popcorn company. I ran out about 3 articles ago. This is amusing and a great reprieve from the patent troll stories over on Ars. Nothing can get my blood boiling faster than a patent troll sniffing out hard working businesses for an unearned cut of usually slim earnings.

  17. Nate  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:24 pm

    Yay!!! I hope it isn't too wrong to not feel an ounce of pity for these people.
    Squirrels are scary creatures, especially the infamous garbage squirrels. They pop out when you least expect them (kind of like the Spanish Inquisition.)

  18. JLA Girl  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:25 pm

    Oh thank god. I thought I'd have to do something productive for the rest of the day.

    Okay, who's got the popcorn?

  19. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:44 pm

    Oh I missed that Mr. Smith had attached a copy of the Forbes article… so I had gone and written a nice welcome message to the Judge from ILSD.

    And funny that Kash called out my comment so you don't even need to expand the comments on the article to see it.

    More frightening is the idea that this isn't the first time I've written posts welcome Judges. I apologize for my rough tone, and warn them they might see naughty language. I offer up the services of the posters if the Judge/clerk has any questions. We are, afterall, more expert than the standard expert in the copyright trolling cases. It is moments like this that give me the warm fuzzies, seeing the world catch up to what we've been pointing at for a while.

  20. Earle  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:54 pm

    Two words…. Exhibit P

  21. Patrick  •  Apr 8, 2013 @4:54 pm


  22. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:02 pm

    @Earle – its a fun exhibit is it not? John Henry does nice work. I find the cartoons much more entertaining.

  23. xbradtc  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:10 pm

    Exhibit P is epic.

  24. Perfect Stranger  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:12 pm

    This whole fiasco must certainly become required reading for law school.

    I was starting to suffer withdrawal symptoms…..thanx for the fresh fix….

    Sorry for the crudity..but do the players qualify as f*** ups?

    Can it get worse?

  25. Matthew Cline  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:15 pm

    Patel shows that in January 2012, John Steele's attorneys wrote to the Florida State Bar on his behalf representing that "Mr. Steele is actually a client of Prenda — Mr. Steele maintains an ownership interest in some of Prenda's larger clients." It's difficult to reconcile this admission with Mr. Steele's assertion at the April 2 hearing that the attorney-client privilege would prevent him from answering questions about Prenda Law's clients.

    1) Is this getting forwarded to Judge Wright?

    2) Can the January 2012 statement be used to deny attorney-client privilege to Steele, or if there's conflicting statements about privilege does the court default to granting privilege?

  26. Matthew Cline  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:18 pm

    In Exhibit P, why is Lutz wearing ice skates, and why is Gibbs represented by a cat overlaid with a pair of scissors?

  27. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:24 pm

    @Matthew Cline – Lutz as in the Triple Lutz an ice skating move.
    The scissors on the cat had something to do with a neutered cat being called a gibbs or somesuch… its all explained in the cartoons

  28. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:28 pm
  29. Mike  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:33 pm

    Why does Exhibit P look like my niece got a hold of Visio and magically learned how to use it?

  30. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:42 pm

    @Mike – needs more ponies and glitter

  31. Nobody  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:48 pm

    Remind me not to visit any parks, private or otherwise, near Ken's house after dark.

  32. Matthew Cline  •  Apr 8, 2013 @5:58 pm

    From the Patel/Georgia motion, page 11:

    Lutz also testified that he does not work for Prenda, does not “personally” know Duffy, and has never spoken with him. Pages 16-17. Lutz made these statements despite serving as Prenda’s registered agent in Florida since November 9, 2011.

    Page 12:

    However, he subsequently submitted an affidavit in response to a sanctions motion stating that his legal residence was Las Vegas, Nevada. Sunlust.ECF No. 40-5, ¶ 2 (12/20/12). This is significant because three months later Steele would file a declaration stating that he was not subject to jurisdiction in California because his legal residence was Florida. California Action, ECF No. 83, ¶ 3 (3/8/13). And both of these affidavits state that he is “of counsel” to Prenda, which conflicts with his response to the UPL Complaint where he states that he is solely a client of Prenda and Perea’s statement that two of Steele’s companies are clients of Prenda (1/26/12).

    From the Smith/Illinois motion, page 8:

    On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff's process server directed Smith to contact attorney Steele to discuss the case. Exhibit A hereto ¶¶ 6-7. The process server handed Smith a business card with Steele’s phone number on it and told Smith that Steele was an important lawyer from Washington, D.C. who had no interest in the case, but that Steele would be able to help Smith get the situation resolved. Id. To the contrary, that same day, Steele appeared at a hearing in this Court as counsel for Plaintiff. Steele’s name did not appear on the Amended Complaint, so Smith had no documents showing Steele’s true role. See id. ¶ 10.

  33. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @6:01 pm

    If their reputation could not be any worse… *polish polish polish*

  34. Terry Towels  •  Apr 8, 2013 @6:09 pm

    As I started reading this, I realized I'd have to go back to my old logic tools to figure things out. THEN Exhibit P! Thanks for doing the work, Mr. Patel's attorneys. :-D

  35. z!  •  Apr 8, 2013 @6:16 pm

    Ken, it would be great if you listed the title and size of the exhibits next to the link. I really don't need to download a 294 page file to find that I've already read it.

