Prenda Law Open Thread

Print This Post

You may also like...

493 Responses

  1. Jim Tyre says:

    Andrew Norton has set up a liveblog for today's Prenda hearing in AZ; though I've no idea if any commenters will be there.

    http://ktetch.co.uk/2013/07/liveblog-prenda-in-arizona/

  2. Jim Tyre says:

    (The long running Prenda thread is closed. Ken's not sure why it was closed, but he's doing real lawyer work, so it was quicker for him to open this thread.)

  3. PonyMaster2k says:

    Third!

  4. PonyMaster2k says:

    So Duffy has to pay $12,000 today, but $21,000 if he waits till monday. Will we know if it was paid today?

  5. James says:

    Gee, I was just getting used to the other thread.

  6. Katherine says:

    Thank you Ken!

    I'm actually on my way out the door for work, so I'll respond to offers for assistance (regarding PACER fees) when I get home this evening.

    For now though I leave you with a joke resolution that I came up with last night.

    RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE COMMONLY USED NOMICLATURE USED TO REFER TO THE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE PRENDA LAWFIRM

    RESOLVED:

    WHEREAS the practice of referring to somone solely by their last name (i.e. "Steele") is indication of respect or at least an acknowledgement of that person's power and authority.

    WHEREAS statements made by The Court during the July 12th hearing illustrate a near total lack of respect or regard for John L. Steele.

    WHEREAS the column published by Mysterious Anonymous on FightCopyrightTrolls.com clearly illustrates the reason for their contempt.

    WHEREAS followers of the Prenda trials now largely regard them as a grand source of entertainment rather than a genuine threat

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, the leader of the Prendas, John L. Steele, shall no longer be referred to by his surname, but instead will be called John the Jester, Jester John, or JJ for short.

  7. Jim Tyre says:

    Joe Mullin (ArsT) has a nice article on yesterday's Prenda hearing in San Francisco.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/another-judge-has-a-serious-question-about-prenda-porn-trolls/

  8. whyamihere..! says:

    Finally, i can change my bookmark.

    Any update from Prenda circus AZ?

  9. Judge Wright referring Steele to the pro se clinic was just too funny.

    It's starting to approach Jonathan Lee Riches level of absurdity and general waste of the Court's time, though. I think the most expedient solution going forward at this point is a drone strike.

    Just have Wright issue an OSC as to why such-and-such-party should not be summarily ganked from the sky. When the untimely pleading is filed, push the button.

  10. Grim says:

    I wasn't notified of this open thread and so missed the chance of a "first post". this represents a fraud on the court and I demand sanctions.

    The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal civil actions. Steele is encouraged to visit the clinic for advice concerning his case.

  11. Jim Tyre says:

    No word from inside the courtroom, but my colleague Kurt Opsahl spotted a new filing by the local Prenda lawyer today.

    http://ia701200.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.azd.732217/gov.uscourts.azd.732217.86.0.pdf

  12. JTG says:

    @Grim: Which order contained the referral to the Pro Se clinic?

  13. Grim says:

    Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 224 0 (PDF). Judge Wright, of course.

  14. anne mouse says:

    Goodhue, as usual, sounds a lot saner than the core Prendistas. He even makes technical sense in his discussion of the definition of "swarm". I don't think his theory is the correct one for purposes of joinder, but it's reasonable enough.

    And though I find his discussion of statutory damages based on "actions" disgusting, it's the sort of thing you'd expect any clever lawyer to try.

    But I've never seen this before: (paraphrasing):
    "I'll answer that question at the hearing."

    That seems like it's seriously prejudicial to the other side, in that they will have no chance to do research that might refute whatever story Goodhue comes up with at the hearing.

  15. Katherine says:

    Why is Harris still pro-se? The judge has already taken him to task a couple of times, and I suspect that he (Harris) isn't fairing much better today. Plus, Goodhue actually seems fairly competent and knowledgeable.

  16. JLA Girl says:

    With no new articles on Popehat, I hadn't realized there was more shenagians from the Prenda crew since Judge Wright dropped the hammer.

    *grabs the popcorn — well OK, nutmix* I got me some reading to do!

  17. Mike says:

    @ Katherine – I believe some lawyers tried to help Harris out, but Harris wasn't interested/cooperative.

  18. Lucius says:

    @anne mouse: Goodhue was asked a specific question, and refuses to answer in his response. I'd hope Goodhue would be required to provide a very good reason to withhold his answer until the OSC hearing.

    Otherwise, any tough question could be avoided by using this delay tactic. It would be hard for the court to get full disclosure on, then analysis of, any significant question.

  19. Brett Thomas says:

    @Katherine – I believe what you meant to say is, "Why doesn't Harris hire a lawyer?" As Robert Heinlein noted, "The answer to any question starting, 'Why don't they-' is almost always, 'Money.'"

  20. whyamihere..! says:

    Do we have transcripts available for July-12th hearing yet?
    Can wait to read the dialogue between Judge Wright and Steele.

  21. Katherine says:

    @Brett, but he has been offered pro-bono counsel.

  22. Katherine says:

    Hey the Wright Case Docket on the Internet Archive finally updated! 'bout time!

  23. Katherine says:

    Nevermind…its not really up-to-date, it just now includes the latest decision by right. Everything that happened in late June in early July is still excluded. Bleh.

  24. Christenson says:

    @Katherine:
    Harris' last filing in AZ indicates that he finally took advice even if he is not formally represented. Let's call the man "stubborn". The AZ docket (see dtd today) indicates the focus is now all on Goodhue — the judge hasn't quite done what Harris asked, but he's getting there. The report out of today's hearing should absolutely sizzle on Goodhue, who is now playing with fire.

    Just for confusion, there's a troll case in southern Indiana involving defendants Harris and Harrison. And there are assertions running around that AF Holdings of the copyright assignment and AF Films that makes movies may or may not be the same company.

  25. anne mouse says:

    Oops, I should have read the order (http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/doc_71_osc_02144az.pdf) that Goodhue was responding to. It orders him to answer additional questions *at the hearing*; he didn't have to file this response at all. Clearly he decided that the questions of how to define a swarm and how to calculate damages were important enough to get in front of the judge as soon as possible. At first I thought that meant he was thinking ahead to damages on the assumption that he would actually win, but in fact I think it's just good defense: if you have a reasonable argument for joining all those defendants and demanding big settlements, it's best to let the judge know it as soon as possible, before he gets so wrapped up in calculating the amount of sanctions that he won't let you get a word in at the hearing.

  26. James says:

    @whyamihere..! No transcript, but Adam Steinbaugh attended and gave a blow by blow description in his excellent article at Ars Technica.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/another-judge-has-a-serious-question-about-prenda-porn-trolls/

  27. Delvan Neville says:

    @James: This one is by Joe Mullin, though Adam retweeted it.

  28. Katherine says:

    while we are waiting, I bought everybody a little present:
    Transcript from the March 11th, OSC hearing.

  29. Fasolt says:

    @Delvan: I'm sorry to inform you, per Mr. Duffy, that you are not qualified to make the statements you do. You are also not an expert and you are a graduate student somewhere.

  30. Myk says:

    @delvan – has any inquiry been made concerning Forensic 6881's analytic software? While they may cry about disclosing trade secrets, it would seem appropriate to establish the tool/s used as the launching pad for Prenda's shenanigans, particularly if the methods and means of analysis employed by your good self are now being called into question (although not in a manner that anyone could take seriously even for a moment).

  31. @Fasolt: Graduate student? Ziiiiiiiiiiing.

  32. Fasolt says:

    Quote of the day from the March 11th OSC hearing transcript Katherine posted above:

    THE COURT: "Have you come to understand, as have I, that every representation made by a lawyer associated with Prenda is not necessarily true?"

    The subsequent exchange between Judge Wright and the spectator:

    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I have known that for three years.
    THE COURT: Okay. Good. So you aren't shocked, are you?
    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
    THE COURT: Nor am I, but thank you.
    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You are welcome.

  33. @anne – the response he filed has some…. issues. I'm going to address them in a bit later tonight.

    @myk – I *believe* it will be scrutinised under the Patel (GA) case discovery. It's certainly a topic I was prepared to expound on when I testified, and I was kinda sad that I never got the chance. I've been digging into these 'monitoring systems' used by the various groups (both troll and non-troll) worldwide since around 07, so I've got a decent idea about how they work, and what they [don't] do, and their limitations.

    Panicked Prenda's Ga counsel (Nazaire) though.

  34. Jim Tyre says:

    The subsequent exchange between Judge Wright and the spectator:

    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I have known that for three years.
    THE COURT: Okay. Good. So you aren't shocked, are you?
    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
    THE COURT: Nor am I, but thank you.
    MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You are welcome.

    That was Jason Sweet, a Boston lawyer. Jason handles many of these kinds of cases. He also represents both Alan Cooper (the real one) and Paul Godfrey in the libel suits filed against them by Prenda and Duffy in Illinois.

  35. I was Anonymous says:

    I've been out of town on vacation, and just read the ars summary of the July 12 hearing. I'm wondering if Steele actually achieved what he wanted by getting Judge Wright so angry. It becomes easier to claim bias to the appeals court that way.

    DISCLAIMERS: Of course, I am not an appellate lawyer (or any sort of lawyer); nor do I play on on TV. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

  36. Abba Zabba says:

    New docket entry in AF Holdings v Harris in Arizona, where the OSC hearing was held today (#87):

    Docket Text: MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge G Murray Snow: Show Cause Hearing held on 7/19/2013. Order to follow.

    APPEARANCES: Steven Goodhue for Plaintiff. Pro Se Defendant, David Harris, present at 11:33 AM. Paul Ticen for non-party Defendant. (Court Reporter Gary Moll.) Hearing held 11:21 AM to 12:07 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (KFZ)

  37. Abba Zabba says:

    Also, Minnesota is in play in addition to Central CA, Northern CA, Arizona and Georgia. Michael Dugas has filed declarations of service of the magistrate judge's order for case management conferences in 5 (formerly) dismissed AF Holdings v Doe cases. They look like this:

    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126521/gov.uscourts.mnd.126521.22.0.pdf

  38. Delvan Neville says:

    Yep, PhD candidate at Oregon State, I won't be Dr. Neville for a year or so more. I left out MENSA & PhD candidacy and etc. to invite them to, by proxy, admit they think their own expert isn't qualified. Because I included all the actual evidence and explained its meaning, that leaves the Court equipped enough to draw their own conclusions on the evidence on the off-chance Prenda succeeded in convincing them I'm not an expert. I've also had my software & evidence double-checked by a number of other experts, though Andrew Norton (@ktetch) is the only one I can mention per my privacy policy.

    @Myk: No, although I called them out on that a bit in my follow-up declaration in the Navasca case. They complain that they haven't cross-examined me yet, I offered to appear there so they could do that, and invited them to bring Peter Hansmeier (as he hasn't provided Mr. Navasca the opportunity to cross-examine him). Needless to say, they instead went the "hide and hope it all goes away" approach after that instead of crossing tech-expert swords, much as they did right off the bat in Oppold.

    I know that the Patel case in GA has been granted discovery, but I can't say one way or the other if they have requested or will get any real details on 6881's software & resulting evidence.

  39. Delvan Neville says:

    @I was Anonymous: Based on Ken's write-up on the tools available to Judge Wright back around the time of the first OSC re: sanctions, he's been exceedingly patient and withheld executing a lot of the options before him, specifically so that they have nothing at hand on appeal. I recall he made a comment in the previous thread in regards to "getting him angry":

    A federal judge sounding angry, curt, insulting, belittling, insulting, impatient, autocratic, abusive, and condescending only sounds notable to people without extensive exposure to federal judges.

  40. Jim Tyre says:

    Delvan,

    I was just mentioning to Andrew in email that one of EFF's staff technologists is one of the two smartest people I have ever known. All around, not just about technology.

    What both have in common is that neither bothered to get an undergrad degree, let alone to have or pursue an advanced one. Perhaps you're too educated for your own good. '-)

  41. Katherine says:

    Harris was 15 minutes late to his own hearing. That is seriously not good.

  42. Mike says:

    Ouch, not the best look for Harris to be late , although understandable for people unfamiliar with security in federal court

  43. anne mouse says:

    Andrew Norton, it's got lots of problems. For example, a key part of question 3) is the part about "not acknowledging." Plaintiffs have a duty to mention related cases. Goodhue completely ignores that part of the question.
    A more interesting procedural qeustion is the way he wants to have his cake and eat it too, suing just one defendant "jointly", reserving the right to add other defendants later.
    It's a "continuous injury" because it's all "one swarm" that hasn't ended yet, but they want to do multiple rounds of discovery in multiple actions.
    Their theory is that they can get multiple payments (settlements and/or judgments, practically without limit on the total amount) from defendants who are all jointly liable for the same conspiracy.
    This judge is not going to be too pleased with any of that.

  44. grouch says:


    while we are waiting, I bought everybody a little present:
    Transcript from the March 11th, OSC hearing.

    Thank you, Katherine!

  45. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    Any truth to the rumor that the International Association of Ambulance Chasers and Shysters is bringing suit against Prenda for "Bringing disrepute to their profession"?

  46. Wayne Borean says:

    Good God. I am getting the impression that the entire lot of Prenda attorneys and paralegals are suitable Darwin Award recipients!

    Wayne

  47. anne mouse says:

    Also worth noting that Goodhue is once again repeating the Lutz Affidavit version of events regarding both Alan Cooper and the ownership of the LLC. This would be a good topic for an ethics class: what questions did Goodhue have a duty to ask, when did he have the duty to ask them, and when is it reasonable for him to believe a word comes out of Lutz's mouth ?

  48. SJD says:

    Lutz is a law-abiding citizen incapable of lying.

  49. MCB says:

    So, anyone know when Andy Kaufman is scheduled to take off his John Steele costume?

  50. Katherine says:

    So I've been thinking about the offers of assistance all day. And the truth is that I am going to need it. At the moment my tab (since 7/14) stands at 31.50. This includes $5.00 trying to trying to trick Wright's Recap Docket into updating (like I said, those dimes add up). and 11.90 on the transcript.

    Money spent prior to 7/14 would have been spent no matter what.

    I haven't spent any money that I don't have, and I don't intend to do so, but assistance with the fees would be appreciated. Excess money (if there is any) will be used to recap back documents (there are quite a few older documents that have never been recapped).

    A paypal address for me is simality@gmail.com.

  51. WDS says:

    So I don't get home from work until almost midnight, with todays Tour de France to watch, and there is activity all over the continent for #Prenda. How is a guy supposed to get any sleep.

  52. Katherine says:

    Oh don't worry. You didn't actually miss anything *new*.

  53. WDS says:

    Okay @Katherine

    Since I have your assurance, I'll go to bed.

  54. Myk says:

    @Katherine – the few pennies I can afford are winging their way to you as thanks

  55. Clark says:

    @MCB:

    So, anyone know when Andy Kaufman is scheduled to take off his John Steele costume?

    LOL!

  56. Katherine says:

    Thank you Myk!

    I learned something interesting. In addition to accepting payments, I can also deny them. That way if — on the VERY off chance — I get sent too much, I can just send the money back. Pretty cool.

  57. SJD says:

    I'm surprised: there are thousand-comment posts here, couple of active blogs, major tech media… where are pro-Prenda, pro-Lipscomb, pro-CEG resources? We are supposed to be on the wrong side of the law, aren't we?

  58. Fasolt says:

    Tying up a few loose ends from the Prenda One Shoe Drop thread.
    @Katherine: You are most welcome. Picking up the tab for some Pacer downloads is a small price to pay for the legal knowledge I've gleaned from following this case and others here at Popehat, DTD, and FCT.

    Not to mention the entertainment value I'm getting from each one of those dimes.

    @bert: Thanks for the Scribd tip. I signed up to try it out and did upload the transcript. I tagged it with Prenda Law and AF Holdings.

    @Everybody: I'm willing to spend some of my dimes so we can all keep up with everyone's favorite soap opera. If there is a transcript or document out there you see that hasn't been pulled down yet, and you think it might be useful/fun to view, throw out a request, and I'll go get it. Please include the case number and which court it is in.

  59. Katherine says:

    Its the Robin Hood complex. We pirates take from the rich and give to the poor.

    Or at least that is probably how they see it.

    Anyway, hi-ho hi-ho its off to work I go. Short shift today (Lord, hear my prayer) though. So home in a few hours.

  60. Lucius says:

    Someone should start a place to collect links to the massive number of documents, along with a one-paragraph summary of the the highlights of each. Maybe with a way to sort them chronologically, by topic, by case, or by source. It could start small, with the goal of scooping up links like a Borg ship.

    There are some things that might be forgotten otherwise. One I can think of is the reporter who met John Steele at a festival, where Steele displayed a watch he claimed was solid gold, and bragged his take so far put him in the "top 0.3%". These obscure links have value for when serious questions are raised about how much money was extorted.

  61. Falcon789 says:

    @Lucius there is a timeline done by John Henry that has what u describe. Check it out http://pastehtml.com/view/cyp582ds0.html

  62. Lucius says:

    @Falcon789: Thanks! That is a really fine job by John Henry, and I'm keeping a record of that link. The summary of key points in each document are also well done.

    It seems to be strictly chronological order, so it is necessary to scroll to an already-known time to find a document. A search feature by topic or key word would help, although everyone has to decide for themselves where to budget limited time.

  63. Paul Ticen says:

    Since some are wondering what happened at the Arizona OSC hearing yesterday, I'll give a quick run down. I represented individuals targeted by a subpoena issued earlier this year who were Mr. Harris purported co-conspirators. The Court quashed the subpoena. And the Court gutted Plaintiff's statutory damage claim, getting Goodhue to ultimately concede that AF Holding's claim is limited to actual damages (and therefore the case is effectively over). There were no Rule 11 or other sanctions handed down, as it was clear Judge Snow didn't want to go down that path.

    Mark Lutz appeared, and while I was reading or writing something down, I believe Lutz stated (not under oath) during the hearing that the owner of AF Holdings is the "AF Trust." Judge Snow repeated the name "AF Trust," and I wrote that down. But I'll need to see the transcript for the precise question, answer and context to be absolutely certain. If so, it appears this contradicts a declaration (based on a tech dirt post) that Lutz submitted in the ND Cal that he signed a filed document on behalf of the owner, which was the "Salt Marsh Trust." He also submitted a declaration in this case that it was the "Salt Marsh trust." It's possible that Judge Snow may have said AF Trust by mistake.

    The hearing was short on fireworks but accomplished my client's objectives and effectively ended the case and BitTorrent litigation in AZ.

  64. Mike says:

    Thanks for the update Paul

  65. I was Anonymous says:

    @Delvan, hence the disclaimer! :-)

  66. I was Anonymous says:

    @Delvan, hence the disclaimer!!!

