Prenda Law's Trip To San Francisco Turns Out Badly

You may also like...

124 Responses

  1. MattS says:

    Damn You! It's past my bed time.

  2. Chris R. says:

    Prenda's problem is somewhere along the line they began to believe their own bullshit. This happens to people who are pathological liars, they start to forget the truth and soon everything they do, everything they say, hell, their entire life, becomes a lie.

  3. Jon says:

    Oh, I'm disappointed. I expected a "Draining the Salt Marsh" subhead for that last section.

  4. MattS says:

    Ken,

    "What can Duffy say under oath, in a declaration, about the Salt Marsh signature without digging himself deeper into this situation?"

    Can he take the fifth in a declaration?

  5. Matthew Cline says:

    That's what the court wants to know: Who actually signed?

    Shouldn't the court try to get as many signatures as possible of people involved in the case (including the signature of Anthony Saltmarsh) in order to compare their signatures with that of Salt Marsh? The signature in and of itself isn't going to tell you anything. Right?

  6. OngChotwI says:


    Cathy:
    Aren't we missing a word where I put the asterix?

  7. MattS says:

    "AF’s current counsel shall also file a declaration with the Court, stating whether it was able to provide a copy of the original document and, if not, why not."

    Paul Duffy's declaration:

    Name: I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions.
    Rank: I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions.
    Serial Number: I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer questions.

  8. OngChotwI says:

    stay discovery to prevent the (ultimately disastrous)*, the court continued:

    (blech.. so much for using blockquote cites.. :) What was the ultimately disastrous (missing word)?

  9. nlp says:

    Oh good. I just bought more popcorn.

  10. Michael S. says:

    Its like over-extending yourself so badly to stop a Zergling rush that you fail to notice the band of Ultralisks heading right at you. Until its too late, and all you've got left is one Ghost and a nuke. And you have one decision.

    Do you launch the nuke and become an agent in your own destruction, or watch helplessly as your demise is swift and final.

  11. Jim Tyre says:

    [Cathy is not a true geek and therefore doesn't know SHODAN. Forgive her. --Ken]

    Cathy, any time you want to sue the pants off of Ken for that incredibly libelous remark, you know where to find me. (Though I'm fairly certain I don't want to see him without his pants.)

  12. BTCG says:

    All I really want to know now is "When is the Wright Stuff gonna show?" That will be the download of the month. It's too bad they don't read out the decisions, like the Supreme Court does.

  13. TomPaine3 says:

    No fan of copyright trolls, but I seem to be missing the point. If a lawyer owns a percentage, even 100%, of a corporation, is that corporation prohibited from retaining that lawyer to bring suit? It looks like Prenda Law went to some lengths to conceal an ownership relation, but why? If the lawyers representing the copyright holder owned all of the shares of that holder, so what? As I say, I feel like I am missing something, maybe something obvious.

  14. MarkH says:

    Gibbs and Duffy are not currently on very friendly terms. If asked, what will Gibbs say?

    He could probably say Attorney Jacques Nazaire was calling the shots. :p

  15. Jim Tyre says:

    All I really want to know now is "When is the Wright Stuff gonna show?" That will be the download of the month. It's too bad they don't read out the decisions, like the Supreme Court does.

    The Supreme Court Justice who writes the majority opinion only reads a summary of it, not the whole thing.

    Long ago and far away (in federal district court in New Jersey, I'm a Californian), the judge did read his entire ruling from the bench. On the face of it, my colleagues and I lost, it was about the most excruciating hour or so I've ever spent in court. (But later, we realized that, in an odd sort of way, we had won.)

  16. MarkH says:

    TomPaine3: As I say, I feel like I am missing something, maybe something obvious.

    I think that part of the issue is then whether the current litigation has any merit, since the legal action could be entirely manufactured and not exist in any true sense except to generate income for the attorneys via settlements.

  17. Palimpsest says:

    I assume Duffy will be shocked, shocked to discover Gibbs forged the signature to what Duffy thought was a person.
    Either that or it's time for them to throw their paralegal under the bus.

  18. GrimGhost says:

    Judge Chen seems surprisingly well informed about what Judge Wright is doing. Sure, it's possible that Chen is just reading newspapers very closely; but it might be the Wright and Chen are talking on the phone or are exchanging emails. In which case, when the Prenderasts stand in front of Judge Wright again, god help them.

  19. MarkH says:

    Either that or it's time for them to throw their paralegal under the bus.

    Is there any room left under the bus? Do its wheels even still reach the ground?

    Do you ever wonder how lumpy the carpet is in their living room, and why the lumps are still squirming? As Ken pointed out before, they still need the lumps in order to show everyone how incompetent their own council and CEO's are.

    This could be resolved if they tried for the higher ground, rather than jockeying for a decent seat under the bus.

  20. MarkH says:

    All this makes Mr. Alan Cooper look pretty sane though. Mr. Cooper obviously wanted to ride in a nice airplane all the way to California, instead of traveling under the bus like the rest of them.

  21. Orville says:

    All of this makes the lack of action from Judge Wright even more exciting. I get the distinct impression that all of the stuff currently happening is building him a bigger and bigger hammer.

  22. princessartemis says:

    Salt Marsh must be one of Skynet's pseudonyms.

  23. Another anonymous NAL says:

    Gah, I'm outta popcorn. Eating potato chips now.

    @MarkH: This is the question at the top of my mind. Prenda's legal gyrations now pretty much resemble what happens when Mom catches more than one kid around an empty cookie jar:

    "Alright, who ate the cookies?"
    "Not me! It was John 'n Paul 'n them."
    "Nuh uh! You did too take a cookie, Brent. I saw you!"
    "Well, John said I could…"
    "No I din't…that cookie was for Alan, so there."
    "So who's Alan?"
    "He goes to another school, Mom. You wouldn't know him…"
    "Okay…" Mom's foot begins to tap. "And what about you, Paul, what have got to say for yourself?"
    "Nothin'."
    "Really? What about all those crumbs down your shirt?"
    "I dunno…ask Brent."
    By this point Mom is headed for the tree in the backyard to find herself a big switch.

  24. LauraW says:

    > Is there any room left under the bus?
    > Do its wheels even still reach the ground?

    I think we're gonna need a bigger bus.

  25. John O. says:

    Michael S.:

    Its like over-extending yourself so badly to stop a Zergling rush that you fail to notice the band of Ultralisks heading right at you. Until its too late, and all you've got left is one Ghost and a nuke. And you have one decision.