    That said, bring on the popcorn.

  36. Dan Weber  •  Apr 8, 2013 @6:42 pm

    There is blood in the water. The sharks sense it.

    Now all the sharks are attacking.

  37. LawDragon  •  Apr 8, 2013 @7:07 pm

    Have you seen the latest from LA? Prenda filed a long series of declarations in opposition of sanctions which, in my quick and dirty reading, argue that tghe premise of their lawsuits and the reasons for dismissal were a-ok. They don't seem to address the fraud onthe court, however.


  38. That Anonymous Coward  •  Apr 8, 2013 @7:17 pm

    @LawDragon – yeah that isn't going to work. After their someone remove this meanie who is picking on us stunt followed by the well we OBVIOUSLY can't get a fair hearing here I expect that sanctions were in order. It was only as the depth and breadth of the 'fraud' started to come into focus that the Judge got very angry. Now with evidence coming in from across the country in the suits they failed to drop, and those they are being blocked from dropping they are facing a multifront attack.

    The latest filings sound like more 'but we are good lawyers' hand waving hoping they suddenly have jedi powers….

  39. Ken  •  Apr 8, 2013 @7:19 pm

    Post on the new filings coming late tonight.

  40. MCB  •  Apr 8, 2013 @7:31 pm

    I just can't get over this story. This is my favorite news story of the year so far. I mean there are so many layers of flimflam. Thank you so much for posting this Ken, it really brightens my day as I complete my character and fitness paperwork.

  41. Delvan  •  Apr 8, 2013 @7:39 pm

    Exhibit N, bottom of page 9-10 cracking me up. Judge is pestering John Steele Steooe about why an Oregon resident is getting sued in Minnesota by a company not based in Minnesota.

    Court: Okay, so where is Guava, LLC as a limited liability company, where is their headquarters?
    SteeleSteooe: They have an office in Las Vegas. They're also based out of, I believe, they're in Nevis.
    Court: Where is Nevis?
    SteeleSteooe: It's an island in the Caribbean
    Court: As opposed to a little spot in northern Minnesota?
    SteeleSteooe:Correct. Correct, Your Honor, correct.

  42. Andrew  •  Apr 8, 2013 @8:38 pm

    @Delvan: Wow, that exhibit is hilarious. I don't know this particular judge and certainly not the court reporter (and I'm not a lawyer anyway), but I doubt anyone granted a motion to proceed "in forma papyrus." Or does that mean proceeding solely by filing documents on old paper?

    The public view for Minnesota state courts does not have the documents available, but I see that an Order to Show Cause hearing in that case is set for April 23. That sounds fun. Also, I see there is still no answer to Alan Cooper's state court suit against Steele. Unless there is some order or stipulation not shown, they're well into default territory at this point.

  43. doeknob  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:08 pm

    Exhibit N: Page 16.
    Paraphrasing Hasmeier: Well, if our computers are hacked people won't be excited to sign up because their information is at risk.

    O rly?

    PSN Network? Bank of America? Bioware? University of Nebraska? Digital Playground? Zappos? Global Payment Systems? U.S. Bank?

    Those companies still seem to be doing pretty good for themselves after their data breaches. And those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    I get what they're trying to say, but I think out of what I've seen the past two years, people really don't seem to change their consumer habits as a result of hacks

  44. htom  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:24 pm

    I'm so glad I bought the 10 kg bag of popcorn, and a pound of salt. I'm skipping the butter, now.

  45. naught_for_naught  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:29 pm

    I read transcript N, and wow. Either Lynn Burkett is the worst transcriber ever, or English is a second language for the judge and Messrs Steele and Hansmeir. Take a breath. Think about what you're going to say, and then say it using complete sentences — for Christ's sake!

    I don't think it's the transcriber though, because Mr Camaratto was measured and intelligible. S & H were clearly trying to deluge the judge with technical double talk, and for a minute it looked like the waves were cresting over the judge's head. I am somewhat reassured by his ability to do the right thing.

    The read left my reptilian brain wanting some medieval remedy — my higher brain paraphrasing Flannery O'Connor's Misfit in A Good Man is Hard to Find: They would have been good men if someone had been there to shoot them every minute of her lives.

  46. naught_for_naught  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:41 pm

    errp: should read, "…every minute of their lives."

  47. Delvan Neville  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:50 pm

    Oh man, this footnote in page 9 of Smith's Motion for Fees. So, Prenda made a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but it was deemed improper, because the alleged hacking was merely getting access to paid content, and neither resulted in an interruption of service nor damage to integrity of data. The footnote on that reads:

    "Recognizing the omission, Plaintiff belatedly sought to supplement its Amended Complaint by its CEO’s selfserving declaration that “hackers have permanently destroyed Lightspeed’s computer systems.” Doc. 9-1 ¶ 8. But the Amended Complaint itself offered no colorable basis for Plaintiff to allege damage or loss under the CFAA."