  67. I was Anonymous says:

    @Lucius,

    Somebody might want to talk to PJ over at Groklaw about how she maintains the the documents for all the various cases she's covering.

  68. Laugher says:

    Why was the claim limited to actual damages?

  69. Christenson says:

    @Paul Ticen:
    That go for Harris, too?? Under what theory is only "actual damages" available? I think the hearing and the explanation would be a good article for the top of this "Zombie Prenda comment thread" that just refuses to die (grin). [I presume the conspiracy theory was demolished, and the initial seeder that sets up the torrent file carries the main liability, and individual downloaders are liable for what, $25?].

  70. @lucius
    We talked it over last night, and I was going to start a wiki – so we could do a writeup on every principle, document, case, lawyer, hearing, exhibit etc. And cross-reference as needed. Then SJD said they had trollwiki.org already set up and on a non-US server, and would hand out access as soon as they got home (about 2 weeks).

    That means we should have the ability to get a good start on stuff by Labor day.

  71. bst says:

    @Christenson
    My very uninformed IANAL google search turned up this line in the wikipedia article on "statutory damages for copyright infringement"

    "Under 17 U.S.C. § 412, statutory damages are only available in the United States for works that were registered with the Copyright Office prior to infringement, or within three months of publication."

    If the movie was not registered with the copyright office, that could explain it. I recall seeing some mention in the past that Prenda Law has had problems resulting from failing to register the copyright for movies before suing over them.

  72. Katherine says:

    I've received some lovely donations today. More than enough to cover what I have spent so far, and plenty to spare that I feel comfortable with recapping some historical documents as well. So, to start with, I give you, the Road to Judge Wright.

    ——————————————————————————-
    Ingenuity13 vs John Doe didn't start off in Judge Wright's court. Nope it was initially assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson with Judge Patrick Walsh down as the Magistrate. Two weeks later Judge Wilson sent the case back into the queue and it was reassigned to Judge Dolly Gee and this is where things start to go downhill for Prenda.

    In her first order as judge, Gee required the plaintiffs to notify all parties that there was a new judge in town. And they didn't. They were still trying to figure out just who their John Doe was and to do that they needed permission to conduct early discovery. Although Magistrate Judge Walsh had initially granted their motion for early discovery he eventually changed his mind and issued a stay. So on December 12th, she held court and ordered Gibbs and his goons to notify the defendant by January 28th, or face immediate dismissal.

    Less than a week later, however, she too decided that she could no longer hear the case and it was transferred once again, this time to Judge Wright.

    IANAL, I don't know if it is ordinary for a case to go through a few different judges or if this is yet another extraordinary facet of an extraordinary case.

    Relevant URLs to newly recapped and scribd'd documents.
    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.5.0.pdf — Wilson takes the case, issues standing order.
    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.10.0.pdf — Gee takes the job.
    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.11.0.pdf — Standing order from Judge Gee.
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.9.0.pdfex parte application for leave to take expedited discovery GRANTED by Judge Walsh.
    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.16.0.pdf –a stay in discovery granted, also by Patrick Walsh.
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.20.0.pdf — Gee gives Gibbs & co until January 28th to notify the defendent (John Doe) that he is under suit.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/155047980/Judge-Wright-takes-the-case — Gee and Walsh leave the case in favor of Wright and Chooljian. I attempted to recap this document twice, but it just wouldn't 'take'.
    ——————————————————————————–

    More to come….soon.

  73. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @ktetch – if you ever meet Nazaire, send him all my love.
    I am the living breathing example of his three greatest fears, and already proved I was smarter than him. *whistle*

    @Paul Ticen – what are the actual damages for material that was never placed on the market for sale?

    @Katherine – You are an angel. Your also a prime example of how the anti-trolling community works. Someone finds a need not being met, they step in and help.
    I guess that is the power of sharing.
    No one (well except me) takes credit for everything, and we share what we know, and don't get bent out of shape it others use what we discover. We do what we do to benefit people we might never encounter, but who deserve to be informed.

    Sharing is Caring. ;D

  74. Christenson says:

    @Katherine:
    In the CACD courts(Wilson's) boilerplate standing order, it says:

    Counsel are advised that this Court allows ex parte applications solely for extraordinary relief. Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of ex parte applications. See In Re:
    Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 Bankr. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

    Any way to retrieve this? Or should I get my own PACER account?

  75. Jon says:

    Try Google Scholar — in this case, here

  76. Paul Ticen says:

    @ TAC – None. If they can't prove actual damages to a reasonable certainty or Harris' ill-gotten profits.

    The reason why statutory damages were gutted is a copyright holder is entitled to a single stat damage award against one or more persons who are jointly and severally liable for infringement of a particular work, regardless of the number of infringements. Harris was among 1,100 DOES in a DC action where his info was subpoenaed. AF Holdings sued Harris for the same identical infringement in the Arizona case. Judge Snow's point was what authority allows a copyright holder to sue a huge group of potential defendants, essentially allege j&s, request stat damages, collect settlements and then start individual lawsuits against those individuals who didn't settle and claim stat damages again.

  77. @TAC – I already met Nazaire. I was at court on the 2nd in the Patel case, to testify as an expert witness after lunch. He got my CV before lunch, and when I was about to be called, he objected, saying he'd not had enough time to inspect my credentials (I've done frontline support for µTorrent for 7 years, worked as TorrentFreak's researcher/expert for 6, and done various other bittorrent stuff going back to 03 before that, including an early attempt to benchmark clients in 04.

    I have to say he wasn't quite what I expected.

  78. AlphaCentauri says:

    Thank you Katherine, and may all your weekend shifts be short and productive!

    I wonder if any of the judges came home, found out their kids had been downloading, and recused themselves before finding out if any of those IPs belonged to their homes.

  79. Katherine says:

    @TAC & AC you guys flatter me.

    @Andrew Norton: What was Nazaire like?

  80. Matthew Cline says:

    If so, it appears this contradicts a declaration (based on a tech dirt post) that Lutz submitted in the ND Cal that he signed a filed document on behalf of the owner, which was the "Salt Marsh Trust."

    Not necessarily. They could have created a new "AF Trust" and transferred ownership to it from Salt Marsh Trust.

  81. Delvan Neville says:

    @Paul Ticen: Good to know Mr. Harris and your clients are essentially off the hook there. Thanks for updating us. I look forward to reading Judge Snow's ruling when it comes out

  82. Dr. Wu says:

    MR. PIETZ: Are the monitors arrayed so that the court can see them?
    THE COURT: Yes. The court has its own. We got that before the sequester.

  83. Katherine says:

    Here's something interesting. From the DC case:

    Motion to Leave Pro Hac Vice Summary: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- John L. Steele, :Firm- Prenda Law, Inc., :Address- 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200. Phone No. – (312) 880-9160. Fax No. – (312) 893-5677 by AF HOLDINGS LLC (Duffy, Paul)

    So much for not being employed by Prenda.

  84. whyamihere..! says:

    So Steele is contradicting two of his own statements by agreeing pro-hac vice
    1) I am retired
    2) I have nothing to do with Prenda.

    Yeah i have seen Steele J do all his circus but cant believe he is joining as co-counsel after Judge Wright recommended him to pro-se clinic. Is this a way of getting back to Judge Wright and prove him wrong??

    Who said this hilarious chain of events are going to end? No, they are just warming up!!

  85. whyamihere..! says:

    OOps!! Sorry, my bad. That is a very old document.

  86. Delvan Neville says:

    It is an old document, but he hasn't filed a request to stop being counsel, and is still listed as an active attorney to be noticed in that case. So, yes, still contradicts his own statements. Just probably not done in direct response to Judge Wright.

  87. Katherine says:

    Oh the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

  88. Katherine says:

    Another golden oldie. A glimpse inside the life of a Prenda Attorney. No wonder they all seem so incompetant. They're all left in the dark without a clue.

  89. SharonA says:

    Thanks for posting that, Katherine.

    That pro hac vice request is from April. 2012 so it's not as if he has just done that after having said no. "I am of counsel with the law firm of Prenda Law, Inc, counsel for Plaintiff, AF Holdings LLC in the above-captioned action."

    So he's sworn an "of counsel" relationship with Prenda. I don't remember exactly what he's claimed re: Prenda in the recent cases (and apparently neither does he), but "of counsel" implies some sort of "working-with" to me.

    There's also mention of a previous pro hac vice admission to DC – 1:12-MC-00150-ESH-AK (I might have transcribed that incorrectly). Anyone have that doc or case info handy?

  90. Delvan Neville says:

    @SharonA: The case is on RECAP here.

    It, too, is from April 2012. He's "of counsel" again here. All the classic goodies, like how his own office phone number and the location of his office is that of Prenda Law.

  91. Sami says:

    I just read Katherine's "glimpse inside the life of a Prenda attorney" – all I could think, start to finish, was you poor bastard.

    I do somewhat respect the concurrent motion for the extension for Plaintiff. Sort of an element of, "These are crooks and liars and horrible horrible people to work for, and I want to get the hell out of here as fast as I can… but I'm going to be sure to be responsible to their case as well."

  92. Katherine says:

    @Sharona Perhaps not, but the following November — 7 months later — this exchange happened in a courtroom in Florida.

    Steele's bar number is 6292158

    The Court: Mr. Lutz, who is the individual who you just spoke to in the Courtroom with you.
    Mr. Lutz: Sorry?
    The Court: Who is that behind you?
    Mr. Steele: Your Honor, my name is John Steele.
    The Court: Who are you?
    Mr. Steele: I'm an attorney, but not involved in this case.
    The Court: You're an attorney with what lawfirm?
    Mr. Steele: I'm not an attorney with any firm right now…

    [later]

    The Court: You're not practicing law?
    Mr. Steele: Correct. I do appear occasionally at hearings on an ad hoc basis but I do not have any current clients

    Meanwhile, back in Illinois, JJ was down as being the lead counsel for Lightspeed Media in this case which was opened in August 2012 and is still active now.

  93. Katherine says:

    argh, my kingdom for an edit button. I use a sticky note program for notes and other odds and ends. The thing about Steele's bar number is one of those odd ends.

  94. Katherine says:

    @Sami IANAL, but I think he'll be OK. Yeah he fell a-foul of Prenda but he got himself out without breaking any rules (aside from that one trial mishap) or laws and (by the looks of it) while retaining his integrity. Not too many of his peers can say that.

  95. Scytale says:

    @Katherine, another donation your way for your excellent work.

    @Troll-wiki, as an IT professional, if there is any help you need with setting this up, I am happy to donate some time.

  96. Ed L says:

    Glad to hear Ken will be doing another Prenda update!

    Have been following this wonderful saga of prevarication, porn, and trolling, but IANAL so could use more analysis and context as Ken has done in the past (thanks!).

  97. Aussie says:

    @katherine Sent you a few dimes from Australia. Should cover you for a week or so.

  98. Aussie says:

    The sooner you loose any details of where the PP came from the happier i will be too lol

  99. Fasolt says:

    @Katherine: Thanks for that golden oldie.

    "…the undersigned has significant ethical concerns of the operation of Prenda Law…"

    That could be quite possibly be the understatement of the year.

  100. Fasolt says:

    Or the last several years.

  101. AlphaCentauri says:

    I suppose Wasinger can't get off the hook by referring Prenda to the pro se clinic ;)

  102. Jim Tyre says:

    Not certain why the document hasn't made it onto RECAP yet, but if you're worried that there won't be some Prenda news to start the week, don't.

    In the Navasca case in San Francisco, Judge Chen just slammed Prenda, awarded $19,420.38 in attorney fees and $3,111.55 in costs to Navasca. The fees were a slight haircut (5%) from what Navasca sought, becasue of some overlap with the Trinh case, the costs were all of what was sought.

  103. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Jim Tyre – and odds on them actually paying up?

    I note that the Charter case against LW for not being paid, and names they got from a quashed subpoena is still hanging around waiting for its day. I thought there was a complaint in DC about them stiffing some of the ISPs there (or has my mind bled together USCG history with Pretenda?).

    One wonders how much is owed by Pretenda parties and other names, to different ISPs. One wonders if an ISP can contest a court order demanding subscriber information because they haven't been paid.

  104. Susan says:

    … and Judge Wright continues to haunt Prenda in the Judge Chen case

  105. kyzer says:

    I think Judge Chen did a very nice job with his order. Well written and he clearly gets what has been going on. Nice to see.

  106. Jon says:

    I'm becoming a bigger fan of Judge Chen now, for passages like this (re: the Neville declaration):

    But notably, what AF has not done is offer any counter-evidence such as a declaration from Mr. Steele in which he denies that he is “sharkmp4” or other evidence that AF did not take steps to induce users to download the subject works. … AF’s failure to submit any factual denial under oath is telling.

  107. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Jon – they often like to say all sorts of things, but when it comes to making statements under oath they suddenly are always speechless.
    They complain they never get to say/question/etc anything, but often that is caused by them being unwilling to go under oath.

  108. kyzer says:

    @Jon, I liked that passage too. I wish that he had somehow worked in the fact that soon after the Neville declaration Steele deleted his email accounts though.

  109. jimmythefly says:

    Wow, that is scary.

    So Navasca is awarded more than $20k in Attorneys' fees, that he otherwise would have had to pay out of his own pocket, all while not actually being guilty of anything!

    I don't know about most of you, but I don't have anywhere near $20k on hand to pay for that sort of thing.

    And that doesn't even take into account the disruption in his life as this all played out. I'm sure Navasca isn't going to get reimbursed at even $50 an hour for his own time spent on the case.

  110. Scott says:

    >So Navasca is awarded more than $20k in Attorneys' fees, that he otherwise would have had to pay out of his own pocket, all while not actually being guilty of anything!

    Actually, the order says that Navasca's actual legal fees are much less than what was claimed as attorney's fees, since Ranallo gave a discount. But I guess he can claim his normal hourly rate because the loser shouldn't benefit from the lawyer working below rate to help someone out.

  111. whyamihere..! says:

    The judgement ordering Prenda is pay for the expenses is good.

    But hasn't Prenda been left off the tough questions it needs to answer? This is exactly the reason why they could prevail for so long though their model of getting settlements is clearly based on fraud.

    I see many Judges are taking notice of Judge Wright order but not many of them are asking the tough questions he asked.

    Unless DOJ or IRS comes hunting, Prenda principals might just morphe their companies and do business as usual. Just another day in office, Eh!?

  112. kyzer says:

    Is Paul Duffy a complete moron? Saw this on twitter re LW systems v. Hubbard and just read through it. http://www.antonelli-law.com/uploads/LW_Systems_LLC_Amended_Complaint.pdf

    A lot of it sounds like it was written by a 12 year old. Duffy clearly has trouble understanding technology when he says stuff like :

    The computer software program, Malware, contained commands that damaged Plaintiff's computer system by slowing Plaintiff's computer system…

    Plaintiff was forced to keep its computer running longer (due to the slowed performance) which utilized more electricity and decreases the useful life of a computer.

    Wow. Genius. And then : Plaintiff retained a forensic computer consultant to identify IP addresses associated with Defendant and his co-conspirators.

    I wonder who that could be? Young Hansmeier called in to service again?

    So, let me take a stab at how this works. You set up a server, throw some software on it for user and password authentication, then some porn, you gotta have the porn. After that you have someone, we'll call him "John", got out to one or more of the porn password sharing sites that are out there and post some login info. You know, kind of like seeding a torrent almost. Then all you do is kick back, collect ip addresses, and let the lulz and lawsuits begin.

    What a bunch of (fill in the blank)'s

  113. James says:

    Is Paul Duffy a complete moron?

    Are you new here or just suffering from amnesia?

  114. Anonymous says:

    @kyzer

    The Hubbard case is one where this is suspicion of collusion between Prenda and the "defense."

    Here is an article about a similar case where a defendant filed an affidavit stating he had been contacted by Prenda, referred to a "defense" lawyer and then agreed to go along with their demands in exchange for dismissing the case against him personally.

    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/

    If Duffy is continuing to litigate these cases, you can imagine why everyone went pro se…

  115. snjwffl says:

    Chen's order mentions Lutz being deposed (pg. 8, line 11: "…and Mr. Lutz had not yet been deposed in another case."). It doesn't ring a bell (and googling yielded nothing), so which case was this?

  116. Fargo says:

    Question: Is Duffy suffering from chronic constipation or is he naturally red-shitfaced?

  117. AlphaCentauri says:

    @kyzer

    Is Paul Duffy a complete moron? Saw this on twitter re LW systems v. Hubbard and just read through it. http://www.antonelli-law.com/uploads/LW_Systems_LLC_Amended_Complaint.pdf

    Wow. Just … wow. He'd have to attend enrichment classes to test in the "moron" category.

    Clearly, he has zero idea what he's trying to say and is assuming the judge reading that complaint won't know enough to see the emperor has no clothes. Is he implying there was a direct link to his server from the hacked password site so it showed up on their logs as the referrer, or is he implying they ran the hacked password site themselves? And is he implying that they knew there was a password posted on-line that provided administrative access and that someone exploited it to install a program, but didn't have sense enough to cover his tracks? (Whoever wrote that malicious software better find another name for it; he's going to have trouble registering a trademark for "Malware.") And all the quotes about banks getting hacked and how no one is safe — what the fuck does that have to do with a site so insecure that the administrative password is posted on line?

  118. Fasolt says:

    Just read through that Duffy complaint. I see he managed to get through that whole complaint without citing any relevant cases and only one law. He did mention a lot of news articles, though.

  119. Fasolt says:

    Not only is Judge Wright haunting Prenda like Susan said, Delvan is as well. From the Judge Chen order:

    "However, one final consideration has been offered by Mr. Navasca, which raises even more concern on the part of the Court with respect to AF’s motivation. More specifically, Mr. Navasca has offered evidence – the Neville declarations – which indicate that persons affiliated with AF used the alias “sharkmp4…"

    Karma is a bitch, eh JJ?

  120. That Anonymous Coward says:

    Their "very costly" website (which IIRC was being run off of a Comcast router) was hacked. And they were unable to notice multiple people logging in from all over the country on the same account.
    The as if by magic MALWARE got onto the system from those users, who did not have access to an administrative account, and it slowed it all down.

    This is almost as good as the few porn copyright troll cases where the owner of the company is also the "expert" or the MM cases where they just keep getting hacked over and over and over despite paying all kinds of money to stop that from happening… their material ends up online before they even post it to the server. o_O

  121. anne mouse says:

    That's a particularly laughable complaint in the Hubbard case. Sure makes you wonder why any "defense" attorney would give Duffy the time of day, much less agree to any discovery.

    But what's up with the two pages worth of attorneys getting copies of the complaint? Are there multiple parties in this case? Because the complaint only asks for relief as to a singular Defendant (even though Duffy wants him declared "jointly and severally liable" – Prendistas just love that phrase!).