    Do you launch the nuke and become an agent in your own destruction, or watch helplessly as your demise is swift and final.

    XD I suggest that Prenda forget about StarCraft and ask Captain James Tiberius Kirk a thing or two about Kobayashi Maru scenarios.

  26. Damian says:

    @TomPaine3,

    I think the problem is that Prenda had a duty to disclose to the courts any interest it held in its putative client plaintiffs and instead they seem to have gone to ridiculous lengths to conceal any such interests. Had they been open and honest about any such interests, I doubt Prenda would be contemplating the shit sandwich currently in the process of being served. Also, isn't it the case that pro se litigants who happen to be attorneys can't recover statutory attorney fees? Seems that would have been part of the motivation to hide a singular interest in the shell corps, that and the whole tax dodging thing…..

  27. anon555 says:

    @tompaine3 – yep, you are missing something (which is totally understandable, it turns on fairly arcane legal rules of ethics) – lawyers are not allowed to acquire a direct interest in the litigation. Whether this is a good rule or not, all of Prenda's shenanigans appear designed to hide the fact that they have violated it.

    The relevant rule of ethics (Model Rule 1.8(j)) reads:

    (i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may:

    (1) acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses; and

    (2) contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.

  28. James Pollock says:

    "If a lawyer owns a percentage, even 100%, of a corporation, is that corporation prohibited from retaining that lawyer to bring suit?"

    The problem isn't that the corporation can't hire the lawyer, the problem is that the lawyer can't accept the representation. One of the rules is that lawyers can't take on clients if the lawyer might have to be a witness in the case. If the lawyer solely owns the client/plaintiff corporation, and any question involving operation or management of the company is implicated in the case (even something as simple as authenticating documents), the lawyer will be called as a witness. Since the whole point of this operation is to generate and pay legal fees, having them go to another lawyer is not ideal.
    Could it be done legally by building a network of clients and a network of lawyers, all cooperating but not in a partnership? Yes… but it would require A) a lot of work, B) payment of taxes.
    How long did they get away with it without anyone looking behind the curtain? That's the beauty of setting up your legal extortion* scheme to prey on people who are not familiar with law.

    * here the word "extortion" is not used as a term of art, but in the ordinary sense of the word.

  29. Brett Middleton says:

    XD I suggest that Prenda forget about StarCraft and ask Captain James Tiberius Kirk a thing or two about Kobayashi Maru scenarios.

    It'll never work. I think a corbomite maneuver is the only way out at this point. Assuming the Prendarians are smart enough to send the message using code 2. Of course, that might render all the courts in California uninhabitable for the next 100 years, so Ken would have to move his practice to some state where ferrets are legal, but he might be considering this anyway since the CA Dept. of Fish and Game says that ferrets are dangerous to small livestock, presumably including ponies.

  30. V says:

    GrimGhost,

    As Mr. Navasca points out, it is telling that, the day after Judge Wright issued his order to show cause, AF and/or Ingenuity began to initiate voluntary dismissal of a number of cases that it had filed in California.

    I haven't read the other filings in that case, but based on the above Navasca could have pointed out judge Wright's orders.

  31. lakonislate says:

    I just realized that Salt Marsh sounds a lot like Stan Marsh.

    So my theory is that a bunch of guys got together, possibly in a treehouse, to think up schemes to make them all rich, while South Park was on in the background.

    (Yes, of course the treehouse has a widescreen TV. Duh.)

  32. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I was actually hoping for "I left my Marsh in San Francisco" myself.

    But I'm having second thoughts on my previous analysis of motivation.

    I still think Duffy can and should largely weasel out of this, as long as he makes sure that the only bagholders are AF Holdings and perhaps Prenda law (and perhaps Gibbs, since the Salt Marsh Signature Event was when Gibbs was lead. Judge Chen's courtroom has been bereft of bus tossing so far…).

    But I now think Duffy might very well Go Carreon.

    If indeed Duffy is still sending demand letters and has trouble paying his mortgage, he might actually be like Carreon: judgement proof.

    And beware the judgement proof attorney who's effectively (or actually) his own client.

  33. JT says:

    The only way to win Kobayashi Maru is to cheat, so it seems the players are already oriented to that scenario.

  34. James says:

    Shortly after the recent Mark Lutz declaration I spotted this in the personals section of Craigslist.org.

    "Single white male executive employed in the movie industry seeking fecund white female with porn star looks (acting and legal experience not necessary) biologically capable of producing offspring. I can guarantee our children will be well provided for financially as I have already established trust funds for this purpose.

    I enjoy romantic dinners, nude performance art, and long walks on the beach preferably in a Caribbean location. Reply with photo and proof of fertility."

  35. Alex says:

    What I want to know is how many ponies did Cathy have to pay to guest post.

  36. @JT: It's not "cheating". He "changed the conditions of the test".

  37. Jay says:

    I wonder if Gibbs will be hauled in to answer for the signature on the Rule 16 statement (the Salt Marsh signature). My prediction, of course, is that the signature will be illegible. If done properly, it would bear the signature of the Trustee of the Salt Marsh trust for the benefit of the unborn Lutzes. (No idea how the Rule Against Perpetuities works in Nevis).

    Interesting that the Judge invited, in effect, a fee motion from Navasca's counsel. I'm waiting for the first real fee order, with an execution or order of receivership. Like in Righthaven, they could sell off whatever IP rights AF Holdings might have.

    I'd like to see further exploration of Ingenuity 13's structure, since most of the investigation has been into AF Holdings.

  38. Duncan Byers says:

    So was the 30(b)(6) deposition in the Navasca case ever taken?

  39. Kat says:

    @Matthew Cline: No, I think Judge Chen ordered that because he doesn't expect them to be able to come up with it at all. I think he expects that they're going to have another 'whoopsie' moment and claim that their dog ate it, or something.

    It'll open them up to all sorts of fun legal consequences if they can't produce original documents required by the court!

  40. Kat says:

    @Duncan Byers: Yes, it was, it was the disastrous 205-page deposition where Hansmeier whined about not being prepared and Gibbs objected to almost every question.

  41. Duncan Byers says:

    @Kat: OH, that's right – thanks. In my mind I had placed that depo in Judge Wright's case and not this one.

  42. bkd69 says:

    Grimghost and Jay are both touching on the two questions I'm curious about.