    If(or I should say "when"?) Prenda is sitting on the Defendant's side of the coutroom, I'll wager this is another instance of fraud upon the court. If the "hackers" had permanently destroyed computer systems, that would be front page on the initial complaint, rack servers are worth a heck of a lot more than a stolen login to an account that runs $14.99 to maybe $49.99 monthly.

    Its one thing to claim they wiped their hard drives, and I suppose on a *nix system you could run some hardware beyond its design limits with a forged driver if it didn't have any built-in safeguards…but its not the hard drive, because they have a list of IPs that accessed said server, so they ought to be able to present *how* said destruction was done. And…I guess the 31337 hack0rz knew how to break the computer permanently with a forged driver but were too dim to wipe the access logs?

  48. James Pollock  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:54 pm

    If the John Does hire Charles Carreon to represent them, which side do we root for.


  49. James Pollock  •  Apr 8, 2013 @9:59 pm

    Delvan, technically every time a server is accessed, and servicing the request requires access to secondary storage, the server has been "damaged", in the sense that cumulative accesses to secondary storage eventually render the storage device inaccessible. This is true of both rotating media and current solid-state media.
    I don't think I could say that this represents 'damage to the computer systems' in open court with a straight face, but… I could probably write it down and submit it.

  50. Michael K.  •  Apr 8, 2013 @10:13 pm

    Help a layman out – WTF does "Hr'g Tr." mean when you translate it from the Klingon?

  51. DonaldB  •  Apr 8, 2013 @10:26 pm

    The filing by Rosing seems has a series of 'these two parties were not proven to be involved in this part of the fraud and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned'. If you didn't keep track of who was omitted in each claim, you might think that no one was involved in any of it. The final conclusion was 'nothing was proved therefore no one needs to be sanctioned'.

  52. Doug  •  Apr 8, 2013 @11:02 pm

    Where's my squirrel costume?

  53. Delvan Neville  •  Apr 8, 2013 @11:59 pm

    @Micheal K.: "Hearing transcript" perhaps?

  54. Ygolonac  •  Apr 9, 2013 @8:37 am

    Excuse me, I have to pop this butter and pour some popcorn on it…

    And another post following this, too.


  55. Michael Mock  •  Apr 9, 2013 @8:53 am

    "It's like someone said 'Ken, I have it on good authority that you routinely molest squirrels in a public park near your house,' and I responded 'your accusation is without merit because that park is private.'"

    Apropos of nothing, but I pictured you more as the "poisoning pigeons in the park" sort.

  56. earthclanbootstrap  •  Apr 9, 2013 @8:54 am

    @ Michael K. @ Delvan Neville

    "Today is a good day to sue…"

  57. mcinsand  •  Apr 9, 2013 @9:38 am

    Nate, squirrels are nasty, destructive, but intelligent creatures. And, if you cook them correctly (while not thinking about how they're just rats with bushy tails), they taste pretty good. However, I do remember going squirrel hunting as a teen with my father and brother, and I remember how I handled days when I knew I was not going to want to clean the squirrel at the end of the day. I always kept a clip full of hollow points in my pocket; even a .22 hollowpoint doesn't leave much to clean.

  58. perlhaqr  •  Apr 9, 2013 @10:19 am

    Representing Prenda Law with the Sad Panda Face in Exhibit P… OMGWTFBBQ that is so amazingly hilarious. :D

  59. Nate  •  Apr 9, 2013 @12:15 pm

    @mcinsand: Interesting. Can we set the squirrels on Prenda like evil little foot-soldiers?

    Unfortunately, I cannot dispatch the critters myself as I have a self-imposed gun ban, mostly due to lack of knowledge, but a little bit due to lack of appropriate hand-eye coordination and location in large city.

  60. Michael K.  •  Apr 9, 2013 @12:43 pm

    "Hearing Transcript" seems likely, but just in case, I'm running around yelling "HURRRRRGGG TURRRRRRRR!!!" at everyone at the office today.

  61. mcinsand  •  Apr 9, 2013 @1:17 pm

    Nate: All I have is a low-caliber target pistol. All it would do to an intruder is tick them off, if I kept it ready for such an event. Mine is purely for dispatching soda cans, which is a lot of fun and has no need for cleaning the 'critters' at the end of the day. Luckily, my Mom still lives on a large chunk of land.

  62. earthclanbootstrap  •  Apr 9, 2013 @1:43 pm

    @ Michael K.

    "Litigation is a dish best served cold. It is very cold in Minnesota…"

  63. Delvan Neville  •  Apr 9, 2013 @2:14 pm

    Touché, earthclanboostrap. Well done :)

  64. Charlotte  •  Apr 9, 2013 @10:00 pm

    I'm not a lawyer, nor have I worked in law offices, but I *am* a computer systems professional with some training and experience in security and forensics. "Technical double-talk" in an attempt to bamboozle the judge sounds just about right. Holy Toledo!

  65. John Henry  •  Apr 10, 2013 @6:44 pm

    I think exhibit P is most notable. Can I get a witness?

  66. Delvan  •  Apr 10, 2013 @6:47 pm

    Praise Exhibit P, brother! Hallelujah! (that kind of witness?)

2 Trackbacks