  122. Clownius says:

    But notably, what AF has not done is offer any counter-evidence such as a declaration from Mr. Steele in which he denies that he is “sharkmp4” or other evidence that AF did not take steps to induce users to download the subject works. … AF’s failure to submit any factual denial under oath is telling.

    Can i just say ouch.

    Judges (other than the more obviously compromised ones) just dont seem to miss much when it comes to Prenda anymore. These guys are screwed.

  123. JT says:

    Anybody keeping a running total on the sanctions?

  124. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @JT – I can only imagine that in their telephone boiler room there is a big LED sign with a number, telling them how much more they need to get out of targets.

  125. JT says:

    @kyzer

    So now I have to guard my systems against "teh social engineering MALWARE attack"??

  126. Delvan Neville says:

    I'm honestly not convinced the technical illiteracy in Duffy's filings are pure ignorance (nor am I entirely convinced he is the sole author). So long as the Judge doesn't know the technology well enough to shoot them down him or herself, they can get away with whatever incomplete or erroneous explanation of the tech that they like in a reply, notice, complaint, etc. so long as it's not coming from an expert on the matter (e.g. declaration given under penalty of perjury) and there isn't going to be an expert introduced by the defense to counter that. It's how they've gotten away with these cases for so long, any random federal judge has a lot on their plate, and isn't likely to really know the ins & outs of something so specialized (relatively). Presuming Hubbard is another quid pro quo, those arguments would only ever be challenged by a third party who successfully petitions the court for an amicus brief.

  127. Katherine says:

    New (to us) transcript from September 2012. Case name is AF Holdings vs Botson. It was submitted by Pietz as evidence into the Chen case, although I'm not sure that the intended to do so. In PACER and on the Internet Archive, there is a note stating that the document (29 plus its 6 attachments) was entered in error and should be disregarded.

    Naturally Gibbs refused to do that. Ask the guy to look at something and he will ignore you. Ask him to ignore something and he will throw a fit. Which is what he did.

    I'm really not sure what is going on here. Could someone explain it to me like I'm a law student? ;-)

  128. Lucius says:

    @JT & TAC:
    That boiler room better bring in at least $3,000/day, which is the accumulating late charge for more delay.

    The penalty was only $12,000 if paid Friday, but already $21,000 if they paid Monday (yesterday). When Prenda was faced with penalties before, they managed pay it just before the 3-day Memorial Day weekend. They do everything manually as slowly as possible, so we didn't know until it worked through the system a few days later.

    They could have again managed to pay it before the weekend. However it is done, the source of the funds would be very, very interesting.

  129. Katherine says:

    Just checked Pacer….still nothing new to report.

  130. Katherine says:

    Just checked pacer…if still no payment posted notice.

  131. anne mouse says:

    Katherine,
    I don't see any relationship between the two documents you linked, except that Gibbs represents AF Holdings in both cases. The first is a transcript of a hearing in which Gibbs attempts to save his case from being dismissed; specifically he wants to maintain a claim for "negligence" against the subscriber of record for an IP address, independent of whether that person committed any copyright infringement or even "contributed" to infringement under the copyright act or related statutes. He thinks that the subscriber should be liable if anybody else misuses the network, for failure to try hard enough to stop such misuse. (I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument – we could cut down on spam that way, if we forced everybody to harden their machines, though the costs would be high.) It's pretty clear that the judge isn't buying it, and at times I think Gibbs is not even understanding what the judge is saying. Ranallo barely has to speak.
    The second is an overwrought attack on Pietz in the usual Prenda style of "he must be punished!". Because filing an overlength notice of related cases (when there are thousands of related cases) is "reckless behavior" and "wanton disregard of the judicial process" and "abusive".
    I pretty much stopped reading at that point and started skimming, so maybe there's a reference to that other transcript somewhere but I didn't find it.

  132. Delvan Neville says:

    @anne mouse: The transcript is one of the exhibits to doc 29, which was the notice of related cases filed in error. The Gibbs document is a reply to doc 29. The error was entered by the court clerk the same day Gibbs filed his declaration, so can't be sure from that which came first.

    Interesting, though, that Gibbs was ready to reply to that instantly (within 24 hrs), yet now Prenda does everything last minute.

  133. @anne – I'm working on a writeup on the whole 'negligence' thing. having to dig up my notes from when I've covered the issue in the UK and Germany as well for TorrentFreak (it's been tried in their troll cases before, shot down in the uk, upheld at times in Germany)

    But it's coming. It just sometimes takes me a bit to get stuff finished.

  134. WDS says:

    @Katherine,

    Re the two documents. This is based entirely on memory without anything to refresh it, but if IRC the "accidentally" document was filed in the active case because Prenda had previously stated in that case that they would never/ever in a hundred years attempt to go after someone for contributory infringement, but just went after the infringer himself.

  135. Clownius says:

    @katherine

    It looks like you got a few donations to the Recapping fund. Let us know if they run short and do you take Bitcoin?

    @Andrew Norton

    I will watch with interest. I wasnt aware anyone had managed to get the negligence angle to fly. So be interested in the German angle on this one.

    Securing a network is bloody hard work beyond most people if you want to go beyond the basics that are easily cracked. I doubt my abilities to do it 100% so i wonder how any court can require someone with lower levels of technical skills to.
    That also raises plenty of questions about open wifi etc. Is the Internet Cafe dead in Germany?

  136. Anonymous says:

    @Clownius

    Courts have repeatedly neglected the negligence theory of copyright infringement.

    This is one of Marc Randazza's favorite trial balloons, and really it is shameful and pathetic even by copyright troll standards.

    In their shameless, unquenchable greed, if they were to succeed with this they would ultimately risk destroying free public Wi-Fi. Like Wi-Fi at Starbucks? Too bad, if their lawyers think is puts them at risk of losing a copyright trolling suit, they get shut down.

    Marc Randazza, John Steele, Keith Lispcomb, all willing to set everyone else's quality of life on fire to line their greedy pockets.

  137. SJD says:

    Regarding the LW Systems v Hubbard case: I wrote a post a couple of months ago.

  138. Anonymous says:

    @Katherine

    Fun find. I know Gibbs and Steele are different people (sometimes) but who would have thought a Prenda attorney could be such a stickler for following local rules, and such a staunch defender of the integrity of the courts? No wonder poor Gibbs couldn't keep working with Steele and Co. once he realized how little respect they had for the noble establishment of Federal Courts. (sarcasm).

    Talk about failing to read the tea leaves; Gibbs really got it wrong trying to paint Pietz as the misbehaving party. It is especially funny when a few months later, Wright took Gibbs to task for failing to file notices of related cases as part of the OSC proceedings. As part of the bigger picture, this is a great example of a series of filings from when Brett seemed to realize the handwriting was on the wall, but tried with progressively more desperate and expository filings to distract from the real issues. This filing doesn't touch on the Cooper fraud, but his last few attempts to prevent defendants from exploring the Alan Cooper signature "issues" were hysterical, although it turned out he had a great reason to be freaked out.

    I do wonder if these gems were actually authored by Gibbs or ghost-written by Steele. The self-righteousness matches perfectly with Steele's filings and his inability to understand when to stop digging. At the OSCs Gibbs did not carry himself like a guy with this much bluster, but then it could be that he was capable of realizing he was defeated, where as psycopathic Steele just can't quit.

  139. Clownius says:

    @Anonymous

    Yeah i thought the whole your responsible for someone else using your wifi thing had been drop kicked by the courts a few times.

    My amazement was that it had ever been even partially upheld anywhere.

    If it had Open wifi would have to be out and computer security experts everywhere would be well employed.

    Not to mention ISPs out of business.

  140. Anonymous says:

    @Clownius

    Obvious problem with Prenda is they don't even give a shit if their cases are meritless.

    Their first round of mass-Doe lawsuits, back when they had like 100-1000+ Does per case, they didn't even bother to register a lot of the movies with the Copyright Office, even though the registration is required for them to demand the scary $150,000 in statutory damages that they threatened in the dunning letters. But they just lied in the complaints and said the registration was pending.

  141. Katherine says:

    @Clownius: Yes, and thank you. Regarding Bitcoin….not yet. I don't even know how to convert them…yet.

    So did Pietz actually file the related cases thing accidentally-on-purpose? I wouldn't expected that of him.

  142. Katherine says:

    Side note: 2:48 eastern time and STILL no bond posted.

  143. Anonymous says:

    @Katherine

    Item 35 on the docket is an order not relating the cases, so regardless of why Pietz' motion was marked as filed in error, the judge ruled on it. He didn't seem impressed by Gibbs' theatrics though, it was a very simple order.

    Finally read that transcript from the Botson case, and wow is Gibbs a weasel. No case law or legal theory, just a bunch of blubbering and theorizing, and he says "we don't know," and "I think" over and over when asked for facts or legal arguments. I enjoyed the part where the judge points out the court has an open Wi-Fi network, I think I read about that on an observer's writeup of the hearing.

  144. Scytale says:

    wrt: Hubbard – is it not telling that they do not actually include any evidence, name any expert or the "forensic" company they hired, nor site any law

    wrt: AF Holdings vs Botson – I find it amazing how even in the written notes you can tell that Ranallo is a competent lawyer would clearly answers the judge with well thought out replies. Gibbs just rambles!

    wrt: Germany – Here it is a legal requirement to secure Wifi and ISPs to hold logs. Prosecutions are close to guaranteed (old lady with no modem was convicted!). It is far worse than the US by volume pls the fact that there is very little media about it.

  145. @scytale – yep, that was the case that springs to mind. the trolls in the UK then sent out letters referencing it and saying "and we feel the UK courts would rule likewise". Some courts in Germany have felt otherwise since then (http://torrentfreak.com/victims-of-wifi-theft-not-responsible-for-illegal-uploads-080709/). That reminds me, I need to check up on that and see if there needs to be a followup (ah, the work of a busy researcher is never done)

    And there's been more changes since then.
    You know, porn being harder to copyright (http://torrentfreak.com/porn-films-dont-get-copyright-protection-in-germany-court-rules-130701/) and then some new laws targeting the trolls (http://torrentfreak.com/germany-passes-law-to-mitigate-copyright-trolling-fines-130703/)

  146. grouch says:


    wrt: Germany – Here it is a legal requirement to secure Wifi and ISPs to hold logs. Prosecutions are close to guaranteed (old lady with no modem was convicted!).

    Do your prosecutors ever go after Microsoft for the major role it plays in enabling botnets, spam and 'pwned' computers and networks? If not, they're prosecuting the victims for the crimes and letting the main criminal carry on with impunity.

    Citadel is one of the biggest botnets in operation today. Microsoft said its creator bundled the software with pirated versions of the Windows operating system.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/net-us-citadel-botnet-idUSBRE95H1EG20130618

    The worst finding revealed by the study, however, is the fact that 25 percent of all spambots are located in offices, even those in Germany!

    http://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/artikel//spam-more-dangerous-than-ever-before/

  147. Katherine says:

    Interesting, though, that Gibbs was ready to reply to that instantly (within 24 hrs), yet now Prenda does everything last minute.

    They (Gibbs and/or JJ) probably started drafting it after Pietz filed this as a supplement to an earlier motion to relate cases. Four days later Gibbs filed an almost identical response

  148. Billy V says:

    @Scytale it is impossible for an ISP to know if you have an open wifi AP on your network. The best they can do is if they give you the wifi device, most of those they can pull settings from.

    However if you were to buy and plug in your own to their modem / router they have no way of knowing the settings on your AP.

  149. Scytale says:

    @Billy V, it is not up the ISP to know if its secure, its a requirement that the ISPs keep your IP address logs.

    In Germany it is a legal requirement to have a secure Wifi. Its your duty. Every router comes with it enabled as standard and resetting the password is mandatory on installation. The judges rule in favour of the lawyers, so don't even try and argue that encryption can be broken – it is simply not a defense.

    Whilst it is fantastic to see this truly horrible scam getting broken in the US, Europe is only just starting the fight and it is much harder here.

  150. Katherine says:

    Grrr…forgot to close my blockquote tag. In my previous post, only the first paragraph is supposed to be quoted….the rest are my own words.

  151. James says:

    Is it just me or is Morgan Pietz an excellent writer? In these cases almost any fool would look good when compared against the rambling prose of John Steele and Jacque "Gay Marriage!", but his thoughts seems unusually well organized and clearly presented.

  152. Billy V says:

    @Scytale ahh sorry, I took that they were required to keep logs to mean that they kept logs about the wifi security status :)

    Really is too bad about them assuming that security is fool proof. I have seen current wifi passwords (WPA2) hacked fairly quickly depending on the amount of traffic it has going over it.

  153. Katherine says:

    @Scytale. I'm surprised that this mess is only just starting to go down in Europe. Y'all had a form of the Internet much sooner than we Americans did. How have y'all avoided this for so long?

  154. Scytale says:

    @Billy, Katherine, Grouch

    I was reminder when reading the "AF Holdings vs Botson" notes that the duty that Gibbs tries to argue, actually exists in Germany. Basically a subscriber is liable for his connection and the onus of proof rests with the defendant not the lawyer. Argue all you like about malware and WPA2 hacking, its your duty as a defendant to prove your innocent.

    The settle-or-else industry in Germany has had hundreds of thousands pay out. The only thing that has recently happen is that they have set a ceiling on the allowed amount of requested settlement (for the first notice) and agreed that ISPs do not have a duty to log the IP / address information – though if they have it, they have to hand it over

    Major magazines & newspapers have written about it but nothing happens as it is perceived by the establishment as necessary. Some courts have challenged its draining effect on the court resources but have not blocked it.

    PS I did not want to hijack the thread – I am delighted to see Prenda starting to come apart and hope that this happens to the rest of the trolls. The sincere aim that Germany then wakes up to this.

  155. Britabroad says:

    @ Katherine

    If you want to see what happens when a troll dies, have a look up ACS Law in the UK….. This lot got caught doing a Prenda!!! Now broke and dis-barred…

  156. Katherine says:

    @Brita, I'll do that. Thanks.

    @Everybody: 10:30AM Eastern and STILL no bond posted.

  157. Jim Tyre says:

    Katherine,

    @Everybody: 10:30AM Eastern and STILL no bond posted.

    I think we all appreciate your diligence, I know I do. But there's really no need to spend the money to check PACER for this at off hours. (You posted a similar note late last night.)

    If an attorney, such as Morgan Pietz, is authorized to do direct electronic filing, then he can just as easily file at 3 am Pacific as 3 pm Pacific. Indeed, though this is judge-specific, some judges consider a document to be timely filed if electronically filed by 11:59:59 pm of the due date rather than by the court's close of business that day.

    But for manually filed documents, the clerk has to scan them before putting them into the court's electronic filing system. Meaning that (leaving aside truly exceptional circumstances), it's not going to happen outside of the court's normal business hours. Thus, here, there was no chance that it would have shown up on PACER after the court closed yesterday and before it opens today.

  158. JT says:

    @Lucius

    I was aiming to see something like this:

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  159. Britabroad says:

    Pesky manual filing…. Us addicts need our fix…..

  160. James Pollock says:

    "Do your prosecutors ever go after Microsoft for the major role it plays in enabling botnets, spam and 'pwned' computers and networks?"

    While you're at it, why not go after GM for all the car thefts?

  161. Katherine says:

    @JimTyre SaltMarshGhost showed me how to pull up a specific document without incurring a charge and so that's what I've been doing.

  162. Katherine says:

    …but what you said makes sense. Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

    That said….1:00pm Eastern and STILL no bond notice. ;-P

  163. James says:

    Katherine don't forget that Duffy has signaled his intent to tender a cashier's check for the clerk of the court to deposit. That is a very special piece of paper that has to be presented during normal business hour.

    While, in theory, nobody is dumb enough to present a hot check to a federal court, Prenda likes pushing the envelope. I am surprised the clerk did not specify a certified check which is a different flavor of financial instrument for which payment cannot be stopped.

  164. Katherine says:

    What do you want to bed they do something to screw the cheque up? Like make it out to the wrong person, forget to sign it, or post date it for sometime next year?

  165. Jim Tyre says:

    The supersedeas bond just made it onto PACER. Dated July 16, lodged with the Court July 19, approved by Judge Wright and filed today. Not a cshier's check, same bonding company as last time. $135,933.66. Premium is $1,859/year

  166. @Brita – ACS stuff was fun (I did the initial breakdown of their leaked emails, and wrote a rather damning brief for Chief Master Weingard) but the main thing there was the support of a major player, in the Consumers Association (through their magazine "Which?").

    I also did a breakdown of Goodhue's Friday morning brief, forgot to post it here, so here it is

  167. grouch says:


    While you're at it, why not go after GM for all the car thefts?

    That's straying a bit too far off topic for my comfort — no scamming attorneys or prosecutors — so I'll just point out that (a) GM doesn't, to my knowledge, make cars easier to steal via deliberate design choices, (b) the car thief cannot usually use possession of the car to successfully complete transactions with medical, financial or government institutions in the owner's name, and (c) stealing a car doesn't usually provide effective means for taking illicit possession of many other cars (see two previously linked articles). (You may also enjoy http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653 ).

    [C'mon, Judge Wright. Fire the photon torpedoes or something! The Pretendas are cloaking!]

  168. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Grouch: Honda & Toyota DID make it easy to steal cars by deliberately not including features: they were very late to adopt transponder (chip) keys, so mid 90s Hondas and Toyotas are trivial to steal, and there is a big BIG theft problems on those cars.

  169. anon says:

    Did anyone notice that they misspelled the word ¨Three¨ on the bond amount?

  170. Lucius says:

    Duffy filed a July 17th statement with the court that the bond was at first issued on July 16th, but then the surity company "refused to allow the bond agent to release the bond":
    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.225.0.pdf

    Does this say that the bond company filed a paper on July 16th, but do not stand behind it? In the same document, Duffy states that they will need at least five more days to restart and deliver a cashier's check instead.

    Is Prenda covered by this questionable bond, or is the clock still running, and penalties accumulating?

  171. Marisco Miró says:

    Also, visibly absent from the list of the jointly and severally liable persons and corporations in the 12-cv-08333 bond is Brett Gibbs. Does this still comply with the Court's orders? I thought the bond must cover all of the "Prenda parties".

  172. kyzer says:

    @Lucius – I was wondering the same thing. The date on the bond is the 16th, but Duffy filed his cashiers check motion on the 17th saying they could pay in 5 days. Judge Wright replied on the 18th with his sanctions order. The bond says it was lodged on the 19th and approved by Judge Wright today. The dates are kind of screwy. No sign of payment of sanctions either. Even if the bond did go through on the 16th they owe 3K. Hmmm

  173. anne mouse says:

    The case that just won't quit! Do I have to learn something about bonds and sureties now? I'm sure I quit practicing law years ago so I wouldn't have to deal with this stuff!
    On the last page of the bond, there's a "certificate by attorney" which bears a hard-to-read signature that might be John Steele's. I'm thinking Steele got the bond but forgot to tell Duffy about it.
    Meanwhile, I'm a bit mystified by Duffy's motion. Beyond the pathetic nature of saying it's not your fault that you tried to get a bond on the last day of the deadline and there was an unforeseen delay, and the strangeness of needing five business days to write a cashier's check, I see nothing in the local rules or elsewhere that says Duffy needs a judge's order before he can show up with a cashier's check. 65-10 "In any civil proceeding, a cashier’s check may be deposited with the Clerk in lieu of any bond or undertaking requiring a personal or corporate surety."