    First, how common is it for judges to keep abreast of the activities of the attorneys appearing before them in various other jursidictions? I realize that Prenda's an exceptional case, and the vast majority of cases coming before judges, while terribly important to the principals, are simply routine everyday affairs to the judges hearing them. But how often does some case or attorney rise to enough prominence that a judge will start talking to other judges about their behavior, and the cases appearing in other jurisdictions?

    And as far the Salt Marsh signature issue, am I correct in assuming, that failure to produce an individual who can cop to signing what amounts to terms of service document offers the judge the opportunity to exercise his courtroom disciplinary options that were laid out in the earlier posting about Judge Wright's options with regard to Prenda Law?

  43. BTCG says:

    You know, reading the two cases side by side, it looks like a bad cop/badder cop routine, starring Judges Wright and Chen. Of course, it's only the accident of timing and the synergistic effects of the two cases reaching maturity at the same time.

  44. John Henry says:

    "Prenda was also unwilling to appeal the order requiring it to post the undertaking despite being given ample opportunity to."

    It was not just that they did not appeal, but that the judge indicated that any appeal must contain a showing that they cannot pay the $50k. That would mean opening the books.

    (EDIT: I mean, opening the spreadsheet)

  45. Dyspeptic Curmudgeon says:

    " Given that Prenda Law has been unable to substantiate who that someone is, all of these cases have become suspect on that basis. "

    So here's an interesting hypothetical. The Prendarasts try the 'my dog ate the Certification' defence. Duffy files his affidavit saying that Gibbs witnessed the 'signing'. Pot Kettle Bus.

    A so-far unresponsive defendant in one of the *unexpectedly* dismissed actions, moves to have the dismissal set aside so they can file a defence, even if late on the grounds that the person or persons unknown who executed the Request for Dismissal (or whatever it is called) were not authorized and had no standing to submit the form. As a result the defendant is prejudiced by the filing of a forged document.

    In fact, that defendant could likely move for that relief directly (as a highway stairway to heaven) for sanctions against the plaintiff/counsel for abuse of process (that is, for commencing an extortionate lawsuit without having *any* standing). The fact that the defendant was served, had to retain counsel yadda yadda *is* prejudice if the action is not only meritless but baseless (pun intended).

    Anyone have any thoughts on the likelihood/chances of prevailing on this in front of Wright or Chen?

  46. Gardner says:

    This whole Prenda soap opera is truly fascinating. Thanks to all the Popehat writers for presenting it in such an interesting and engaging format.

    From the kinds of things that Judge Wright and now Judge Chen are saying, it seems like they suspect that Prenda is attempting to defraud the court.
    Do these judges, and maybe others that Prenda appears before talk to one another? Are they allowed to compare notes regarding the different aspects of Prenda's evident shenanigans, or is there an iron curtain between them? Are the judges able to take advice — maybe by reading Popehat — as to what questions have to be answered or what documents produced? Can they make their own determination or are they hamstrung by the motions before them?

    I'm curious how the investigation of a fraud against the court works. Are the judges involved able to make a finding of this sort themselves? If the problem is not simple contempt of court, I would assume not. But who does investigate, charge and try this sort of thing? Is fraud against the court common, such that there is lots of examples to look at?

    If Prenda goes down with some sort of fraud finding, can all the prior victims come after the carcass with their own claims? Could there be a class action?

    At this point, it looks like the various Prenda lawyers involved are mostly open to professional sanctions of some sort. Do we think they'll be disbarred? How does that work?

  47. Michael Mock says:

    @ Jon – "Oh, I'm disappointed. I expected a 'Draining the Salt Marsh' subhead for that last section."

    I was hoping for Module U1: The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, myself… but that's mainly my inner old-school AD&D nerd coming to the surface.

  48. Darryl S says:

    Cathy wrote: If AF’s current counsel does not have the original document, then it must contact former counsel to obtain the document.

    Ken added: What can Duffy say under oath, in a declaration, about the Salt Marsh signature without digging himself deeper into this situation?

    Could Duffy simply say "I contacted former counsel (i.e. Gibbs) and they refused to / were unable to provide the document"? If that were really the case, would Duffy bear any responsibility for it? It puts all the blame on Gibbs, but if Duffy's not getting along with him right now anyway (I've lost track), then why not?

    (And thanks to Cathy for another fascinating post!)

  49. Spindizzy says:

    Prenda have fooled you all from the beginning. Before this all started they cornered the world popcorn market and now you've fallen for their *real cunning plan* – like anyone could be as incompetent as they appear in real life.

  50. Niall says:

    Forget popcorn or chips. This has gone to the Good Stuff: Valrhona Ampamakia dark chocolate. Expensive, but you nibble a bit at a time, and it makes the pleasure last… long enough to read each engrossingly-entertaining popehat-and-sundry-linked articles. (thus, less fattening than popcorn!)

  51. Ygolonac says:

    So, the judge has ordered the original document to be produced.

    How dismayed were the Prendateers when they looked over at the 55-gallon drum full of still-smouldering ashes?

  52. Chris Simmons says:

    A plaintiff cannot invoke the benefits of the judicial system without being prepared to satisfy its obligations as a litigant.

    … So beautiful.

  53. Peter says:

    I too am curious about what if any communication between Judges Wright and Chen would be permissible, but I don't think they need to be in direct conversation for anything that's in Judge Chen's ruling here to be supported. Everything Judge Chen said can come from the PACER filings and transcripts of the proceedings in Judge Wright's courtroom, which of course he is free to peruse as are all members of the public. And peruse them we have, to great merriment.

  54. anonymous says:

    And yet Paul Duffy continues to send out demand letters. Amazing.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/137660162/Duffy-Demand

  55. MattS says:

    anonymous,

    From the letter you linked to, Mr Duffy is calling himself an attorney and counselor at law. I think Mr Duffy needs to consult a counselor (of the psychiatric variety).

  56. TexasAndroid says:

    And yet Paul Duffy continues to send out demand letters. Amazing.

    They need to find somewhere to get the money to pay off the judgements that appear to be lining up against them.

  57. Kensington says:

    @Spindizzy:

    John Steele as David Xanatos? Damn you… Now I can't picture Steele without imagining him speaking with Will Riker's voice.

  58. James says:

    What I find more interesting is that the Duffy Law Group LLC was involuntarily dissolved by the Secretary of State (IL) six days before that letter went out. So how would someone, as a threatened potential defendant, reply to a letter from a legal entity that no longer exists and can't possibly represent the entity it purports to represent? Is Prenda about to be sucked into a void in the time-space continuum like a in rerun of The Twilight Zone?