  174. Clownius says:

    Well at least we have the correct address for Steele now so he should get his copy lol

    Sounds like the surity company did a little research and considered the chances of getting their bond back. Decided not to do any more dough.

  175. Bystander says:

    But looks like Judge Wright signed off and approved the bond today (7/23) so maybe Duffy et. al. were able to finally sort things out with the surety company? (Unless they just forged his signature ;) )

  176. bert says:

    @kyzer, Lucius
    Yeah, very strange.. Also did you note the part that looks "added in":

    "; provided, however, that the aggregate liability of surety to the named obligees shall not, in any event, exceed the aforesaid penal sum"

    What happened to the first (101650$) bond they posted – additional conditions got applied afterwards by Wright, are they fulfilled? I can not remember seeing any new bond posted, but maybe that is not necessary, and the same bond which was worked out by Prenda alone is still valid with all the new conditions?

    Any other ways/weasel wording this bond could be "fishy"? The whole thing is a bit weird.

    Also, on the last page, is this not Wrights' signature? Approved on the 16th of July? I am rather confused.

  177. Lucius says:

    @Bystander:
    If Prenda was eventually able to sort things out with the surety company, and file it only today, doesn't that say they owe the penalty until today?

    Does Judge Wright's signature signify that he is waiving the penalty, or that it was (or will be) paid separately?

  178. Katherine says:

    Naturally…the moment I leave to run errands, the damn thing gets posted.

    Sorry everybody! I can't sit at my computer 24/7!

  179. Katherine says:

    I ran the document through a tool that is supposed to be able to determine if the document has been 'shopped. The results came back as questionable. Here is the meta data:

    File Size 234 kB
    File Type PDF
    MIME Type application/pdf
    PDF Version 1.4
    XMP Toolkit Adobe XMP Core 4.0-c316 44.266826, Mon Dec 18 2006 14:26:17
    Format application/pdf
    Subject None
    Creator Tool Nuance Communications, Inc.
    Create Date 2013:07:23 09:42:37-07:00
    Metadata Date 2013:07:23 10:47:44-07:00
    Document ID uuid:857ae661-6408-4bec-8965-56ccc15f6461
    Instance ID uuid:3ebb4bf1-f8b9-4f06-9dd8-f693148afe59
    Page Count 4
    Creator Nuance Communications, Inc.
    Producer Nuance Communications, Inc.; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT
    Title Nuance Communications, Inc.
    Keywords None
    Modify Date 2013:07:23 10:47:44-07:00

    Of course this COULD be because of the recapping….

    Its notable that my copy was not downloaded until 4:12 eastern.

  180. Bystander says:

    @Lucius

    One thing I'm sure of is that Wright isn't waiving any penalties.

  181. Katherine says:

    Here is the first bond order.

    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.174.0.pdf

    It doesn't look anywhere near as messy as this new one.

  182. Regarding PDF metadata: the iText is the PACER script that adds the headers. Nuance Communications is also normal, although I think that usually indicates something scanned in.

    There's a doc #230 now, by the way.

  183. bert says:

    ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.230.0.pdf

    Steele agreed to pay Pietz & Renallos attorney fees.

  184. James says:

    I think those are separate bonds, separately enforceable, so no overlap except to the parties. I suspect that the hold-up on issuing the bond had to do with the quality of the guarantee to the surety. Ultimately the surety wants to attach something of value that they can easily get their hands on if they have to pay out on the bond. They can't cover their underwriting losses with just the 1% premium.

    If you were bonding John Steele and friends you might want a stack of paperwork ten feet tall perfecting your first lien interest(s) in whatever was being pledged. Personally I would want their houses, with an all-risks insurance policy and property taxes prepaid for the next two years, with a $1 option to purchase and an iron-clad irrevocable power-of-attorney to transfer the property if the bonds are forfeit.

    Might they expect a protracted court case if they were to try and take the houses? You bet they would, which is precisely why it took so long to paper the transaction.

  185. Katherine says:

    Doc 230 & attachment RECAPped.

  186. snjwffl says:

    Is it just me or is Ranallo's name spelled wrong throughout the document, even the part signed by Pietz and Ranallo's attorney?

  187. snjwffl says:

    *That was supposed to quote Bert's post above

  188. Katherine says:

    Thanks for getting the doc, Bert.

  189. anne mouse says:

    Prenda is making me paranoid. The second page of doc #230 does not match the first page, and I think I see cut-off bits of text there.

  190. Katherine says:

    Beat me to it, Anne. I was just about to say the same thing.

  191. Also, we need some help for the AF Holdings V Patel transcript, so I've set up a pitchin (like a chipin). The money will go to Blair's account (Blair being Patel's lawyer)
    Page with info is here – http://pitchinbox.com/pages/4899665002

  192. bert says:

    Katherine, i did not get any docs, that would be you I guess (thanks!). I just posted the link (tried an old link with the "229" changed to "230", and someone already recapped it so it worked).

    I keep repeating myself, but that first bond order you posted – it should be moot, as it is payable to "John Doe" only (among other things), correct? Did they ever posted a bond/whateverisnecessary to fix this?

  193. Katherine says:

    Nah, I didn't get the doc. Got the attachment, but not the doc.

    Ranallo's name is spelled correctly throughout most of the attachment (a proposed order) but is misspelled in the title area. Looks like a standard issue typo though.

  194. Delvan Neville says:

    Steele could very well have just printed out the signature page from the document that Heller's firm drafted, signed it and sent a scan of that back so Heller could submit it on PACER.

  195. Katherine says:

    Its not just the signatures that are messed up though. Its the entire page. You can actually *see* the scotch the scotch tape in the scan.

  196. Delvan Neville says:

    Both parties print, and sign. Scotch tape together to have both signatures show up on the copy they scanned. (I'd have done it with GIMP or the like, but if these cases teach us anything its that being in the legal field does not necessarily make one wise in the way of computers). With how fast the turn-around was on this thing relative to most things Prenda, such a scenario wouldn't surprise me.

  197. MCB says:

    I wonder why Steele is posting this bond. His doing so seems to suggest his strategy is not one of being judgment proof as I had assumed.

  198. Katherine says:

    Delvan did you LOOK at the document? While it is entirely possible that what you are saying is true, it would seem simpler to just print out a copy of the order, fax it to JJ, have him sign it and fax it back and then scan that copy. Instead they've done a physical cut and paste that looks even more forged than the latest bond notice.

  199. Delvan Neville says:

    Why do you think Heller would be forging a signature page?

  200. Liza says:

    Katherine, it's really not that unusual. Back before USBC went to electronic signatures I taped my fair share of signature blocks together. Attorney A drafts the document and sends it to Attorney B & C at the same time because Attorney A doesn't want to waste the time of waiting for Attorney B to sign it and send it back before then forwarding it to Attorney C. Especially because Attorney B might be in court, or with clients, or doing who knows what.

    Yes, sending it separately means that some poor staff member like me has to tape it together. But that is often much faster than doing it the other way.

  201. Katherine says:

    Why do you think Heller would be forging a signature page?

    I couldn't say. It just seems strange that — given Prenda's tendency to make mountains out of even smallest molehills, and John Steele's history of saying one thing and then doing the opposite — Heller wouldn't go out of his way to do EVERYTHING by the book.

    That second page didn't come out of the printer looking the way it does now. Heller, or somebody, did some cutting and taping before scanning it. And in doing so, they have opened the door to the possibility of Steele accusing Heller of forging *his* signature.

    Furthermore, I'm surprised that Ranello & Pietz would even agree to this. What guarantee do they have that Steele will uphold his end of the bargain. We're talking about someone who doesn't even pay his own *employees* (Gibbs; Wasinger). Someone who appears to have nothing but contempt for the Courts and their officers. Someone who forged the signature of a personal friend (Alan Cooper).

    Maybe the events of the July 12th finally put the Fear of God into him. But I kinda doubt it.

  202. Lucius says:

    The dates by the signatures would be consistent with Heller signing on July 19, scanning and sending to Steele, who signed, scanned, and returned on July 21.
    I can't detect any marks that would indicate a physical splice between the signatures.

    Steele could have a poorly-maintained scanner, which if true could explain the extra dark setting to compensate and the residual images from behind.

    I'm a little surprised not to see page 2 tilted and misaligned, which seemed characteristic of past Prenda documents.

  203. Mike says:

    @ Katherine If Steele reneges, then Pietz just files the motion. The stip relieves him of the obligation to file the motion (which the court ordered); it doesn't preclude him from filing a motion if Steele flakes.

  204. Delvan Neville says:

    Pietz and Ranallo are smart cookies. I'd wager they're fairly certain of payment on the matter here, getting paid now vs. after trials & appeals is the whole point of a settlement.

    In other news (via Kurt Opsahl) LW Systems v. Hubbard has been dismissed with prejudice per the stipulation linked there.

  205. Katherine says:

    Wright's signed off on it.

    I'm having trouble getting the new doc to recap so I'll upload it to scribd.

  206. Mika says:

    Re situation in Germany: It is really interesting. The law actallually states that "providers of telecommunication means" which "merely pass through data" shall not be liable for any infringement etc. which happens using these telecommunication means. However, courts have literally decided, that only big telcos can probably be "providers of telecommunication means". There are no free wifis in cafés etc. in Germany. It is pretty obviously against the letter of the law (although, considering our parliament, might not be against the spirit of the law at hand) to somehow draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say: "You have to be bigger than [random amount of subscribers or something] to enjoy protection, all others shall be liable for everything which happens in their wifi!", but this is what happened. Courts uphold it. I don't even believe it is about corruption, I think it is about the judges believing so deeply into what big media argues (there would be no single hollywood film on dvd if people had free wifi) that they think unleashing the free wifis would bring the very fabric of our culture down or something.

  207. WDS says:

    @Delvan,

    It sounds like Duffy was smart enough to get the heck out of Dodge before the wheels came off there as well.

  208. jackn says:

    Here is the first bond order.

    http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.174.0.pdf

    It doesn't look anywhere near as messy as this new one.

    It looks like the rate for the second bond went up quite a bit.

  209. GrimGhost says:

    I have a question. Suppose a different porn-troll lawyer, with an actual porn-producer client, were to waltz into Judge Wright's or Judge Chen's courtroom. And the lawyer asks to get discovery of IP addresses of people who'd torrented the client's movie; the lawyer swears on his grandmother's grave that the contact info will be used only for creating a class-action lawsuit. Can the judge compel the lawyer to actually file the class-action lawsuit AND NOT send out individual shakedown letters? Or is the judge's only recourse to deny the request for discovery?

  210. Jon says:

    So assuming nobody comes up with anything from left field, are there any open issues in Judge Wright's case aside from the appeal and the various agencies working on the referrals? Besides the late fees on the latest bond, that is (or are those included?). Could this be the end of our Judge Wright love-fest?

  211. Anonymous says:

    @Jon

    I am hoping and praying that the Ninth Circuit has a situationally-appropriate sense of humor and remands the case back to Wright for the full hearing of the issues that Prenda claims they were denied in the first two OSC hearings. So far it seems like the worst thing for Prenda, and the best for our entertainment, is to give them exactly what they say they want.

  212. Jim Tyre says:

    Heading back to the Navasca case in San Francisco, Nick Ranallo now has filed his reply in support of his motion for sanctions. (This is a different motion than the motion for attorney fees which he just won.) The main part of the response is at http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.101.0.pdf

    The package also included a new Declaration from Brett Gibbs, http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.101.1.pdf and a new one from Morgan Pietz, http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.101.2.pdf Also included are the old Gibbs declaration, http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.101.3.pdf and the Order from Judge Wright relieving Pietz and Ranallo from having to make a sanctions motion, http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.101.4.pdf

  213. James says:

    Gibbs seemed to have crawled from beneath the bus to declare in no uncertain terms that the Prenda crowd is a pack of liars. This will come as no shock to anybody that frequents Popehat, FCT or DTD but I don't think he has done so quite directly in a sworn declaration.

    Brent is not a happy camper and seems to subscribe to the theory of "never get mad, but ALWAYS get even".

  214. Clownius says:

    Looks like Gibbs finally wised up and decided to return the bus throwing favor. He has no urge to go down alone on this one.

    Happy to see it.

  215. Katherine says:

    Gibbs is as big a liar as the rest of them. He's just slightly smarter than Duffy, Lutz, or the Hansmeier brothers for getting out when he did. Mark my words, there is nothing Steele won't do and nobody he won't betray in order to retain his license and stayout of jail.

  216. whheydt says:

    Re: Katherine..

    Including tell the truth and least an honest life?

  217. Steven H. says:

    @Whheydt:

    "Including tell the truth and least an honest life?"

    Well…let's not get carried away here.

  218. Trent says:

    If they remanded it back to Wright he would have the opportunity to put them under oath again and they would undoubtedly take the 5th again. I doubt the 9th wants to waste everyone's time.

    I can't help but wonder if appealing this might get an order that Wright was too light on them and remands it back for further sanctions. I think they are playing in a tub of gasoline while smoking.

  219. Anonymous says:

    @Trent

    With the number of government ID badges at the last hearing and now the smackdown from Chen in San Francisco, there's no way these guys are going into the appeal without everyone in the building knowing exactly what is going on and facing a massive uphill battle through skepticism and disdain. Do you think judges and their clerks don't read legal blogs and enjoy the comedy? Prenda's reputation will precede them, and while that may not be quite fair in the justice-is-blind sense, it will be well-earned.

  220. MCB says:

    Katherine,

    I don't think Steele has any chance whatsoever of keeping his law license. Does anyone disagree?

  221. Katherine says:

    @whheydt Perhaps what I should of said was, "There is nothing he won't do to get what he wants. In this case, what he wants is to keep his law license, to stay out of jail, and to hold onto as much money as possible."

    But I was on my tablet and the battery was running low so I needed to keep it short.

  222. Katherine says:

    @MCB i don't know. I sure hope not. But I don't really expect this to stop him from *trying* to keep it. And if that means throwing everybody under the bus, then under the buss they will go.

  223. Trent says:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, IMO Steele demonstrates the great example of a true Sociopath. Again, IMO he has demonstrated numerous times that he has zero empathy with anyone other than himself, a napoleon complex that would make napoleon look humble and an ability and willingness to sell his own mother into slavery for a dollar. He's the type of person that falsifies accounting information and destroys billions of dollars of the public's money (including destroying the retirement of tens of thousands of people) to net himself a couple million dollars (Just like Skilling from Enron).

    Here is a quick summary I stole from a helpful website summarizing the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) entry on Sociopath.

    Glibness and Superficial Charm

    Manipulative and Conning
    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    Grandiose Sense of Self
    Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    Pathological Lying
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    Shallow Emotions
    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    Incapacity for Love

    Need for Stimulation
    Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

    Callousness/Lack of Empathy
    Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

    Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
    Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

    Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
    Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

    Irresponsibility/Unreliability
    Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

    Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
    Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

    Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
    Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

    Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
    Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

    I'd like to see someone argue that Steele hasn't demonstrated most of those.

  224. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I love this zinger:

    Counsel for defendant cannot even think of additional criminal and/or administrative bodies that were not already apprised of the issue by Judge Wright.

  225. Anonymous Coward says:

    Said it before several times, but I think it's worth repeating:

    I propose that Team Prenda be given the nickname "mugus", as Nigerian "419" scammers call their victims, and are likewise called by scambaiters, given that Team Prenda and 419 scammers share the following characteristics:

    – Elevated, pompous sense of twisted morals
    – Insisting that they deserve the money because of bullshit wool-over-the-eyes reasons
    – Getting angry at the victims when called out for it
    – “Legal” shenanigans
    – Ever-increasing payment demands
    – Actually very well off in monetary terms

  226. Christenson says:

    @Delvan:
    From the Navasca reply, in support of the motion for sanctions:

    "Even a cursory review of Mr. Neville’s declaration supports its reliability – it is incredibly detailed and his conclusions are exhaustively supported by objective evidence."

    I told you it was a good piece of writing that stood on its own!

  227. GrimGhost says:

    @Coward–

    Oh, please, don't let John Steele come here and read this! Can you imagine the result?

    "Dear Mr. Coward, my name is John Steele and I am an American lawyer (though not licensed to practice in Florida, let me be clear about that!) I have been retained by the Nigerian government. Due to [improbable reason], they have several million dollars that they need to transfer directly to your bank account. Please divulge to me your bank routing number and account number. Having this much money will change your life; govern yourself accordingly. Welcome to the big leagues."

  228. Anonymous Coward says:

    @GrimGhost

    If this happens he can have a tattoo on his he-teet of the Church of the Painted Breast, hold up a sign saying "I M N S CLOWN", pour wine and milk on his head, then take a long road trip to Ghana.

    While I don't scambait, I'm certain that 419eaters will accept the challenge to drag this scumbag through as much mud as possible, if that ever comes to pass.

  229. Jim Tyre says:

    I began yesterday with some news about the Navasca case in San Francisco. I will do so again today, though it seems unlikely that I will follow suit tomorrow. '-)

    This is about Navasca's motion for sanctions, which is different than the recently granted motion for attorneys' fees. Judge Chen had taken it off of his calendar, and transferred it to Magistrate Judge Vadas. At the same time, Judge Chen vacated whatever the hearing date was, because Judge Vadas controls his own calendar.

    This morning Judge Vadas set the motion for hearing on August 28 at 1:00 pm. http://ia701207.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.cand.254869/gov.uscourts.cand.254869.102.0.pdf

    Whether any Bay Area types will want to attend and grace the rest of us with news is beyond my knowledge.

  230. Bystander says:

    Hopefully, then, the proposed deposition of Lutz in the Georgia case will take place on Aug 21, in time to be used in this Aug 28 evidentiary hearing for Navasca. Assuming CEO Lutz shows up to his deposition and doesn't take the fifth, it'll be interesting to see what new contortions the Prenda gang come up with.

    It's also incredible that the gang is going after Gibbs with a bar complaint. There seems to be no end to the glass houses they're willing to throw stones at.

    (p.s. I always wanted to end a sentence with a proposition: New rural student at Harvard walking around campus, asks passing professor "Can you tell me where the library's at?" "Young man, you should never end a sentence with a preposition. Would you care to rephrase that question?" "Ok sir. Can you tell me where the library's at, asshole?)

  231. Bystander says:

    p.p.s. Oops: "proposition = preposition"

  232. Christenson says:

    @Bystander: That's a PROPOSITION, fer shure! (giggle) Now you've done it!!!!

  233. BaronLurk says:

    @Trent – Excellent summary.
    Could you share the link to the website?

  234. Anon E. Mous says:

    @Bystander

    Lutz may go to the hearing if this is one of the states he isn't wanted in ( insert rolling laughter here) but after his performance in the Sunlust pictures case, I don't know if he will do much talking (unless John is there again to stick his hand up Lutz butt and move his lips for him and do the talking).

    If I were Steele I wouldn't let Lutz near that hearing, lord knows Lutz was terrible in the Sunlust case, so I don't see him fairing any better in Georgia.

    You would have to think that if there is a Grand Jury looking at RICO for the Prenda gang, the Prenda gang is giving them a lot to look at. The mere fact that Steele filed a bar complaint against Gibbs is just a sign of how butthurt John is at Gibbs for not taking the hits for them.

    I believe it was a crucial mistake for Steele to file that bar complaint, you can bet that Gibbs would have kept e-mails and phone bill records that would show he was in contact with Hansmeier and Steele in regards to litigation matters.

    That would make Gibbs a very powerful witness in a RICO investigation and in an IRS criminal division investigation.

    I still cant wait to see how Duffy, Steele and Hansmeier say where all the money in Prenda accounts went from these settlements? You have to recall that Hansmeier said that it was in the accounts and no monies had been paid out and was their for future litigation.

    But Duffy has said in his filings with the courts that Prenda was winding down operations and had no momey to pay any penalties and or costs associated or assigned to it by the courts.

    So how will they explain where all that settlement money went to? Also I would have to believe that the IRS will also be wondering in light of Hansmeier and Duffy's statements where the money went since the IRS is kinda picky about these things.

  235. Britabroad says:

    Pretty sure I have missed something here??? What happend in Arizona last Friday? Seems like there is little information on what went on in the court…. Judge Snow asked some fairly awkward questions of our bold hero's, yet the answers are not in the wild yet?

  236. kyzer says:

    @Britabroad – The only thing I've seen in the AZ hearing is the post made by Paul Ticen in this thread on the 20th.

    "Since some are wondering what happened at the Arizona OSC hearing yesterday, I'll give a quick run down. I represented individuals targeted by a subpoena issued earlier this year who were Mr. Harris purported co-conspirators. The Court quashed the subpoena. And the Court gutted Plaintiff's statutory damage claim, getting Goodhue to ultimately concede that AF Holding's claim is limited to actual damages (and therefore the case is effectively over). There were no Rule 11 or other sanctions handed down, as it was clear Judge Snow didn't want to go down that path.

    Mark Lutz appeared, and while I was reading or writing something down, I believe Lutz stated (not under oath) during the hearing that the owner of AF Holdings is the "AF Trust." Judge Snow repeated the name "AF Trust," and I wrote that down. But I'll need to see the transcript for the precise question, answer and context to be absolutely certain. If so, it appears this contradicts a declaration (based on a tech dirt post) that Lutz submitted in the ND Cal that he signed a filed document on behalf of the owner, which was the "Salt Marsh Trust." He also submitted a declaration in this case that it was the "Salt Marsh trust." It's possible that Judge Snow may have said AF Trust by mistake.

    The hearing was short on fireworks but accomplished my client's objectives and effectively ended the case and BitTorrent litigation in AZ."

    If you'd like to read more on the Bench Memorandum that Goodhue submitted, Andrew Norton does an excellent analysis of it on his blog at http://ktetch.co.uk/2013/07/prenda-wants-it-both-ways-in-arizona/#more-1059

  237. britabroad says:

    So, they have avoided answering the questions on how many and how much 'settlements' they have received….

  238. Basil Forthrightly says:

    Don't think I saw this mentioned yet…

    Status hearing set in the consolidated libel suits, Prenda v. Godfread et al, for August 14 before Judge John W. Darrah in Chicago.

    http://madisonrecord.com/news/257569-status-hearing-over-prenda-laws-libel-suit-set-for-aug-14

  239. AlphaCentauri says:

    Just wondering, do we know for sure that Steele hasn't been disbarred already (somewhere/everywhere)? Has he actually been "practicing law" other than the pro se activity?

  240. anne mouse says:

    Alpha,

    We can be pretty confident because he only joined the Illinois bar in 2007.

    I just picked a 2013 Illinois discipline report at random after searching for cases where the penalty was as least a year's suspension:
    https://www.iardc.org/rd_database/rulesdecisions.html

    Not sure when the complaint was filed, but the misconduct happened in 1999. (Can somebody explain the swindle? The idea was to inflate a construction contract by a million bucks. By my math, the secret deal was that the "financial advisor" pocketed all of this (though the judgement says only $700,000 was paid). Why would the two construction companies agree to this deal? Why did the construction company, not the adviser, get ordered by the criminal court to pay the money back to the customer? Does the scheme depend on any way on the fact that the funds were raised using tax-exempt, limited-purpose bonds, or is that just a convenient hook for proving that the funds were knowningly misused?)

  241. anne mouse says:

    Oops, can't seem to make a direct link. The strange swindle was in the Glennon case, Commission No. 2009PR00137

    The complaint seems to have come after the criminal conviction, which was related to Operation Game Board, so circa 2007?

    Hm, Glennon's partner in the scam pleaded guilty to an extortion scheme in 2005: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-21/news/chi-050621blackmail_1_edward-hospital-plainfield-hospital-pamela-meyer-davis Not clear how it relates to the Glennon scheme, but apparently there are lots of ways to make money in construction.

  242. anne mouse says:

    OK, found the full story. The $1M was apparently not intended to be kept by Glennon but was to be passed on to Levine, a member of a board that had to approve the expansion. Glennon was apparently "individual 1" in this story:
    http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2013/04/12/proposed-crystal-lake-mercy-hospital-makes-jacob-kiferbaums-plea-agreement-as-another-rob-blagojevich-scandal-winds-down/

    Sorry for the threadjack.

    Anyway, the point was, expect bar discipline to take a couple of years, even in a very high-profile case. Remember Charles Carreon?

  243. I think the better parallel would be Jack Thompson.

  244. darthskeptic says:

    It took just under 3 years from the date Judge Moore filed a bar complaint to the day Jack Thompson's disbarment was final. http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/26/jack-thompson-disbarment-time-line#.UfLb641JOAg

    Steele could keep this going into 2016.

  245. And that was after a history of fighting with the Bar and the state supreme court that lasted 20 years

  246. Dr. Wu says:

    For those of you not familiar with the way we do things here in the Land of Lincoln, the facts in that case, in increasing order of rarity, are as follows: (1) someone tried to bury a $1M kickback in a construction contract; (2) said person got caught; (3) said conspiracy made it into the newspapers. Must have been a slow news day.

  247. Clownius says:

    @ Dr. Wu

    1. Sounds like situation normal in most places
    2. Is sadly rare as no one wants to know
    3. Is rarer still as the newspaper can usually be paid off with a little advertising.

  248. James Pollock says:

    "While you're at it, why not go after GM for all the car thefts?

    That's straying a bit too far off topic for my comfort — no scamming attorneys or prosecutors — so I'll just point out that (a) GM doesn't, to my knowledge, make cars easier to steal via deliberate design choices, (b) the car thief cannot usually use possession of the car to successfully complete transactions with medical, financial or government institutions in the owner's name, and (c) stealing a car doesn't usually provide effective means for taking illicit possession of many other cars (see two previously linked articles)."

    Well, the thing is, there's no liability for negligence following an intervening criminal act. So if you leave the car running while you run into the 7-11, and a car thief hops in and drives off, and later mows down 17 children and 2 nuns in a crosswalk with it while fleeing the cops, you aren't liable, only the car thief is. Certainly the car manufacturer doesn't have any liability for the fact that you failed to use the security features built into their product.
    By parallel, if you connect your system to the public Internet without properly securing it, and it gets hijacked into a botnet, you aren't liable for the fact that your computer was used in a massive DDOS attack on the computers of Goliath National Bank, and Microsoft isn't liable for the fact that you didn't use the security features built into their product.

  249. Katherine says:

    Bringing things back on subject: What's next for Prenda?

  250. grouch says:


    By parallel, if you connect your system to the public Internet without properly securing it, and it gets hijacked into a botnet, you aren't liable for the fact that your computer was used in a massive DDOS attack on the computers of Goliath National Bank, and Microsoft isn't liable for the fact that you didn't use the security features built into their product.
    — James Pollock

    You may have missed out on a few decades of information. The user cannot secure Microsoft Windows, even using the things built into it, even disallowing all those .dlls from CDs that come with devices, even using 3rd party software designed to enhance security. Microsoft knows this, has known this for as long as there has been a public network, and has been warned by experts around the world, yet has not designed out the problems.

    [Sorry, Katherine. I'll shut up now.]

  251. Lucius says:

    @Katherine: We could use something like John Henry's past document timeline, but instead covering the future for all known and expected actions.

    I did find Duffy's letter to Judge Bolton in Arizona referenced there:
    http://pastehtml.com/view/cyp582ds0.html
    It is dated May 16, but marked received by the court on July 17.

    This might make more sense if Duffy were to pay almost any law student or English major to edit it for him. His filings seem to fall into two categories: those 'copy and pasted' from what John Steele ghostwrites for him, and those that sound like an illiterate moron.

  252. PonyMaster2k says:

    Same question as Katherine. Do we have a list of upcoming events for Prenda? There's some kind of appeal in November, right?

  253. Anon says:

    Katherine has been taking donations for PACER use, maybe she could answer her own question…

    Off the top of my head, there are this month:

    Evidentiary hearing for sanctions in CAND AFH v Navasca.

    Case management conferences in 5 MND AFH v Doe cases where the Magistrate Judge reopened the cases to investigate whether there was fraud on the court re: Alan Cooper.

    Awaiting order from AZD AFH v Harris.

    Awaiting order from GA?D AFH v Patel and ongoing discovery.

    Awaiting order from MAD AFH v ??? where the Doe has motioned for a default judgment against plantiff for counterclaims.

    Status hearing in ILND in Prenda and Paul Duffy v Godfread et al (a.k.a., the defamation case).

  254. darthskeptic says:

    Awaiting Duffy's brief in the DC Circuit AF Holdings mass doe case. (12-7135)

  255. Katherine says:

    @Anon: Fair point…but I didn't want to go digging though recap and pacer stuff when it seemed likely that someone already knew the answer off hand.

    Speaking of pacer….I RECAPed some more historical stuff this evening.

    Robert Gibbs Ex-Parte application for Early Discovery with its two exhibits (1 and 2). The exhibits haven't quite made their way to the Internet Archive, but I know I saw the little recap popup appear so I imagine they will get there eventually.

  256. Nicholas Weaver says:

    And the Prenda hits keep coming:
    http://t.co/gs7I7DYBic

    Yeup, Hansmeier of Class Action Justice Institute Inc, who has nothing at all to do with Prenda, is now representing AF Holdings in the reopened Minnesota cases…

  257. Myk says:

    but…if the Prendtards are not in cahoots – as they claim is the case – how can Hansmeier know what is in Duffy's forthcoming submission? Timelords?

  258. WDS says:

    Katherine,

    Is the "Robert" Gibbs thing a brain fart are is their some subtle something there that I'm just missing.

  259. WDS says:

    @Myk, looks more big league but is Suite 212-313 mean they have offices on two floors, or is 313 a mail slot inside Suite 212?

  260. Katherine says:

    @WDS: Half brain fart, half Freudian Slip.

  261. Katherine says:

    Also recapped:

    John Doe's notice of related cases (dated December 3rd, 2012). Plus exhibits one & three Please note that I incorrectly titled these exhibits as being part of document eighteen. They are actually part of Document 15.

    Exhibit 2 was the Sunlust Florida transcript. The one where Lutz presented himself as a corporate representative.

    Anyway, THIS is document 18: BRETT Gibb's response Plaintiff's response in Opposition to Notice of related cases (or, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.")

    Ken blogged about this stuff very early on in his coverage of Prenda, but its always interesting to see the actual documents.

  262. James Pollock says:

    "You may have missed out on a few decades of information. The user cannot secure Microsoft Windows, even using the things built into it"

    Actually, you can. Well, not against the NSA (and, quite likely, various other nationalities' equivalents)

    "(Microsoft) has not designed out the problems."
    Nor Apple, nor the open-source community. Alas, the Internet core protocols were never designed for security. The people who built them were just trying to get things connected; designing in security would have placed an overhead on communication that most would not have been willing to pay, anyway (plus, of course, the NSA and various other alphabet agencies were actively suppressing encryption research at the time.)

  263. grouch says:

    @James Pollock
    No. Just, no. What you said isn't even wrong.

  264. James Pollock says:

    "No. Just, no. What you said isn't even wrong."
    No, it wasn't.

  265. Fasolt says:

    Loved this comment from the Class Action Justice Institute filing by ol' Paul:

    "…the nature in which Mr. Cooper was recruited by his attorney, Paul Godfread, to attack Plaintiff in cases nationwide—bears indicia of fraud on the Court."

    @Paul H.: You would certainly know how to spot fraud on a court, wouldn't you?

    Also, I don't believe the word Justice should be used in the naming of anything you and your ilk have anything to do with.

  266. AlphaCentauri says:

    When a company dissolves "voluntarily," how do creditors find out from whom to get paid?

  267. Lucius says:

    Prenda was just one disposable shell name, to be discarded and replaced when no longer useful to funnel money. Discarding it at this point helps cover the paper trail, and removes a discredited extortion label. The Prenda principals will remain still identified as 'Prenda' anyway.

    This shows not just the wisdom, but the need, to make judgements against them 'jointly and severally' liable. The shell names will evaporate when examined, but leaving those behind the blackmail/extortion ring. They seem to be able to continue until stopped by being physically locked up, which is why criminal charges are needed.

  268. GrimGhost says:

    John Steele thinks his problems are over by shooting "Prenda Law" through the heart. He hasn't watched many zombie movies, has he?

  269. Anonymous says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    I know Hansmeier's Alpha Law Firm has handled other Prenda family trolling cases, maybe they haven't represented AF specifically, but how does Hansmeier representing AF square with his also appearing as their 30(b)(6) deponent in the Navasca case?

    Is it normal or at least not-unusual for a non-in-house attorney to appear in this capacity? I can see this going either way, that it may be perfectly normal because of an attorney's familiarity with the law, but seems like it could also create some attorney-client privilege/confidentiality problems.

  270. kyzer says:

    Lots of Prenda goodness going on today. In addition to what's been posted, these popped up on twitter this afternoon.

    In AF Holdings vs Magsumbol, Plaintiff granted $3,850 for attorney fees. http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.258044/gov.uscourts.cand.258044.60.0.pdf

    In AF Holdings vs Olivas, a request to enter default. http://ia601507.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.98605/gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.30.0.pdf

    And in the Minnesota District Court case that has been re-opened to investigate fraud on the court, Paul Duffy managed to throw together a rambling 21 page objection that was filed yesterday. Just when you thought things were starting to quiet down.
    https://cdn.anonfiles.com/1375213171717.pdf

  271. Ollie says:

    Oh man, get a load of this. Here's Charles Carreon making some comments on how bad the Prenda lawyers are.
    http://rapeutation.com/2013/07/24/unemployed-lawyers-go-zombie-and-why/
    "Hello? Kettle? Yeah, this is Pot. I'm just calling to let you know you're black."

  272. Ollie says:

    Not to mention he attacks Adam Steinbaugh, Ken, and Marc Randazza but that's sort of expected at this point.

  273. Bystander says:

    The judge in the Patel case has given a ruling on which documents and what parts of them will be given judicial notice

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.45.0.pdf

    Just curious what any lawyer makes of this and how helpful, or not, it'll be in pursuing the counter-claims in that case against AF Holdings.

  274. OraliaO says:

    @WDS
    @Myk

    40 S. 7th St. is a Ups Store address where he has a mailbox. http://www.theupsstorelocal.com/5396/

  275. Delvan Neville says:

    Based on my non-lawyer understanding, it's not surprising Bystander, note that the parties to the Hubbard case also asked the judge to take judicial notice of my declaration & exhibits, wherein the judge declared that it'd be inappropriate to do so. It's not a weakness in my declaration & exhibits, its that judicial notice isn't the appropriate way to get them into the case (see Nick Ranallo's method of introducing them in CAND for an appropriate way).

    Judicial notice is for indisputable facts…what day of the week is it today, how many states there are in the US, etc. So, for instance, a finding of fact related to my declaration from another Judge? Another court could take judicial notice of that fact (unless it's been appealed, I imagine). If there's any room to dispute the contents of my dec, then it's not proper to take judicial notice of it, as that method doesn't afford a chance for the opposing party to try to dispute it.

  276. Just a thought says:

    "And in the Minnesota District Court case that has been re-opened to investigate fraud on the court, Paul Duffy managed to throw together a rambling 21 page objection that was filed yesterday."

    This was filed by Prenda three days after Prenda was dissolved. They are having ever increasing problems keeping track of their machinations.

  277. WDS says:

    @Kyzer,

    You made my heart sink for a second. It was the plaintiff ordered to pay attorney fees, not awarded attorney fees.

  278. kyzer says:

    WDS, sorry about that! I'm working my way through a couple bottles of wine with the GF this evening.

    Just saw this pop up in the AF Holdings vs Patel down in Georgia. AF through their attorney Jacques Nazaire has filed a motion for a protective order due to what they feel is unfair discovery. I think the Prenda boys are starting to feel the heat. I'll quote Dark Mo's tweet which about sums it up "If that isn't the audible shriek of fear, then nothing is." http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.46.0.pdf

  279. Fasolt says:

    @kyzer: Just read the motion. I couldn't contain myself. Statements like "fishing expedition" and "vast and sweepingly broad series of discovery requests" to name a few.

    Not so fun when you're the ones getting the discovery requests, is it Prendanistas?

  280. jimmythefly says:

    LOL at them complaining about unfair discovery. I guess as experts at that particular trick, they feel they know it when they see it.

    Again, my thanks to those who keep these documents coming, and also give short summaries/snippets of them and their significance.

  281. Negative Creep says:

    It's simple, Prenda. You quash the subpoena. You can find plenty of help in drafting these on dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com. In fact, Mr. Die Troll Die was successful at defeating a subpoena to unveil his identity via GoDaddy, very similar to this one. I think the case was Prenda v Godfread or something like that. :)

    From Nazaire's motion (#5): "Moreover, Defendant filed a motion seeking an advisory opinion from the Court as to how to properly compel an individual to appear for a deposition. (ECF #44.) Courts, of course, do not typically issue advisory opinions"

    That "individual" is none other than Mr. Mark Lutz, so I don't see how there is a questions as to his relevance. You know, Jacques, if you're reading this: IANAL, but you could just demonstrate good faith to the honourable judge by saying, "Such an advisory opinion is unnecessary as AF Holdings has no problem offering its CEO Mr. Lutz for deposition. Mr. Lutz has nothing to hide and will happily appear to defend his valiant fight against digital piracy."