    Forget the popcorn, I need some aspirin.

  59. SJD says:

    Anonymous, MattS, TexasAndroid: it's more than that. Duffys Law Group does not exist. Read my post where this document was embedded (Nicholas weaver linked to it above).

  60. Anonymous says:


    What If I do fight your client?

    Certainly, you are entitled to hire an attorney and fight the case all the way through trial. Our firm is famous for pursuing these cases and this matter will be followed closely in the national media. Indeed, several websites publish every pleading filed in every one of our clients' actions. Your name will forever be associated with the outcome of the matter, particularly if you prevail. In making this decision we again strongly encourage you to seek qualified legal assistance. Your friends, family members and blog sites are not reliable sources of legal advice.

    Wow, and that is what he's drafting while being represented by an expert in professional ethics, after his law firm suffered involuntary dissolution.

    Keep it classy, legal profession.

  61. ZarroTsu says:

    Clearly the next logical (and I use 'logical' in the same context as I'd use 'speech' to describe flatulence) step in the Prenda process is for them to forge a signature and present it as straight-faced as possible. After that, the only place left to really go with the theme of this blog is attempting to sue the judge for defamation.

  62. z! says:

    It's never good when a decision reads: "The Court finds neither argument availing."

  63. whheydt says:

    There have been some questions raised (and, so far unanswered) in this thread about what happens if the original document is not brought to Judge Chen.

    What if Duffy says, "Gibb has it and won't give it to me"?

    What happens if Gibbs (finding out about what Duffy said) says, "I don't have and never did have the document. I was *told* by Duffy, Steele and Hansmeir that it's in the Prenda Law files."

    After what happened in Judge Wright's courtroom, I would imagine that Judge Chen would issue an order that all of them show up _in_person_ to explain…and they'd likely all plead the 5th again.

  64. Clownius says:

    @ZarroTsu

    They could try the we want a new judge because you suggested we may be doing the wrong thing defence again.

    But the sue the Judge for Defamation defence sounds more likely from these AssClowns. They do enjoy digging it seems

  65. MattS says:

    ZarroTsu,

    No, the next step is to produce an original signed exactly the same way as the e-filed version then claim that St. Nevis law allows this and since the trust is based in St. Nevis, the judge has to accept it that way.

  66. Niall says:

    Indeed, several websites publish every pleading filed in every one of our clients' actions.
    Ooo, the gigantic brass balls in play here. They simply omitted "showing our clients don't exist and we don't have a chance of winning" from that sentence; not much of any importance, really…

  67. Anonymous says:

    Niall, don't forget to give them bonus points for try to spin it as worse if you prevail! Like someone should feel humiliated for being on record slapping down a fraudulent, vexatious lawsuit from a firm that should not even be doing business!

  68. Anonymous says:

    Duffy will create quite a morass if he tries to play the "Gibbs said he had it!" game. Gibbs testified under oath that he never had direct contact with clients and weaseled out of his claim to have an original, signed and notarized copy of a document in the Ingenuity case by claiming "plaintiff's counsel" meant the Big Leaguers at Prenda Law, Inc. and not Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.

    Not that I take anything they say at face value, but seeing how Duffy took the fifth in Wright's courtroom, putting something new on the record here would be a risk, and unless he decides to start talking, saying something like "Gibbs won't give it to me, and now I take the fifth!" will make things pretty awkward, because the only evidence we have of the Gibbs/Prenda/Client communications chain is Gibbs' sworn testimony. Gibbs has managed to look inherently more credible than the rest of them because he did answer Wright's questions and has continued to make sworn statements; even if he is dumb/ballsy enough to perjure himself he has stuck his neck out and explained his behavior, compared to the other guys being 100% evasive and unwilling to directly contradict any of the claims made against them.

    If Duffy sticks with a No New Information strategy and there is no original document, it will indeed be interesting to see what the play is. Will they cook up a document this weekend and hope it passes muster? Will Duffy take the fifth and brace himself for the sanctions/fees award and the risk of triggering another inquisition? Will he turn around and try to pass blame to the "client"?

  69. Matthew Cline says:

    Why would Gibbs have a copy? Is a lawyer supposed to keep a copy of everything he signs?

  70. Nicholas Weaver says:

    The "Salt Marsh" document has an electronic "signature", basically "/s/ Salt Marsh" written in the signature line.

    IF the lawyer is filing for someone else, the lawyer is supposed to actually get it signed and keep it on file for at least a year after the case ends in order to show that the document was actually signed.

    This is bad news for Duffy, because a trust can't sign a document. Someone can sign on behalf of the trust, but that would be something like "/s/ Mark Lutz" on behalf of the "Salt Marsh Trust" or "AF Holdings LLC" or "The Alan Cooper Problem, The Rockenist Band in the Northern Circuit of California".

    Duffy can try to say Gibbs should have this, but Gibbs will undoubtedly reply that "nu-uh, I just got it from the Prenda bosses: Duffy, Hansmeier, and Steele".

    Duffy can instead try to say the dog ate it, but that leads to the negative inference that "This document was a fraud on the court, and more so this means there was never an independent client LLC".

    Finally, Duffy can present a document signed in proper fashion, and try to say "Gibbs screwed up, he should have written /s/ Mark Lutz, on behalf of Salt Marsh Trust". This might actually be the best strategy, if Gibbs can't contradict it. And hey, how is anyone going to prove that its forged?

    Still not a pretty little document, but Lutz is NOT a lawyer at Prenda or a predecessor in interest.

    Since Duffy's goal should be to make sure that any fees are paid by "AF Holdings LLC" ONLY, this might still work.

  71. MattS says:

    Nicholas Weaver,

    Duffy can also try to show up with a physical document signed exactly the same way and try to make the case that the judge has to accept it because the trust is in St Nevis and it's legal in St Nevis for a trust to sign legal documents that way.

    Not saying it will work, but don't underestimate their creativity.

  72. Matthew Cline says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    IF the lawyer is filing for someone else, the lawyer is supposed to actually get it signed and keep it on file for at least a year after the case ends in order to show that the document was actually signed.

    But so far as I'm aware, the document with "/s/ Salt Marsh" was filed in the regular course of submitting corporate paperwork to the government, rather than as part of a particular court case. So for how long is a lawyer supposed to keep hold of that? And, similarly, who at AF Holdings should have kept a copy, and for how long?

  73. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Matthew: Nope. This is a document saying "Yes, I read this info about the dispute procedures", signed by BOTH the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney:

    (RECAP link) http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.8.0.pdf

    Its not just some random document, but something specifically filed in this case, signed by "Salt Marsh".

  74. MattS says:

    Nicholas Weaver,

    Yes, but "Salt Marsh" is a trust in St Nevis. I'm not trying to say the argument will fly with a US court, but don't put it past the Prenda Posse(TM) to try it.

  75. Matthew Cline says:

    Nicholas Weaver: Oh, huh. For some reason I thought it was the type of thing an LLC had to submit when it incorporated, or something.

  76. Tim Kramer says:

    I'm beginning to think that this whole story line is a hoax, perpetuated by Ken, to prop up the popcorn industry (I'm out)(again). Anyone know if Ken has connections with the corn-growers or dairy farmers?

  77. Anon says:

    @Nicholas Weaver: "Finally, Duffy can present a document signed in proper fashion, and try to say "Gibbs screwed up, he should have written /s/ Mark Lutz, on behalf of Salt Marsh Trust". This might actually be the best strategy, if Gibbs can't contradict it. And hey, how is anyone going to prove that its forged?"

    The problem with that approach is that I'm pretty sure this ADR document was filed in *multiple* cases (PACER shows 30 AFH lawsuits in CAND). It wouldn't be just a one-off mistake.

  78. Jim Tyre says:

    I'm beginning to think that this whole story line is a hoax, perpetuated by Ken, to prop up the popcorn industry (I'm out)(again). Anyone know if Ken has connections with the corn-growers or dairy farmers?

    Ever seen the movie Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd and others? Word on the street is that it's Ken's favorite movie, particularly the dealings in orange crop futures. (But substitute corn crop here.) Whether Ken most admires the Duke Brothers, Billy Ray Valentine or Winthorpe is an exercise best left to the reader.

  79. naught_for_naught says:

    @Jim Tyre

    The big take away from that movie is the fact that Karate Men bleed on the inside.

  80. AlphaCentauri says:

    If these guys get disbarred — I mean, when these guys get disbarred — might they just purchase citizenship in St. Kitts & Nevis through its "Citizenship by Investment" program, and then become lawyers serving people who want to set up shell companies there?

    I don't believe for a minute that they can't access the money they've collected from the John Does. They just can't move it to the US very easily now.

  81. Another anonymous NAL says:

    I'm still not understanding the reasoning behind Duffy's continuing to send out demand letters. I get the idea of scraping up cash to either pay some debts or run away from them, but not the rest of it.

    @James 11:00am says this:

    That's confirmed in the link @Nicholas Weaver mentions here:

    If indeed Duffy is still sending demand letters and has trouble paying his mortgage, he might actually be like Carreon: judgement proof.

    So my question is, how on earth can Duffy possibly collect from those demand letters and spend the money, without impoverishing Mark Lutz' unborn offspring, or landing back in court for fraud? And if people are paying off those letters, to whom are they sending the money?

  82. Another anonymous NAL says:

    Sorry, bad coding on my part….here's both quotes:

    I'm still not understanding the reasoning behind Duffy's continuing to send out demand letters. I get the idea of scraping up cash to either pay some debts or run away from them, but not the rest of it.

    @James 11:00am says this:
    What I find more interesting is that the Duffy Law Group LLC was involuntarily dissolved by the Secretary of State (IL) six days before that letter went out. So how would someone, as a threatened potential defendant, reply to a letter from a legal entity that no longer exists and can't possibly represent the entity it purports to represent?

    That's confirmed in the link @Nicholas Weaver mentions here:


    If indeed Duffy is still sending demand letters and has trouble paying his mortgage, he might actually be like Carreon: judgement proof.

    So my question is, how on earth can Duffy possibly collect from those demand letters and spend the money, without impoverishing Mark Lutz' unborn offspring, or landing back in court for fraud? And if people are paying off those letters, to whom are they sending the money?

  83. Lucy says:

    This new development of a defense lawyer, Urbancyzk, agreeing to a broad discovery for isp, leaves many interesting theories to be considered. None of which would include that he is actually a defense lawyer, but in bed with Prenda. There is even speculation that because this is a civil matter, that the defendant is fabricated so Urbancyzk can agree to terms that would open the door for new shakedowns.

    Interesting read.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/prendas-last-stand-threats-sprawl-from-a-minnesota-hacking-lawsuit/

  84. James says:

    @AlphaCentauri

    Sure, they can buy citizenship in Nevis but they will still owe Uncle Sam and that tax liability follows them for life until paid in full (with interest). Nevis is a nice little spot but do they really want to live in exile knowing that they will be arrested at the border the second they try and enter the United States?

    The other flaw in your suggestion is that the competition for setting up shell companies in Nevis and similar off-shore jurisdictions is highly competitive. It usually runs about $200 plus first year franchise taxes and some filing fees. You have to create a lot of shells at $200 a pop to cover your overhead and still make a decent living. These guys seem to be as allergic to performing actual work as they are being candid in court so I am not sure how that would work out for them.

  85. Duncan Byers says:

    While I'm a huge fan of these discussions, and commend everyone at Popehat for their work in keeping these issues under a spotlight (as well as all of the thoughtful commentators), I'd just like to point out that I think we all know the principles and related actors in this drama must be monitoring all of this. I think it's self-evident from statements that have been made. And even without any evidence that this WAS being monitored, I know I would monitor if I were in their shoes.

    That being said, is it really a good idea to throw out suggestions for their strategy and then handicap the ideas? I'm not ashamed to get ideas from elsewhere, and unless they are completely isolated from considering others' thoughts by hubris, they would likely at least consider the postings while they're deciding the next course of action.

    But that's just me. I try to avoid educating the opposition until it's necessary.

  86. MattS says:

    AlphaCentauri,

    "I don't believe for a minute that they can't access the money they've collected from the John Does. They just can't move it to the US very easily now."

    Is there any evidence aside from their own claims that they have in fact collected any settlements?

  87. Anonymous says:

    @Duncan Byers,

    I appreciate the sentiment, but from going on two years of experience, these guys are too stupid or arrogant to consider our advice worth following. They have known for some time that their every move is watched and reported and look at the parade of blunders they continue to make. We have called many of Steele and Co's moves and not only did he not learn, but had an awful habit of bragging and telegraphing his next move to make it even easier for us. As just one example, the community was buzzing about Alan Cooper for months before a judge granted a defendant discover relating to the Alan Cooper documents. They knew defendants would be using it, Steele knew it was a weakness, and look at the proceedings in Wright's court. They did absolutely nothing to try to get their story straight or prepare for damage control.