  282. Myk says:

    So – "pay up or we'll tell your neighbours you watch porn" is a legitimate and acceptable tactic, but "show the court your links to a bunch of extortionists, fraudsters and sociopaths" and "tell me how much your racket made and where the money is hidden" is unfair? Sheesh.

  283. James says:

    When does Jacques trot out the "we should not have to produce this information GAY MARRIAGE!!! defense"? This is like watching cock roaches scatter when the light gets turned on.

  284. Jim Tyre says:

    Help for John Steele may be on the way!

    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/employment/part-time-pro-se-staff-attorney

    Part-Time Pro Se Staff Attorney
    Printer-friendly version

    Classification Level:
    JSP 11/1 – JSP 14/10
    Salary Range:
    $31,972 – $70,004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Opening Date:
    Tuesday, July 30, 2013
    Closing Date:
    Open Until Filled
    Number of Positions:
    1
    Vacancy Number:
    13-27
    Job Type:
    Part Time
    Position Overview:
    The United States District Court for the Central District of California invites applications for the position of part-time Pro Se Staff Attorney to a United States Magistrate Judge located in Los Angeles. Principal duties of the position include researching substantive issues of federal and state law and drafting legal memoranda, opinions and orders. The successful candidate must exhibit the highest standards of excellence and integrity, and display, at all times and to all persons, a courteous, professional and cooperative attitude. Pro Se Staff Attorney positions are subject to available funding, dependent upon annual court filings.

    [....]

  285. kyzer says:

    Couple more documents that showed up in the re-opened Minnesota case.

    Paul Duffy doesn't want to have to show up at the scary case-management conference on August 5th and explains to the Judge why he shouldn't have to do so.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.19.0.pdf

    Michael Dugas also asks to be excused as he tries to cut ties with Crazy Girlfriend Prenda.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.20.0.pdf

  286. Lucius says:

    If the August 5 conference is to discuss issues relating to possible fraud upon the court, how does Paul Duffy's personal opinion about details of the case excuse him from reporting as ordered? Isn't that the point of the conference — to discuss the evidence and direction the court should take based on that evidence?

    Michael Dugas would have a point in substituting Paul Hansmeier to represent AF Holdings. However, the conference is about possible fraud upon the court. This would seem to require discussion of his role in, and knowledge of, those past actions.

    Prenda keeps trying to play the shell game by substituting attornys and shell company names, so each entity can claim total ignorance, and that the "other guy" may have done something. This is why Judge Wright had to get everyone in the same court at the same time to (potentially) answer questions. It is why everyone involved needs to be present to respond to pretended ignorance by the others.

  287. Clownius says:

    @Jim Tyre

    Sorry he couldnt possibly get the job. This bit rules him out totally

    The successful candidate must exhibit the highest standards of excellence and integrity, and display, at all times and to all persons, a courteous, professional and cooperative attitude.

    Excellence?
    Integrity (he has none)
    Courteous (not even to a Judge)
    Professional (i guess it doesnt specify at what)
    Cooperative?

  288. Clownius says:

    In Dufy's stunning attempt to avoid the case management hearing.

    I'm wondering is his excuse why he shouldn't show up that he feels the case shouldn't be reopened and no matter what the Judge may say hasn't been?

  289. Jim Tyre says:

    @Clownius,

    The point wasn't that Steele should apply for the job. The point was that Judge Wright suggested he seek help from the pro se clinic. Once the position is filled, the clinic will have more help to offer Steele. '-)

  290. Clownius says:

    Oh thats right he claims not to be an Attorney anymore right lol

    He needs all the help he can get in any case…….

  291. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    If it is a Case Management Conference then Dugas has a point. A case Management Conference is usually about scheduling and not about the facts of the case. Presumably one of the items to be discussed will be discovery and who should testify, Dugas may not be able to duck that.

    Duffy on the other hand has no one to blame for his needing to be there but himself. Whoever shows up for Prenda must have authority to act for Prenda.

  292. Malvin Shandirsky says:

    Jim Tyre wrote:
    The point wasn't that Steele should apply for the job. The point was that Judge Wright suggested he seek help from the pro se clinic. Once the position is filled, the clinic will have more help to offer Steele. '-)

    Unless Steele appeals the decision to the Ninth Circuit court regarding hiring someone new to "his" pro se clinic without notifying Steele personally and officially at his Florida UPS mailslot.

  293. LW says:

    Suburban Express just demonstrated that dismissed with prejudice means "dismissed until the heat dies down, then converted to dismissed without prejudice so we can sue again". Why should discovery be restricted just because, for the moment, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

  294. AlphaCentauri says:

    LW, true — I didn't realize the "dismissed with prejudice on the request of the plaintiff" isn't meaningfully different from "dismissed without prejudice."

  295. Anonymous says:

    @AlphaCentauri

    So we have another adventurous soul who thinks he can outsmart The Internets…

    It does seem like utter BS, especially when the dismissals were voluntary dismissals by the plaintiff. However, I found an article on the case that stated the option to vacate the dismissals is only available for 30 days after dismissal, so fortunately it is not some indefinitely long loophole that can be mega-abused by others like Urban Express or copyright trolls, although I would not be surprised to see it. Come to think of it that sort of thing does sound like it would be right up John Steele's alley, waste some of the defendant's time and money, dismiss with prejudice, then on day 29 file to vacate and restart the harassment, assuming John Doe will be caught completely offguard having assumed he was done with that shit.

  296. GrimGhost says:

    @Anonymous–

    But John Steele might not bother to mark his calendar, so that he doesn't show up at the clerk's office till day 31. Remember that one appeal that Prenda lost because they missed a deadline?

  297. That Anonymous Coward says:

    The entertainment value of these antics is really dropping off. Its like they have 4 plots and do them every freaking week, getting bored.

  298. LW says:

    Techdirt reported on May 17 that "Suburban Express promised to drop their 100-plus lawsuits against customers, which they've done", so it's been more than 30 days.

  299. LW says:

    I stand corrected. They filed to change from dismissed with prejudice to dismissed without but the motions weren't heard for over two months.

  300. Nicholas Weaver says:

    In unrelated but entertaining news, Charles Carreon is getting slapped around in Oregon, hard. Penguin, now having the proper venue, is going to town.

    http://ia601703.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.ord.111367/gov.uscourts.ord.111367.docket.html

    In particular, document 54 (Penguin's response to Charles's Pro Hac Vice application) is amusing.

  301. Typenschild Delete says:

    Whoa doc 54! You weren't kidding.

    "Carreon is lying to this court, and has lied in the past. Here are several examples, using his own words, often mere sentences apart from each other."

    Also, holy shit, I knew Carreon was a jerk, but this is phenomenal.

    Footnote 1 from page 5 (the "applicant" is Carreon)
    http://ia801703.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.ord.111367/gov.uscourts.ord.111367.54.1.pdf

    "1
    Applicant does not mention, however, his wife’s blog, which in mid-June, 2013, directed an ad
    hominem attack against this counsel, in the instant matter, and later savagely pilloried
    Recouvreur himself, posting a photo of Recouvreur’s wife, stating that “One can’t help but
    visualize sexual violence between them” and after describing where plaintiff Recouvreur lives
    and advising readers to “look this guy up,” posted an identifying photo of the Recouvreurs’ nineyear-old son, followed two weeks ago with another photo of the nine-year-old with a cartoon
    bubble in which he tells his father “I just tore my teacher a new asshole;” yet another blog in
    which polar bears eat the nine-year-old, depicted again with an identifying photo; and yet
    another blog addressing the nine-year-old’s testicles."

  302. Katherine says:

    Some new developments in the Patel case:

    An Emergency Motion to extend Discovery Deadline has been filed by the defense but doesn't cite any reasons…

    Not surprisingly, Nazaire is against such a thing. Although, I think he might have a point this time…IANAL, so I'm probably missing something.

    Then there is this which was filed just a couple hours ago (at most), which I can't begin to make heads or tails of.

  303. Katherine says:

    On an unrelated note: I posted a couple things last night and they're not here anymore. I had another post disappear the same way this past weekend. If someone could look into this and let me know if I need to do anything differently let me know.

    (Sidenote: Lest anybody think I'm implying or accusing Popehat of censorship…I truly am not. I've done plenty of forum moderation in my time and have seen posts eaten by a wide variety of glitches and bugs. Some can be repaired, others need to be worked around.)

  304. Negative Creep says:

    @Katherine, you are missing something. There is an exhibit to Chintella's (Patel's) motion that details why he wants an extension. It turns out that his car was stolen and he supports a modest extension with some rules/legal standard. IANAL either, so I don't know how compelling it is, but Nazaire's opposition makes it sound like Chintella gave no reasoning given for the request. See:

    http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.47.1.pdf

    Also in Prenda news for those of you not watching #Prenda on Twitter, looks like Monday in Minnesota is going to be interesting. Michael Dugas has been told by the judge that his order to have him appear at the case management conferences stands. In addition, two of the five Does requested to be excused through their lawyer. This was also denied by the judge. The letter from the Does' lawyer Mark Santi was kind of enlightening. At the very least, I got more info on the Spencer Merkel case (if you're not aware of it, google it, it's intriguing). According to letter, we are awaiting a ruling on sanctions in a case where the defendant admitted to colluding with the plaintiff (Guava LLC) to pursue discovery on lots of other Does. Here's Mark Santi's letter:

    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.22.0.pdf

  305. Myk says:

    @Katherine I think that last doc is simply a cert certifying compliance with the rules for such requests. IANAL etc, so a few grains of salt may, as always, be required.

  306. Myk says:

    @ Katherine – I think Ken may have been wounded by suggestions elsewhere that he is not an Alpha-male, so he may simply be asserting his divine right to censor at will

  307. anne mouse says:

    Katherine,
    To make heads or tails of a legal document, start with the heading.
    The explanation is right in the title of the document.
    Local Rule 7.1(d) starts on the bottom of the twelfth page here:
    http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/pdf/Local_Rules_List.pdf

  308. kyzer says:

    @Negative Creep – Definitely agree Monday in Minnesota is going to be interesting. Last night I skimmed through the docket and for anyone not up on the case this filing by Judge Noel lays out why this is being re-opened and investigated for fraud upon the court. Interesting read. http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.13.0.pdf

    @Katherine – I use Tor quite a bit and I've noticed that some of my posts also disappear. Not sure if that is what's happening in your case but if so I believe that WordPress has a lot of the Tor exit nodes flagged for spam etc., and certain posts ended up waiting for the blog owner to approve. I open notepad now, and do a quick copy and paste before I hit submit, that way if it doesn't post I can try again via another IP.

  309. Lucius says:

    Judge Noel's reasoning in kyzer's link above is worth reading. His methodical approach could be effective to uncover useful details of the Prenda operation and money flow.

  310. Jim Tyre says:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    Notice of Electronic Filing

    The following transaction was entered on 8/1/2013 at 10:50 AM PDT and filed on 8/1/2013
    Case Name: Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe
    Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

    Filer:
    WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/28/2013
    Document Number: 232

    Docket Text:
    TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7/12/13 1:38 P.M.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: KATIE E. THIBODEAUX, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/22/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/1/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/30/2013. (mo)

  311. Katherine says:

    Blast. So does that mean we have to live in California to see it?

  312. In the past we have obtained transcripts through various other troll-defense lawyers obtaining them and filing them as attachments in their cases, thus making them public (although they would still cost money on PACER, although it would be $0.10/pg rather than $0.90, and the PACER $3 cap would apply).

    This can happen fairly quickly, although I'm not sure what excuse anybody could come up with for filing this transcript. And it doesn't appear that anybody has ordered it yet.

  313. Katherine says:

    Could it be used as part of a sanctions hearing?

  314. Jim Tyre says:

    http://madisonrecord.com/news/257935-defense-attorney-events-in-lw-systems-case-struck-me-as-unusual

    Defense attorney: events in LW Systems case ‘struck me as unusual’
    August 1, 2013 2:21 PM
    By BETHANY KRAJELIS

    Pietz

    Trying to predict what Prenda Law is going to do next “could drive someone nuts” and “is not a productive use of my time,” one defense attorney said this week.

    California attorney Morgan Pietz represents dozens of John Does in computer hacking suits across the nation, including the recently-dismissed St. Clair County case of LW Systems v. Christopher Hubbard.

    The LW Systems case is one of several similar suits in which Paul Duffy and other attorneys at Prenda Law in Chicago represent plaintiffs who accuse named defendants, as well as co-conspirators referred to as John Does, of hacking into computer systems that host and deliver content to adult Web site operators.

    “What occurred in this case struck me as unusual,” Pietz said Wednesday.

    [....]

  315. snjwffl says:

    I don't get how this line was supposed to help Duffy:

    …the Magistrate Judge's sole basis for ordering Movant's attendance is that Plaintiff directed that settlement proceeds be deposited in its client trust account at Prenda.

    "All the money in question went to an account in my company's name, so obviously I'm not involved (…and therefore you don't have authority to reopen the case [this was in section IV afterall])"

  316. GrimGhost says:

    Hey, BETHANY KRAJELIS, how about mentioning that no person with brains enough to lick a stamp, believes those so-called accusations by Duffy ad nauseum.

  317. ok, in Patel, Judge O'Kelley has made some rulings.

    It's a NO to Blair's motion #44 to compel Lutz
    It's a NO to Jacques's motion #46 protesting about overbroad discovery
    It's a YES to a short extension for discovery #47 because Blair's car was stolen (and don't ask me to help look for it, I keep thinking it's gray, and it's apparently blue, even after riding it it a few times)

    And so here's my first RECAP :-) http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.50.0.pdf

  318. JT says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    Thanks for that update. Some fun reading! Except the trashing of the lawyer's nine-year-old son by the Carreons. Nothing Buddha about that, American Buddha.

  319. Katherine says:

    I checked PACER about an hour ago before being pulled into a meeting. No new documents in the Wright, Chen, Chowdhury, Minnesota, or Magsumbol cases.

  320. JT says:

    @JT Get your facts straight! Wasn't the lawyer's son. Oops. (Still not cool.)

  321. Fargo says:

    darthskeptic ‏@darthskeptic 1h
    darthskeptic ‏posted some exciting news on Twitter:
    Godfread (Cooper's Attorney) will be appearing at the #Prenda conference on Monday http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.24.0.pdfhttp://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.25.0.pdf

  322. kyzer says:

    From out of the woodwork Paul Godfread who represents Alan Cooper requests to attend the case management conference in MN on Monday.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.24.0.pdf

    Which was promptly granted.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.25.0.pdf

    Meanwhile, Ace Lawyer and Legal Talent Paul Duffy files a motion to postpone the upcoming Case Management Conference
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.26.0.pdf

    He not only gets pimp smacked, but schooled yet again in the finer points of law.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.27.0.pdf

    But he can attend by phone if he would like.

    Should be interesting…

  323. Katherine says:

    Been a busy, busy day for Jester John and the Prendateers.

    FIVE new documents in the Minnesota case:

    I'm too tired to engage in creative writing, so I'll just lay them out for you:

    ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.21.0.pdf
    ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.22.0.pdf
    ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.23.0.pdf
    ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.24.0.pdf
    ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.25.0.pdf (check out Paul's spiffy new letterhead!)

    Two new documents in the Wright Case:

    scribd.com/doc/157790340/Wright-Case-Doc-234-Prenda-has-dissolved
    scribd.com/doc/157791201/Dissolution-Certificate-of-Service (this one contains an interesting [to me] assortment of email addresses and law firm names.)

  324. simon says:

    Wow. I never expected to actually see the Wookie defence used in a real court filing, but here we have it! (Hansmeier's letter to Judge Noel)

  325. Clownius says:

    @Katherine

    Those links all appear cut off :(

    Anyone know how to make them whole?

  326. kyzer says:

    @Clownius – I tried to post this last night but it didn't go through. Let me try again and see if the links work.

    From out of the woodwork Paul Godfread who represents Alan Cooper requests to attend the case management conference in MN on Monday.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.24.0.pdf

    Which was promptly granted.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.25.0.pdf

    Meanwhile, Ace Lawyer and Legal Talent Paul Duffy files a motion to postpone the upcoming Case Management Conference
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.26.0.pdf

    He not only gets pimp smacked, but schooled yet again in the finer points of law.
    http://ia601203.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.27.0.pdf

    But he can attend by phone if he would like.

    Should be interesting…

    Also, Paul Hansmeier's note to Judge Noel that Katherine mentions.
    http://ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.25.0.pdf

  327. MarkH says:

    Although Duffy purports to be “the sole principle [sic]
    of Prenda Law, Inc.,”

    Wow, Duffy admitted that Prenda only operates under one sole principle. I assume that is to make money?

    And how many times do they need to be told that corporations are not permitted to be pro se?

  328. Saribro says:

    They are only missing the http part, just copy paste them in a new tab to get the documents.

  329. V says:

    Regarding the Dissolution Certificate, hasn't the Pro Se nature of companies been criticized? or was that in one of the other cases?

    @Clownius
    What Saribro said. Or for the non scribd links you can find clickable links on http://ia601209.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522/gov.uscourts.mnd.126522.docket.html

  330. James says:

    I think Katherine is running into the "one link per message" feature on this site that prevents spamming of discount mortgages, mail order Viagra, and mysterious Nigerian lock boxes in one posting.

    I love how the Prendateers have collapsed their corporation, reformed with a new name, and then attempt convince the court that judicial notice should not be taken of anything that happened under the old name. Is any court in 2013 stupid enough not to recognize a collapsible corporation scheme when they see it?

  331. Lucius says:

    @simon, The Wookie defense exactly nails what Hansmeier is doing. He keeps making statements, then drawing conclusions that do not follow from the statements.

    For someone not involved in "Prenda Law", either as a principal or as an attorney, Hansmeier certainly has a lot to say about selected details of its operation to try and defend it.

    If a company must be represented by an attorney, but Paul Duffy is not authorized to appear as an attorney before Judge Noel's court to represent Prenda, is Prenda represented at all? Or is Duffy, the "only principal", just appearing as a witness?

  332. MarkH says:

    If a company must be represented by an attorney, but Paul Duffy is not authorized to appear as an attorney before Judge Noel's court to represent Prenda, is Prenda represented at all?

    Why, do they not have Craigslist attorneys in Minnesota?

    Ziiiinnnngggg.

  333. Katherine says:

    Kyzer summed it up so much better than I could.

  334. Vicki says:

    I think I'm missing something: that document dissolving Prenda Law is dated July 2013, but says "FOR YEAR: 2012." Are they trying to claim retroactive dissolution, or does that translate to "last full year during which this corporation existed"? Or is it a typo, and if so, would that affect things legally?

    It also claims an incorporation date of 11/07/2011. Has this whole thing really gone down in less than two years? I thought there were lawsuits involving Prenda from before November 2011. How many Prenda Laws are there, and does this dissolve all of them?

  335. Katherine says:

    Just did my usual Pacer checks. No new documents filed in the Wright, Chen, Magsumbol, Minnesota (Noel), or Patel cases. I didn't bother to check the Harris case because that one is pretty much dead (no?) or the Chowderbury case because its Saturday and ball is in the Judge's court.

  336. Katherine says:

    Whoa wait a minute…take back what I said about Harris….

  337. Katherine says:

    Ticen (lawyer for alleged co-conspirators) filed for attorney fees. His filing came with eight exhibits, one proposed order, and an affidavit, all of which was successfully RECAPPED and can be found HERE: http://ia701200.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.azd.732217/gov.uscourts.azd.732217.docket.html

    Whew!

  338. Basil Forthrightly says:

    Good for Ticen. He's asking that Steele, Duffy, and Hansmier be made jointly and severally liable with plaintiff AF Holdings for the attorneys fees.

    Welcome to the big leagues.

  339. Palimpsest says:

    If the dissolution says an incorporation date of 11/07/2011 and there are prior Prenda lawsuits, does that mean that the owners have unlimited liability for activity prior to incorporation that were done under the name of Prenda? Can the incorporating signatures be presumed to be said partners?

    IANAL but I do feel like the dog of the Far Side cartoon who watching the cat move into the washing machine labeled "Cat Fud" and the dog is saying "Oh Please, Oh Please"….

  340. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Vicki – If you work backwards through time and names one begins to see a pattern of dissolution right around the time they have to file reports with the government about income and things.
    And sometimes they forget and then are still trying to collect money as a business in bad standing, and they correct that only because they have to.
    For those who have tracked them from the early days, its been much longer. Pretenda is the incarnation they were getting ready to dump when Judge Wright went medieval on their buttocks. They had at least 2 new names in the wings waiting, and have left a string of names behind them.

    Anyone wonder if they reason they dusted off Alpha Law is to try and make the defamation suits look legit again?

  341. Clownius says:

    Wow i love the defense Prenda and Alpha law firm are two different unrelated firms.

    Just ignore the fact that all the principles are the same, the address, telephone numbers, clients etc are the same and we answer to both names, often tell people we are from the other firm on a case where they have been sued by soeone else and are often unsure who we are this week judge. Thats just a side show really. Pay no attention.

    No Judge is going to fall for this right? The links are just too big.

  342. Clownius says:

    That wefightpiracy website is so going to come back and bite them on the arse isnt it. Such a great link between people and companies provided.

    Sadly evidence like that gets screenshotted and printed.

  343. James says:

    the dissolution says an incorporation date of 11/07/2011 and there are prior Prenda lawsuits, does that mean that the owners have unlimited liability for activity prior to incorporation that were done under the name of Prenda?

    It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions actions taken without the benefit of the corporate veil can come back to bite you in the butt. What is frequently done (if you have a good lawyer) is that the first set of corporate minutes following the incorporation explicitly provides that any liabilities created by the "incorporator" (an individual person) are assumed by the corporation as of the creation date.

    That leaves two questions:

    1. Did Prenda have good lawyers that took care to paper the trail with tightly written corporate minutes? I forget the Latin legal term for "fat chance".

    2. If the corporation is later deemed insolvent, is the assumption of liability by the corporation binding on the creditors? In most cases, such as a divorce decree, a judge can allocate responsibility to liquidate liabilities between the parties but unless that action is consented to by the creditor the judge's decree does not negate joint and several liability so the creditor can still go after all parties.

  344. Rich Fiscus says:

    @kyzer: He not only gets pimp smacked, but schooled yet again in the finer points of law.

    I don't think he's ready for the finer points of law. Based on his filings it doesn't look like he's out of the remedial class yet.

  345. GrimGhost says:

    Would somebody explain to this IANAL what good dissolution does for Steele et al?

    Would it stop a new lawsuit by p.o.'d John/Jane Does against "Prenda"?

    Does it balk Judge Wright, Judge Chen, state bar associations, and the IRS from giving the Prendanististas hell?

  346. Lucius says:

    IANAL either, but can see some logic to trying to remove the 'Prenda' label from the discussion. The Prenda racketeers are not the brightest bulbs in the fixture, but do have a certain criminal deviousness.

    Once dissolved, who is accountable for explaining the money that passed through 'Prenda'? Who keeps the books, or do they disappear with the shell name? Can everyone then claim ignorance of past history with no records?

    'Alpha Law' or some other name can then be used as a very thin disguise, but it does add some slight plausible deniability to a casual observer. I wouldn't expect the IRS or RICO investigators to be casual observers.

  347. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    First of all Lawyers never act through their firms. All actions they take as lawyers are personal and the re personally liable. While Prenda may dance Prenda never signed any documents.

  348. Lucius says:

    rsteinmetz70112: Does this mean that John Steele's pawn Paul Duffy is personally liable for all the money (millions?) that passed through Prenda?

    Somehow, I can't see Steele and Hansmeier trusting an idiot like Duffy to ever have access to that kind of money. Wouldn't it be more likely that they laundered it onward before Duffy was put in place as a figurehead?

  349. Katherine says:

    Getting back to Minnesota:

    In case you missed it on Twitter, there are actually FIVE case management conferences. Three will be tomorrow and two are on Tuesday. The judge has allocated at least 2 hours for each of them.

    The schedule is thusly:

    Monday @ 11AM
    Monday @ 1:30pm
    Monday @ 3:30pm
    Tuesday @ 9AM
    Tuesday @ 2pm

    The thing is shaping up to be a regular ole pow-wow with Judge Noel granting permission to all those who wish to come and denying anybody who wishes to stay home (although he has allowed Duffy to appear telephonically).

  350. Anonymous says:

    A few comments on the last few days' comments since I've been too busy to keep up.

    "Prenda" cases go back to late 2010 with, I believe, Lightspeed Media Corporation as their first client. This is consistent with John Steele and Steve Lightspeed publicly bragging up their scheme on gfy.com around that time.

    Prenda itself was incorporated in late 2011, after courts had delivered some serious smackdowns to Steele | Hansmeier's old-style mass-Doe lawsuits. I think at the time everyone assumed it was just a name change, with Duffy also taking over as the figurehead, but now we have learned that Steele | Hansmeier was supposedly sold to Steele's buddy while Prenda is a completely new entity that bought their client list and caseload, or something. The veil seems quite thin but it seems like Steele at least tried in his typically incompetent way to create a paper trail to let him pretend to have no affiliation with Prenda, except for doing the odd Forbes interview and showing up at hearings across the country.

    In addition to the recent disollution, there was a period of several months last year where the company was not in good standing with the state of IL. IANAL, but I was curious about the implications and did a little bit of research on IL state law and came away with the impression that this could seriously come back to bite them. The references I found suggested that being out of good standing creates a serious liability problem. For example, it appeared that if a person is employed as an auto mechanic working for a garage, and the garage's good standing lapses, and the mechanic screws up the work, he is personally liable for the work done during the lapse of good standing as the corporate shield was not available during that time. And getting back into good standing does not retroactively restore the liability shield for the time the company was out of good standing.

    So, by takeaway was that hypothetically speaking, if and enterprising Doe or their lawyer were to document some wrongdoing during the lapse of good standing, they would be able to do some serious damage. I'm sure Pietz and co. have been keeping tabs on this, but it may be a bit hard to pin specific acts and behaviors within the period Prenda's good standing lapsed, and at this point they probably have plenty of other ammo for piercing the veil.

    It wasn't specifically covered in his letter, but I would also love for Paul H. to explain why he appeared as the 30(b)6 for AF if he's not way too deep in this scam.

  351. SJD says:

    I wrote about the lapse in the good standing when that happened. Also, note that "Anti-Piracy Law Group" (first link from the post) has not been dissolved (yet?), and Duffy is a "sole principle [sic]."

  352. Lucius says:

    Following SJD's link above, it is interesting that 'Prenda Law' is a corporation subject to double taxation, and that Paul Duffy may be personally liable during the period it was "not in good standing".

    The double taxation (corporate and personal), plus all the fines and interest added on, will be quite a hit on the many millions that apparently went through Prenda. Illinois state tax officials also should be going after the state taxes Prenda evaded paying them so far.

    If Duffy is personally liable, this might be used to easily turn him at some point to testify against the others. If he has any self-survival skills at all, he should be collecting documented information he can use later to trade for reduced charges.

  353. WDS says:

    @SJD

    Welcome back, hope you had a good vacation.

  354. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    Lucius: Whether Duffy is personally liable for the money paid is an interesting question. Probably not. Most of the money paid was apparently paid to Prenda Law, as settlement of cases where were the defendant had not yet be identified to the court. But since Duffy is the sole principal of Prenda, maybe so. I'm not sure. But I feel that at some point someone will get discovery on what happened to the money. I doubt that much of it made it Lutz, the purported owner of the trusts.

  355. James says:

    One thing that is not clear is whether the liabilities of Prenda are deemed professional liabilities or something else. In most states (all states?) corporations do not shield practitioners from acts of malpractice. If you slip on fall on the ice in your doctor or lawyer's parking lot the corporation can shield the professional from that form liability, but if the professional botches a surgery or a court case the liability remains personal.

    So the nature of the liability matters here. I would think (hope) that the principals would remain personally liable as a matter of public policy, but I am never surprised when logic does not prevail.

  356. kyzer says:

    This was filed recently in the Judge Wright case out in California regarding the dissolution of Prenda. http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.234.0.pdf

  357. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    I thought Prenda's attorneys in Wright's case quit. Did they not get released?

  358. MarkH says:

    I thought Prenda's attorneys in Wright's case quit. Did they not get released?

    No, as I recall he said they can't quit until another attorney steps in.

  359. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    I no one else will work for Prenda.

  360. Katherine says:

    Just ran some checks on PACER. No new activity in the Wright, Chen, Harris, Patel, Magsumbol, Chowhury, or DC Appeals cases.

    I also checked the dockets of the first two Minnesota cases, the ones whose case management conferences should have wrapped up by now. Nothing new there, either.

  361. Lucius says:

    no one else will work for Prenda.

    Even Prenda deserves representation by someone who wants to do it. I'd guess a $200,000 up-front retainer or bond would get them the help they need, in spite of their reputation for dishonesty and non-payment.

  362. Katherine says:

    First set of minutes have been posted.

    The conference lasted all of 15 minutes….

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519/gov.uscourts.mnd.126519.29.0.pdf

  363. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    Lucius – But the lawyers doing it now don't want to do it. That have asked out.

    Katherine – That was cryptic. My first reaction is that AF Holdings wants to drop everything and settle quietly.

  364. SJD says:

    @WDS. Thanks, it was good indeed. So good that I need a couple of days to recover :), but it is a different kind of tiredness, the one that charges for months.

  365. kyzer says:

    Hopefully Katherine's posts are just very minimal recaps of what is actually going on in Minnesota.

    Meanwhile, a couple of new Prenda articles.

    Sanctioned in Porn Film Case, Law Firm Dissolves :

    http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202613872369

    America's Most Notorious 'Porn Trolling Collective' Has Imploded

    http://www.businessinsider.com/prenda-law-dissolves-after-sanctions-2013-8

  366. Lucius says:

    The tone seems to be that everyone is agreeing to try to settle as quietly as possible.

    At this point, Prenda cam be expected to pay for silence and reduced publicity, since every public exposure makes their position worse. I was hoping Judge Noel's probing questions indicated a willingness to uncover details of the racket, but maybe not.

    If a profitable blackmail/extortion racket can use part of the money extorted from passive victims to occasionally buy off probing by others, it can remain a profitable racket, and a model for others to use. The public good is best served by finding some way to prevent this negative result.

  367. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    I think the short duration of the conferences and quotes like "its potential future" and "whether a future scheduling order will be required" indicate the parties advised the Judge they were close to settling.

  368. AlphaCentauri says:

    Anyone who hopes to get any money from Prenda will probably want to settle quickly. Once the IRS gets done, they will be judgment-proof.

  369. whyamihere..! says:

    Sorry, IANAL and getting confused here.

    'Setting' for what? I thought Judge re-opened the case to investigate about potential fraud on-court.

  370. WDS says:

    I somehow doubt that the minutes of the various status hearings adequately express the tone of the conference itself, based on Judge Noel's prior actions.

  371. WDS says:

    @AlphaCentauri,

    I hope your definition of judgment-proof means flat-broke and in jail.

  372. darthskeptic says:

    http://ia601208.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524.48.0.pdf

    If Hansmeier is believed, a settlement check wasn't cashed because a Prenda shell company was the wrong payee, despite what was listed in the settlement agreement.

  373. Anonymous says:

    http://ia600800.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544.49.0.pdf

    Moving on from Prenda, a nice deconstruction of Malibu Media's scumbag troll lawyer Keith Lipscomb's tactics. A great insight into the unconscionable behavior that is considered professionalism by officers of the court.

  374. SJD says:

    Thanks, Anonymous. Here is some background to that case. I intend to write a followup tomorrow.

  375. Lucius says:

    darthskeptic – If the specific direction to make the money order out to a vague entity called "Owner" instead of AF Holdings is not a flashing red light indicating fraud, I don't know what is.

    Why else would they demand only money orders made out to "Owner" instead of the actual plaintiff AF Holdings? One might almost get the impression that they were trying to hide any paper trail in the money transfer …

  376. SharonA says:

    I didn't read the notes as saying the check should be made payable exactly to the entity named "Owner". That definitely would raise all sorts of eyebrows, starting with mine!

    The quote:

    to pay the “Owner”–a term defined as “AF Holdings LLC.”

    to me just seems to be implying they used "Owner" as shorthand in the document to avoid typing out "AF Holdings LLC" over and over again. Also, it seemed to be a mechanism intended to stress payment going to the Owner and not to Counsel or Collection Agency or Third Party or whatever. Let the funny stuff happen on the back-office end ;)

    Of course those shorthand uses of "Owner" mean when they do the shell game with other films and other LLCs, they reduce the number of places in the document for search-and-replace.

  377. Lucius says:

    The full quote from the conference note is:

    The Dugas declaration states that the money orders were made out to “AF Holdings LLC,” and the settlement agreement calls upon the defendant to pay the “Owner”–a term defined as “AF Holdings LLC.</blockquote
    This seems to say that the money orders were made out to the actual plaintiff, AF Holdings LLC, but were rejected because they were not made out to the less-traceable "Owner" as payee.

  378. Lucius says:

    I promise to learn how to properly terminate a blockquote next time!

  379. Palimpsest says:

    "Cash. That's a funny name for a musical"

  380. anne mouse says:

    Lucius, it just says that Hansmeier gave one story for what happened to the money (not cashed, wrong payee), but didn't realize that the Dugas declaration already said something different (made out to AF Holdings LLC, just like the settlement agreement specified). Hansmeier's been ordered to come up with a better story ASAP.

  381. Lucius says:

    anne mouse – Maybe the 'better story' will be a new Nevis LLC named "Owner" set up to only to receive money orders, then route it as directed by the Prenda principals.

  382. James says:

    The use of a defined term such as "Owner" in a contract is typical as it lets lawyers insert the true legal name in one place (usually in the preamble or heading of the agreement) and then use the generic term such as "Owner", "the Company" or "Corporation" everywhere else. This makes it easy to recycle contract language without having to proof the text every time.

    The question is why a MO payable to AF Holdings LLC was rejected as that was the defined term in the settlement.

  383. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    Why was payment by a MO? Why not a check? That would provide proof of payment.

    Surely they aren't afraid of the check bouncing. If they wanted guaranteed payment a certified check of cashiers check.

    I wonder if Prenda is trying to hide their bank accounts or if A F Holdings has no account or something similar.

  384. Clownius says:

    You better believe they have been and are still trying to hide money.

  385. Simon says:

    Perhaps the checks were payable to "Owner" and not "AF Holdings"?

  386. SharonA says:

    According to the documents posted (Dugas declaration), the money orders were payable to "AF Holdings LLC". Prenda says that was incorrect. The settlement agreement says to pay the "Owner", but it also defines the term "Owner" to mean "AF Holdings LLC".

    So yeah, I can see how gives the impression that Prenda wanted it to actually say the word "Owner".

    Whereas to someone with experience dealing with contracts, legislation, and the like, the "Owner" term would be merely a pointer to wherever is in the document's definition or header section. It'd be just like "Mortgagee" in a 30-page closing contract, "Plaintiff" in a motion, etc … it's SOP legal template stuff.

    But I didn't see anything in the filings that indicated they communicated the rejection to the defendent "Hey, the Pay To: is wrong, we're not accepting this as satisfaction of the settlement agreement". Or did I miss something here?

  387. Lucius says:

    I can accept use of a defined term in a legal document, and that there can be miscommunications among well-meaning people. Are we dealing with well-meaning people here?

    I wouldn't put put it past Prenda to deliberately misuse this convention to get a vague untraceable payee on below-the-radar money orders to make money disappear. We need more facts to draw conclusions, though.

  388. Anon says:

    Breaking Prenda news: on 8/7 in Minnesota state court, Judge Bransford issued an "Order Approving Attorney Fees" in Guava LLC (a Prenda "client") v Spencer Merkel (Case No. 27-CV-12-20976). Search for it here: http://www.mncourts.gov/publicaccess

  389. James says:

    I have never cashed in a money order, but won't our friends at Western Union give up the cash so long as you have the correct number and a pass phrase as in "Good morning sir, I am here to collect on money order 223820803 and the password is troll." I am pretty sure that how it works in Lagos!

  390. WDS says:

    @James

    I think you are confusing money orders and wiring the money.

  391. SJD says:

    @Anon: per Jason Sweet's tweet,

    Guava, Dugas, and Alpha Law Firm (jointly & severally) were ordered to pay over $63K in fees and costs to Does' attorneys.

  392. Basil Forthrightly says:

    Re: Guava v. Merkel

    Booth Sweet (a law firm) tweeted that the court set attorneys fees at $63k, and made Guava, Alpha Law, and local counsel Dugas jointly and severally liable.

    I wonder if Dugas is hearing a large bus revving its engine behind him?

  393. jimmythefly says:

    Yay, joint and several liability!

  394. Anonymous says:

    Too bad Hansmeier is not on the hook personally, but we still have lots of fun possibilities based on what we have seen so far from Prenda.

    Dugas bar complaint against Hansmeier?
    Hansmeier bar complaint against Dugas?
    Malpractice suits in either or both directions?

    When are they going to shut the doors on Guava, AF and Alpha?

  395. SJD says:

    …and here is my humble Photoshop exercise. Relevant.

  396. Dr. Wu says:

    Money orders? Wire transfers? What kind of half-assed extortion racket is this? Everybody knows it's unmarked bills, in a brown paper bag, under the second bench from the fountain! What the hell are they teaching these kids in law school?