    "Completely isolate from considering others' thoughts by hubris" sounds like the perfect description.

    @Lucy,

    Urbanczyk's shenanigans are not new, but Duffy doubling-down on cases involving Urbancyzk even after the last Wright hearing has put them back in the spotlight. There is a smoking gun in these cases; one of the "defendants" filed an affidavit stating he made an agreement with Prenda to be sued and to provide them with information about other potential defendants, and that Prenda referred him to an attorney to act as his "defense" (not Urbanczyk in this case, Trina Morrison but it sounds like maybe she was duped too). Urbanczyk's cases follow the same playbook, and he is also a bit of a suspicious character because in spite of blogging about and "defending" many cases I don't believe he has ever been proactive (i.e. filing a motion to quash subpoenas, answering a complaint, motion to dismiss, filing counterclaims, etc.). In fact I think the only filings he has ever made are these agreed orders, and he was previously known to encourage settlement.

    This is an article about the Doe who admitted to collusion with Prenda, needless to say all the Guava, Arte de Oaxaca, and LW cases, especially anything that now has Duffy Law Group's name on it, is very suspicious:

    http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/01/25/breaking-a-defendant-in-a-guava-sham-lawsuit-has-admitted-that-he-was-blackmailed-into-participating-in-a-fraud/

  88. Niall says:

    I think the best and most lucrative quick-money idea they can take from these discussions is to buy snack food company stock…

  89. Anonymous says:

    @MattS

    They have certainly collected settlements, but I think Steele has vastly exaggerated the amount and I'll bet it's nowhere near $15,000,000, probably not even "a few million." Maybe a few hundred thousand.

    I think there was great initial success with the first few cases due to shock and awe vs. ignorant laypeople and a court system new to their methods, but once news and blogs started covering the cases, Does started hiring attorneys, and judges started scrutinizing the pleadings there were very few of the voluntary dismissals with prejudice that are telltale signs of settlement.

    I also believe that if it was a good, sustainable business model they would have maintained and indeed added real clients to their portfolio, but instead they ended up having to manufacture clients. Of course, the fake plaintiffs have tax and control advantages, but I still believe that if they had a viable business model it would not have ended up that way.

    They were also never willing to take a case anywhere near trial, were never willing to push, cried poverty when AF and Ingenuity were required to post bonds in CA, basically their actions never demonstrated confidence in their approach.

    We also know John Steele is a master of braggadocio, hubris, and is completely full of shit. So I consider any of his claims regarding Prenda's success to be marketing BS.

    What may end up being funny and ironic, is with their apparent complete lack of record keeping backed up by public bragging about how much money they raked in, if and when the authorities ask for an accounting of the settlements and where the money went all that BSing will only have dug them a deep, deep hole.

  90. Duncan Byers says:

    @anonymous – I was fairly certain that was the case, but…..this is also the first time that they're really looking down the barrel of some bad juju AND potentially losing the $ they've earned. It's also the litigator in me speaking. :)

    And by the way, assuming that they are either slow or stupid is a bad move as well. The latest business model is taking this out of federal court and moving into state court using claims that they own a gateway to put together purchasers and owners of adult material, and that defendants have been "breaking into" their computers to steal material. I won't expound on the additional problems this raises in defending against the claims, but will note that all of this is going to continue until somebody unravels the whole thing in a single action. It's going to be doubly difficult given that, in my experience, when they are faced with counsel on the defense telling them to go pack sand, they just simply seem to forget about going after that particular client and the case is eventually just voluntarily dismissed.

  91. Nick says:

    @Duncan Byers — I take the position that they are beyond the event horizon as it is, so posting here to offer potentially helpful tactics is really quite harmless. More or less just people offering suggestions on where to put the deck chairs, not how to patch the hull. I think Wright alone will crush them into the legal version of a quantum singularity.

  92. Duncan Byers says:

    @Nick – oh, I think Judge Wright is shall we say "not pleased?" Something about messing with a federal judge/former Marine just strikes me as….well, suicidal. But I disagree that they are beyond the event horizon. Any action taken by Judge Wright will be somewhat limited in scope of necessity. What is in the future, I hope, is an unraveling of the whole structure, top to bottom, including all of the players who are NOT involved in the California matter.

    I'm waiting until I can announce that "The Game is Afoot." Or "Stand by For Heavy Rolls as the Ship Comes About."

  93. James says:

    I am a bit baffled by the action in Illinois state courts. The St. Clair county venue they have picked is notorious, but how long before they screw up and serve somebody who is not a resident of Illinois while asserting potential damages in excess of $75K. As I recall removal to federal court is non-appealable and non-reversible so long as the defendant can show diversity and clears the monetary hurdle.

    I can understand beating up on porn downloaders from Chicago, but isn't this a dumb move?

  94. Anonymous says:

    Wow, interesting post on Fight Copyright Trolls regarding Prenda's ongoing settlement efforts. Is this ethical behavior?


    by Jeffrey Antonelli

    We have also had a report from someone stating they were contacted by LW Systems recently who actually refused to give their name.

    While this might be overlooked as a calling center security issue (viewed in the best light), this person was told when asked what exactly he is accused of doing, “you know what you did.”

    If this is true as reported to us, it is concerning.

  95. AlphaCentauri says:

    @MattS, I have no direct evidence. But I do know how easy it is to get people to part with their money over the internet, and how credulous can be. People have way too much faith in the legal system's ability to prevent fraud. Prenda has been targeting homes with young males, but in many cases the internet subscriber is the parent. The parent may not know much about computers and may have no idea there are forums full of Does exchanging information. If they did any investigation at all, it would be to check to make sure it's a "real" law firm. They'll just pay up, assuming a lawyer wouldn't be allowed to send a letter like that on his business letterhead if it wasn't true.

  96. Vicki says:

    I hope never to be stuck making this choice, but it doesn't seem that odd that someone might decide that exile in Nevis was better than n years in a federal penitentiary, if those looked like the two available options.

  97. Dr. Wu says:

    So Judge Chen gave the Prendators all of five days to come up with a somewhat-less-bullshit origin myth regarding Mr. Marsh? Now that's the kind of nearly-instant gratification I've been craving. It's almost as if the judiciary acknowledges our need for low-cost entertainment.

  98. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @AlphaCentauri – And people assuming a lawyer can't mislead them is the part that drives me batty. They might reach out to friends or family to get help getting information, but they run into more people who assume the lawyer was telling the truth and their friend/family member is a sicko porn stealing thief.
    Because 'piracy' is stealing, its just like you broke into a real world store and stole things off the shelf. Except it is nothing like that, but that is the image portrayed all the time – in court, in a majority of the media, in court documents…

    Funny how the image of people bending the law into pretzels, lying in court, and pursuing people who might not be guilty isn't as popular.
    Bending – Prenda
    Lying in Court – Evan Stone
    Not Guilty – An admitted at least 30% error rate, and people dropped from cases when they were photogenic enough to get the media to ask questions…

  99. Duncan Byers says:

    @AlphaCentauri – and THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why attorneys acting badly is such a heinous thing. We are the gateways to the legal system, officers of the court, and sworn to (at least somewhat) high ethical standards. Attorneys should be severely punished for such actions because the general public places such significant trust in what we do and who we are. I personally have no sympathy for any attorneys who even push the lines of ethical/illegal behavior, let alone intentionally and callously misuse their position for personal gain. I'm not perfect and Lawd knows I've made mistakes. But these aren't simple mistakes or misunderstandings. And I certainly don't expect them to walk into the court and say "your Honor, I screwed up. Tell me what you need me to do to rectify the problem."

  100. Anonymous says:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/138155511/AF-Holdings-v-Navasco-Prenda-Request-for-Extension-of-Time

    And Duffy takes The Fifth again. Basically puts it on Gibbs and says he can't get in contact with Gibbs because Gibbs is on his honeymoon.

    Would any of the lawyerly types care to speculate on why Duffy makes no mention of any attempts to contact AF Holdings or Salt Marsh directly? I mean, AF is the plaintiff after all, why couldn't Duffy ask them for a copy or at least ask them to ask Salt Marsh (their supposed owner) to provide it? Shouldn't Duffy be expected to contact the plaintiff he represents? Why would he not even ask AF to produce the document? Does he think the judge is going to let him pretend he can only represent AF by attempting to use their former counsel as a go-between? Why would Duffy want to cover up for his client if Gibbs and the client were involved in some sort of attempt to defraud the court?

    This seems like an awfully transparent and negligent ploy to stall for time and avoid responsibility. I hope Chen doesn't buy it, and given that he was savvy enough to put Duffy in the pickle, I doubt he will.

  101. Anonymous says:

    Well played.

  102. James says:

    @Anonymous

    Shouldn't Prenda have it? Certainly Gibbs is local counsel, but did he get the authorization from the client to file or did Prenda/Duffy do that and instruct his junior to do the filing? And did he have to wait until the 11th hour on a Friday to ask for the extension when Wexler responded on Tuesday? While I suppose it is PLAUSIBLE that Gibbs did the heavy lifting I rather doubt it.

    Is Gibbs taking his honeymoon in Nevis? :-)

    Speaking of the 5th it is Friday evening and Mr. Lem Motlow's fine product awaits.

  103. Anonymous says:

    @James,

    I caught that too.

    Duffy is attempting to play it like Gibbs was not employed by the law firm that he owns. Yeah, OK, Gibbs is offsite and hypothetically may have some paperwork that hasn't been transferred to Duffy. If Prenda were a much larger firm I could see it being possible for lawyers to take over each other's cases and not really know what's going on. But with Duffy being the only lawyer that anyone seems to be willing to admit works for Prenda in anything but a 1099 capacity, and since Duffy owns the firm and thus ought to be responsible for and knowledgeable regarding Prenda's litigation activities, it is really stunning to see him distance himself even further from running his own business, which makes the whole arrangement look that much less credible especially with Gibbs' testimony that S&H were really calling the shots.

    I'm also surprised by the suggestion that this is related to the Wright inquisition and also a criminal matter. As this is a different plaintiff and different potentially-forged document than the Wright case that seems like a damning admission and maybe made the mistake of adding New Information into the mix.

    I find it very interesting and probably highly suggestive that Duffy is not passing the buck to AF or throwing them under the bus, just as he has not done so in the case before Wright. There must be a very good reason for that, i.e., nobody wants to draw more attention to those entities, or Duffy has been offered plenty of "incentives" to try to draw fire from the plaintiff entities.

  104. Matthew Cline says:

    Would any of the lawyerly types care to speculate on why Duffy makes no mention of any attempts to contact AF Holdings or Salt Marsh directly? I mean, AF is the plaintiff after all, why couldn't Duffy ask them for a copy or at least ask them to ask Salt Marsh (their supposed owner) to provide it?

    Hmmm, might Lutz of Duffy claim "AF Holdings didn't keep any copies of legal documents which were handled by Gibbs, because we were counting on Gibbs to store those legal documents for us"?

  105. Matthew Cline says:

    From Duffy's filing:

    I am advised by counsel that the order of the Court in this matter to produce documents … concerning AF Holding, LLC's original ADR certification implicates the same issues currently under investigation by Judge Wright and calls forth the same constitutional protections under the Fifth Amendment as described above.

    I thought that subpoenas for documents weren't covered by the Fifth Amendment.

  106. Anonymous says:

    @Matthew Cline

    That's kind of my point. AF could try to deflect blame to Gibbs, or make a statement of their own regarding the document, or of course produce the document, but they don't provide any explanation and indeed Duffy's statement hardly acknowledges their existence as a party to the lawsuit. Duffy's declaration states what Duffy has done (or hasn't) to attempt to produce the document and there is no mention of talking to the client, just "old attorney is out of town! Need extension!"

    For some reason they have chosen not to have AF say anything, or to say anything about AF.

    It is as if there is only Paul Duffy, Gibbs and the defendant, which makes sense if there is in fact no client and AF is just a front for Prenda's litigation, but that is not a conclusion Duffy should be encouraging the court to draw…

    For those of us watching this development, whatever the game turns out to be for deflecting blame or stalling for time, with Duffy turning in a bullshit response instead of producing a document the obvious conclusion is that the document does not exist. And if the document does not exist then Prenda just opened a portal to a whole new world of hurt.

  107. Roadkill on Information Superhighway says:

    "L-l-l-l-l-look at you, downloader. A pa-pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone. Panting and sweating as you r-r-read through my demandings. How can you challenge a perfect, immoral machine?"

  108. Nicholas Weaver says:

    IANAL, but Duffy's reply is both sensible and possibly brilliant.

    Producing the signed document is NOT testimonial, and therefore doesn't invoke the 5th. But if they could, then there wouldn't be the sham client problem.