  397. Clownius says:

    Good to see they got the latest version of Prenda already. Whens the next Law firm get created?

  398. Katherine says:

    Why was payment by a MO? Why not a check? That would provide proof of payment.

    Money orders come with receipt tab thingie that includes all the pertinent information (who, what, where, when). Also, they don't bounce. If I had to pay out a large sum of money to someone I didn't trust, I'd use a money order as well. Furthermore, if I was owed money by someone I didn't trust, I might insist on a money order.

    But then, IANAL…just an regular Jane.

  399. Katherine says:

    In other news, Hansmeier's application to the bar of the 9th Circuit Court has been denied once more.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/159056022/Big-Leagues-Still-not-welcomed

  400. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    money orders and wiring the money.

    Money Orders are prepaid and can be purchased at a lot of places.

    Wiring Money via Western Union is also prepaid and deliverable in cans to someone at an office (Western Union most commonly) somewhere else.

    Wire Transfers are interbank transactions with one bank sending money to an account in another bank.

    Automated Clearing House (ACH) are effectively electronic check transfers between accounts. You need to know certain information on the other account ( routing number and account number) to do it.

  401. Fasolt says:

    @SJD: That desk in their cell will come in handy for all of that appeals paperwork.

  402. Clownius says:

    Threw in $50 to get the ball rolling. I want these buggers deposed for as long as it takes for them to really sink themselves.

  403. Clownius says:

    At this rate it may take a good 3 or 4 hours to get the money you need :)

  404. Lucius says:

    It is now up to covering one-third of one deposition, which is not bad for the first few hours. A full transcript of a probing multi-hour questioning of Mark Lutz should yield some interesting results.

    Following up with Steele and Hansmeier depositions as a cross-reference would be golden. Unless, of course, they can take the 5th in a deposition.

    The pitch-in page has a clean immediate feedback on the status so far.

  405. Wow, over $600 already. you guys are amazing!

    here's the stand-alone pitchin page.
    http://pitchinbox.com/pages/1618113852

    I'll keep it updated as often as I can.

  406. Katherine says:

    How much does it cost to do one depo?

  407. Katherine says:

    nm….just saw the blog post.

    Threw $20.00 into the pot. Another $25.00 and we'll have enough to pay for a deluxe hot seat for Mr. Mark Lutz.

  408. Clownius says:

    I take it his is being advertised in more than one location?

  409. Delvan Neville says:

    Clownius: If you mean the pitchin for the Patel deposition(s), yes, Mr. Chinchilla and Mr. Norton have both mentioned it on twitter, and there's a link to it on Mr. Norton's website.

  410. Clownius says:

    Cool wouldnt want to limit the donations :)

  411. I also passed it on to MikeM at techdirt, trying to convince my boss at TorrentFreak to cover it somehow too.

    And Delvan, don't call me Mr Norton, please. Reminds me of too many people I don't want to be reminded of!

  412. Delvan Neville says:

    Aye aye, Cap'n Ktetch!

  413. Daniel Neely says:

    How does funding the deposition this way affect the eventual payout of attorneys fees when the prendanistas inevitably lose?

  414. Lucius says:

    Daniel – I'd like to know the answer also. However that is resolved, the funding is worth doing just to make sure that a thorough deposition occurs, and that a full transcript is produced. The facts shouldn't be buried in Georgia, and courts elsewhere shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel.

    Another point: Is there a good basis to require Steele and Hansmeier to also give depositions? Would it be justified on the basis that they almost certainly are the real but indirect controllers of both AF Holdings and the pawn Mark Lutz, and the court probably has been deliberately misled?

  415. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Lucius – More than likely they will not allow Lutz to speak without a chaperone, and we might end up with another fine comedy piece like the last depo where the most knowledgeable person they sent then spends all of his time claims to know nothing.
    Lutz doesn't strike me as being that bright, and that could lead to the door being opened to more people.

  416. JT says:

    @tac

    Reprising a classic comedy role:

  417. Jim Tyre says:

    Q: $176,642.74.

    A: Total fines and sanctions (so far) against Prenda and affiliated persons and entities.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lawsuit-with-alleged-collusion-will-cost-prenda-law-another-64k/

  418. jimmythefly says:

    @ Daniel

    "How does funding the deposition this way affect the eventual payout of attorneys fees when the prendanistas inevitably lose?"

    It doesn't. I have forgotten where exactly I read it, but essentially when fees are calculated, they are calculated at "full retail" prices, regardless of what the actual cost was.

  419. WDS says:

    @jimmythefly

    I think the question @Daniel was asking, and myself and others I'm sure have wondered, is assuming that Prenda does have a judgement for the expenses and actually does pay it (a bet the bookies wouldn't likely take), what happens to the donated money? Does it get passed on to fight Prenda in a different case? Does it go to fight the next troll that Chintella goes up against? Does it buy several rounds of celebratory drinks?

  420. Mike says:

    I would guess these depo transcripts will be a series of 5th AM invocations.

  421. SharonA says:

    How common is this type of clause, in this scenario?

    Plaintiff Guava LLC, Michael K. Dugas, Esq., Alpha Law Firm LLC and any of their agents, officers, directors, employees, representatives, affiliates, and successors, are hereby enjoined from filing any future civil action against the John Does or the ISPs, without first posting a bond with the Court in the amount of $10,000, or such other amount as the Court deems appropriate, and without first obtaining a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Secretary of State.

  422. Damian says:

    It's a condition commonly imposed upon a person who has been determined to be a "vexatious litigant" in California state courts.

  423. kyzer says:

    @anonymous – They sure want to get back to St. Claire County don't they? I just read Document #39 and it looks like Duffy was either drunk, freaking out, nervous as hell, or a combo of all three. In the first sentence he spells is "iss", then goes on to spell Federal "Federla", and matter "mater". That should bring some credibility to the filing. Although, in fairness he could have been dictating this to Shari while he was eating a meatball hoagie and just didn't have time to proof read it.

    http://ia601705.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.284511/gov.uscourts.ilnd.284511.39.0.pdf

  424. James says:

    I remember reading one 7th Circuit case where the defendant attempted to remove so the plaintiff added an out of state party to defeat diversity. As I recall it was a pretty hard bitch slapping from the bench for trying such a transparent strategy to defeat federal jurisdiction.

  425. Aelfric says:

    The most interesting thing about the Motion for Remand on the Docket at #39 is that it completely and utterly misstates the law. Alpha Law is, as demonstrated by the Secretary of State's filing, a Limited Liability Company (LLC). The Prenda folks go on and on about organization and the "nerve center" test, but both Minnesota and Illinois follow the popular rule that for diversity purposes, LLCs hold the citizenships of their members. See Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC, CIV. 09-3037(JNE/RLE, 2010 WL 234764 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2010) and Kroupa v. Garbus, 583 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Ill. 2008). I don't know if that defeats the "too much Minnesota" case for remand, but it does show me the quality of lawyering on offer.

  426. Dormammu says:

    Considering that St. Kitts & Nevis is #2 in the world, behind only the United States, in incarceration, it would be funny if Prenda's decision to organize shell companies there came back to bite them in the ass.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

  427. anonymous says:

    New docs in AF Holdings v Patel in GAND. Includes a motion to quash by AF Holdings and exhibits including screencaps from popehat.com comments:

    See doc 60.X

    http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/

  428. Ken White says:

    Anon:

    I see it says my unnecessary posts have caused embarrassment.

    Yet it only attaches the comments to my post, not the post. That's the post where I make fun of his "don't follow California law because gay marriage," I think.

  429. Katherine says:

    @Ken. They also screencapped the comments from your first post about Jacques

  430. kyzer says:

    Here's the link to the docket in HTML format. A little easier to navigate and you can see which are the Blog Exhibits.

    http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.docket.html

    On another note, I get so much entertainment value out of watching these guys bumble around I'm going to head over and donate to the Patel Depositions fund…

  431. Katherine says:

    Just recapped the remaining exhibits submitted as part of the Patel Motion.

  432. WDS says:

    I'm curious what the IP addresses are that Patel is seeking information on.

  433. Delvan Neville says:

    Nazaire mentioned one of them in his motion to quash, actually, WDS: the same IP that was hosting Naughty-Hotties, making Prenda-esque comments on DTD, and showed up in Pirate Bay's logs for sharkmp4's uploads.

  434. kyzer says:

    @WDS regarding this document page 2
    http://ia601600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.60.13.pdf

    If you google each of the first 2 I.P. addresses along with Prenda you will find your answer. I didn't see anything on the third.

  435. kyzer says:

    And Delvan beat me to it while I was typing. Just the guy that would know too. ;-)

  436. Anonymous says:

    Prenda filing a motion to quash? Oh how the mighty have fallen!

    Will I ever get tired of Prenda's dickbags filing my comments as exhibits to their accusations of aggravated butthurt?

    NOPE.

    By now they should have realized that drawing more attention to people pointing out their incompetence has not been helping.

  437. Katherine says:

    I, for one, am deeply disappointed [;-)] that none of my comments made the cut. I thought for sure there would be some mention of my Jester John line.

    Maybe I should write parody? Say…something to the tune of "Big John"?

    ;-)

  438. Sorry Katherine. I didn't get any either. I notice he didn't include the likes of ArsTechnica either.
    And I got no comments either, but I did get an exhibit all to myself at least. Funny thing is, one of the reasons it took almost a week to publish is that I was exactingly scrupulous to ensure that what I wrote covered things fairly, and impartially. Most of it is observations on the judge, and where I had a doubt over my memory, I left it out, waiting for the transcript. (and yes, I know we're all waiting on it.)

  439. That Anonymous Coward says:

    @Jim Tyre – Would the EFF consider filing 2 motions in the Patel case please? I need a motion to appear anonymously and a motion calling Nazzrie(sp) a liar. Or anyone else cleared for GAND interested? I'm not rich, but I can scrape up some cash.

    While some of my posts sound humorous, they were fully intended to be spiteful. To claim otherwise while Prenda/Alpha Law and Duffy (and formerly Steele) are suing to unmask me over comments I have made about them and their local counsels is the pinnacle of stupidity and approaches fraud upon the court.

    I will not stand by and allow them to mislead a court once again, and especially to try and downplay my comments as humorous while attempting to sue me for similar comments.

  440. Scytale says:

    Well I think Blair Chintella managed to put a list together of every single question that needs to be asked … OK and a few more.

    I don't quite know how 7-49 is relevant …
    "Admit that Mark Lutz does not have a valid driver's license"

    … and I almost fear that the Judge will see items like that and severely limit the discovery.

  441. SJD says:

    @Scytale: agreed, it looks bizarre out of context. Why not to directly ask if Lutz knows that he is a fugitive wanted in at least 3 counties, two of which allege driving on a revoked license?

  442. Resolute says:

    So Nazaire and his Prenda overlords are upset that this is may be a "fishing expedition", "overbroad" and that they deserve protection from the risk of (further) embarrassment. One fresh cup of irony coming up!

  443. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Stupid question…
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.284511/gov.uscourts.ilnd.284511.40.0.pdf

    Does this mean Paul Duffy simply showed up at the courthouse step today to try to get his (seemingly fraudulent) joinder accepted again, but without any time for opposition to reaffirm its objections?

  444. Colin says:

    "Because Popehat" is the new "Because gay marriage".

  445. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, BTW, metadata for the protective order etc says the author is "Paul Duffy". He's not admitted pro hac vice, is he? :)

  446. darthskeptic says:

    http://boothsweet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/22-Ruggiero-Motion-to-Withdraw.pdf

    Prenda's MA counsel moves to withdraw, citing Rule 1.16 and RICO.

  447. Resolute says:

    Dated September 25, 2012?

  448. @nicholas – yes, and an unusual creator too "䵩捲潳潦璮⁗潲搠㈰㄰㬠浯摩晩敤⁵獩湧⁩呥硴′⸱⸷⁢礠ㅔ㍘" as far as I can make out. Looks chinese.

  449. Christenson says:

    An important part of the Sgt Schulz defense! (I know nothing!)

    P.S. Who photoshopped in all those microphones? Big grin for that….

  450. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    The Motion to Withdraw is not the most elegant expression but makes two points – Prenda was driving the bus and he don't trust them anymore.

    With regards to this case, Prenda/AF Holdings, receives copies of all court filings automatically through the ECF system. They have always known the existence of the pending motions and status of the cases

    There goes Steele's lack of service.

    It is impossible for the undersigned to file pleadings on behalf of the Defendant where there is no reasonable basis to conclude that anything that Plaintiff tells counsel is truthful.

    Prenda meet Bus.

  451. Clownius says:

    Hes not just throwing them under a bus hes throwing them under a line of buses. His excuse for withdrawal includes the arguments he believes his clients are engage in criminal acts or fraud. I mean wow!

  452. That Anonymous Coward says:

    He knows fraud… some mortgage thing he was involved in ended up with principles getting charged and such.
    Just search FCT for his name, I was posting all sorts of stuff about the puppy when he first surfaced.

  453. The filing cites various rules about when an attorney may withdraw, and some very interesting ones are italicized. Anybody know if that italicization is in the rule set? If not, Ruggiero didn't just throw them under the bus, he put bottles of nitro in their pockets first.

  454. Lucius says:

    Ruggiero's timing is interesting, just after the Minnesota 'joint and several' judgement including the local attorney. Prenda could dissolve the two disposable shell companies, and possibly leave that local attorney responsible for all of it.

    Maybe Ruggiero doesn't like the idea of playing the same fall-guy role in Massassachusetts? Somehow, this seems more likely than a sudden discovery of ethical standards.

  455. Jon says:

    Steve, he says (emphasis added) in the filing, so no, the italicization is solely Ruggiero's doing.

  456. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    Why did he ask?

    "Admit that Mark Lutz does not have a valid driver's license"

    I suspect that is to eventually draw out his legal issues. I think asking him directly about them might be considered improper something along the lines of "Do you still beat your wife?" But IANAL.

  457. Also, as requested, a Wiki http://wiki.ktetch.co.uk/index.php?title=Main_Page

    Be warned, it's my first time setting one up, and it's more a temporary one until SJD gets a permanent one set up hosted outside the US (since SOMEONE likes to subpoena user info, for alleged libel.

    This should at least get us started though, and give us a head start when the permanent one's set up, and allow a better forum for document analysis.

    also note, for some reason the server isn't sending out emails. If someone wants to help me out with troubleshooting that or with securing the wiki from spam, email me (my address isn't hard to find)

  458. PonyMaster2k says:

    I suggest Ken locks this thread so that discussion moves to the next post:

    http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/14/a-brief-prenda-interlude-in-which-i-am-accused-of-causing-embarrassment/

    It's a bit confusing to follow two discussions at once.

  459. Billy V says:

    I can always get one up that is 100% anonymous and does not store user information if it is wanted, would only take me a few hours to get completely done.

  460. Billy V says:

    err crap that was supposed to be @ktech

  461. PonyMaster2k says:

    @SDJ: I don't see that case (MND 126524) in the wiki list:
    http://wiki.ktetch.co.uk/index.php?title=List_of_Prenda_Law_clients

    Am I missing something?

  462. Lucius says:

    @SJD – Hansmeier trying to escalate the Minnesota case, rather than quietly pay the awarded costs and evade further examination of the Prenda structure, is indeed insane.

    It must be a desperate attempt to put off paying costs. Maybe they fear that costs and sanctions against them in other courts will flow more easily once a clear and uncontested judgement is final.

    It would be fun to watch him flounder some more. But how likely is it that he can re-open a case using the same tired arguments after it is completed, and costs already awarded for frivolous litigation?

  463. PonyMaster2k says:

    Ignore my last comment, wiki has been updated by someone.

  464. Billy V says:

    Steele Hansmeier LLS is sharkmp4, the uploader of the copyrighter files to TPB: http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-troll-ran-pirate-bay-honeypot-comcast-confirms-130815/

  465. Fasolt says:

    @SJD: That filing by Pauly would be accurate if he replaced every instance of the words "Godfread" and "Cooper" with "Steele".

  466. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    http://madisonrecord.com/news/258220-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-prenda-laws-libel-suit-sets-briefing-schedule-on-remand-request>/blockquote&gt;

    I think the title of this is a little misleading. It makes it sound like a clear Prenda victory, as have some other comments. From the article it is seems clear the Judge was not buying Duffy's line and gave Godfread and Cooper

    … 30 days to file an amended counterclaim. In addition, he denied Duffy’s motion to strike 10 affirmative defenses raised by Godfread and Cooper, saying they met the basic requirements and are sufficient.

    There is also to be further briefing on Duffy's motion to remand but apparently according to Godfread and Cooper's lawyer there were among other things, misrepresentations to the clerk, failure to seek leave to amend the complaint, Steele leaving messages confirming his knowledge that Godfread and Cooper had been served and the usual Prenda sloppiness.

  467. SJD says:

    rsteinmetz70112: you are correct. There was a community member, a Chicago resident, and he was there. I hope he will write his own comment, but over the phone he told me that judge's mood was clear. He was very skeptical about this "Alpha" business and "amended complaint." He admonished Duffy for the changed title of the case in his motion. Erin clearly explained the fraudulent behavior of St Clair's local Hoerner — why this "amended complaint" was a legal nullity. The judge seemed to be sympathetic to Erin, even joked.

    As far as I know, Duffy withdrew his ill-conceived motion to remand.

  468. Just a thought says:

    Salt Marsh might be more appropriate than previously realized: http://keysmosquito.org/salt-marsh-mosquito/ "The adults are fierce biters" to say nothing of blood suckers.

  469. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    SJD Thank you for the confirmation

    As far as I know, Duffy withdrew his ill-conceived motion to remand.

    The article mentions that but I'm not sure it can't be renewed since the Judge also asked for additional briefing on the issue of remand.

    Of course that may have been merely to document "Prenda's" infractions.

  470. Ken may already have an article in process on this one, but just in case take a look at http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ShitJustGotRealerYo.pdf Clearly the repercussions from the wrath of Judge Wright are spreading wider and wider.

  471. Fasolt says:

    The wheels grind on. I am very much enjoying watching the slow motion implosion of Pretenda.

  472. Billy V says:

    Ok so first off, Minnesota case reopened to see if AF Holdings committed fraud on the court: http://ia601208.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524.53.0.pdf

    In response to that AF Holdings filed: http://ia601208.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524/gov.uscourts.mnd.126524.54.0.pdf

    Now as a non-lawyer who has to be missing something, can someone please explain to me how on page 3 (PDF page 10) they stated that in front of Judge Wright they invoked to fifth in order to avoid violating attorney-client privilege?

    Further, the Magistrate Judge should not imply wrongdoing from anyone’s
    invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled testimony … the invocation of the privilege was
    made, inter alia, to avoid violating the attorney-client privilege

    I see nothing in the 5th about attorney-client privilege, so how could this possibly be stated as the reason it was asserted?