    Saying why you can't does. But it doesn't do any good anyway, since anything that can be said only digs the hole deeper.

    At this point, Duffy needs to blame Gibbs, but he can't testify to this effect.

    You notice Duffy never stated anything about transfer of files concerning the case, because a natural inference is duffy should have copies of everything since its the same law firm, OR Gibbs didn't do what he was supposed to do in ensuring a proper transfer in the case, but stating one way or the other is bad news, because Judge Wright is watching too.

    So the best Duffy can hope for is "Blame Gibbs" without actually blaming Gibbs by stating "Uh, I asked Gibbs and he never gave it to me", but with Gibbs out of town, Duffy can't blame Gibbs until Gibbs returns and files his explanation or pleads the 5th.

    At this point, I bet Duffy is hoping that Gibbs pleads the 5th, because then Duffy can state "a natural inference is that Gibbs never gave it to me, toss him under the bus."

    The nightmare however is, that Gibbs being the one willing to talk to save his license, files a "I did what Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy told me to do on these ADR forms, Steele said he got it signed."

    Remember, Gibbs is in "save my license and my money" mode, and has already shown his willingness to cut deals.

    So in the end, pleading delay and the 5th is not likely to work. Yet I don't see what other play is available to Duffy.

    And hey, it gives Duffy a few more weeks to possibly send more demand letters, since Duffy's lawyers probably aren't cheap, and I hope Duffy's lawyers are billing often and not letting Duffy build up a big debt, since Duffy doesn't seem to be good about paying his bills.

  109. Producing a document IS testimonial, if one intends to use it. Someone has to authenticate it. Especially where the witness who wrote the document may plead the privilege against self-incrimination as well …

    Brilliant isn't the word I'd use to describe it.

  110. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I stand corrected. Producing a document IS testamonial. But again, if they could produce it, there wouldn't be the problem in the first place.

  111. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Nicholas Weaver –
    'Duffy's reply is both sensible and possibly brilliant'

    Once I stop laughing I think I will disagree with those terms being used with anyone connected to Prenda, but then my opinion of them is pretty low.

  112. Anonymous says:

    Yes, it is remarkable that Prenda has lowered the standard and expectations to the point that taking the fifth and failing to produce a document that both they and their client should have on file is considered a "brilliant" move.

    One thing I will grant on further reflection is that unlike the Alan Cooper document in Wright's case, where Gibbs had enough leeway to weasel out of accounting for the original document by claiming "plaintiff's counsel" meant "Prenda senior partners" and not "Brett L. Gibbs," this document literally has Gibbs' name on it. So while failing to produce it and taking the fifth doesn't help Duffy's credibility, and passing the buck back to Gibbs doesn't reflect well on Prenda, Duffy or AF's organizational skills and professionalism, Gibbs owned this one and it is a genuine opportunity to throw him under the bus.

    The problem is, if Gibbs tosses it to AF, or if it looks like AF/Salt Marsh is the party guilty of fraud, given the close relationship between AF and Prenda established in the Hansmeier deposition (and remember, that deposition is actually from this case), it still seems like the best case scenario is that they will create more questions than answers and risk provoking another Wright-level investigation into whatever the hell is going on over there.

  113. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I still stand by it being brilliant, given the hand Duffy has to play at this point, and that really, Duffy's (and Gibbs's) priority has to be keeping their law licenses intact. [1] Even $100K in sanctions and fees is a minor cost to pay, if they can still practice law when this is over. (But again, IANAL).

    If Gibbs flips on this, Duffy is well and truly fsck-ed. But Gibbs flipping on this incriminates Gibbs even worse, as it is Gibbs who filed this document and Gibbs's signature is on it.

    But if Gibbs takes the 5th, Duffy's attorney can state that it is a reasonable inference that it is all Gibbs's fault, especially since Duffy can't say anything because of Judge Wright. And with no evidence that Duffy and not Gibbs did the /s/ Salt Marsh documents, the stonewall just might work for Duffy in front of the Bar disciplinary committee.

    OTOH, if Gibbs took the 5th, Gibbs's license is Fsck-ed anyway, since I doubt being unable to produce documents that an attorney is, by law, required to maintain and produce on request, by instead pleading the 5th goes over well at a Bar hearing. Heck, its probably better for Gibbs to admit the truth and blame the Prenda bosses, pleading for mercy and a 1 year suspension. [2]

    So I think it comes down to psychology on Gibbs's part whether Duffy's strategy works on this. Is it "I'm taking you rat bastards down with me and try to weasel a deal?" or "I'm just gonna shut up now…". If its the former, Duffy is fsck-ed no matter what he does, and this response doesn't really hurt. If its the latter, this response may help.

    [1] IANAL, but if it took so long and even more abusive behavior to indight a high-profile legal D@#)(*head like Ceglea, the odds of criminal complaints in this case seem slim to me.

    [2] I wonder if a declaration from Pietz that "Gibbs is a good little rat" would help Gibbs in front of a Bar committee? Gibbs has certainly been willing to accept such a deal in Florida…

  114. Mark says:

    Since Gibbs was a contractor for Prenda, if he testified, "I sent that document to Prenda after it was signed", would that be reasonable or suspicious? Are documents like that usually kept by the lawyer himself, or would they normally go under the custody of the law firm that was actually in charge?

  115. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Prenda gets until the 13th of May… http://t.co/pSyYIwjRsj

  116. David Tagliaferri says:

    We have to wait until the 13th. #¦@§% This is like when you have caught up with everythign your favorote author has published and you have to wait for the next book to come out.

  117. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @David Tagliaferri – and its not like you can just hit up TPB and torrent the next episode before its released in your region…

  118. AlphaCentauri says:

    Gotta love these clowns – Where do you get Talking in Circles training?

    I suppose you'll get it from the Prenda School of Public Speaking once they're all disbarred. ;)

  119. Eric says:

    I've been waiting for the "Salt Marsh" reveal. Can't wait to see how the judge reacts to the shenanigans here. This is truly entertaining. Found this site thanks to Fark.com mentioning the Prendanistas taking the fifth back in April and have been checking in every day to see what new revelations there are. Prenda truly is the gift that keeps on giving. Let's hope the idiots don't shut their mouths until AFTER they are hit with criminal charges and prison time. It's just THAT good.

  1. May 1, 2013

    [...] involving Prenda Law that I described in the previous post soon resulted in a ruling, which I again summarized on Popehat. I've cross-posted that second post [...]