Copyright Troll Prenda Law Dances Around The Simple Question: Which Alan Cooper Runs AF Holdings?
from the still-waiting... dept
Well, well. The saga of copyright troll Prenda Law continues, getting more and more ridiculous by the day. First there was the comedy routine in a Florida courtroom, where Prenda denied representing the client, while at the same time effectively controlling the case by hiring the lawyers, and where John Steele (who clearly is connected to Prenda) just happened to show up in the courtroom. Then there's the Alan Cooper saga, where a caretaker of one of John Steele's properties in Minnesota began to worry that Steele was engaged in identity theft, and had falsely named him as the CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity13, two companies involved in Prenda copyright trolling cases.A California lawyer, Morgan Pietz, who is apparently representing clients sued by AF Holdings and Ingenuity13, thought all of this was interesting enough that he alerted the courts hearing the related cases to both situations, which apparently set off Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs (also named as the guy who "hired" one of the lawyers in that Florida, despite Prenda denying any involvement in the case). The key question asked by Pietz: is the Alan Cooper associated with AF Holdings and Ingenuity13 the same Alan Cooper taking care of John Steele's property? Or are they different. There is, of course, an easy way out for Prenda if the Alan Coopers are different: just say they're different and show some evidence.
Instead... we get something else. First, a rambling and confusing filing from Gibbs in which he never addresses that simple question, but lashes out at everyone. He attacks the charges from Alan Cooper that his name and identity are being used against his will, not by saying that they are different Alan Coopers, but just by saying that Pietz "failed to perform a basic investigation to determine if the allegations contained in the letter are true." Gibbs does say they are false, but still provides absolutely no information on Alan Cooper, instead relying on the fact that a single court has said that it will take no action on Cooper's letter. Also, Gibbs accuses Pietz of attempting to "defame" AF Holdings with the Florida transcript, though I'm curious how attaching an actual transcript from a court case counts as defamation.
Pietz then filed a supplement to his original filing which responds to Gibbs' filing, noting that it "does not provide a single substantive fact designed to assuage any of these very troubling concerns. Rather, Plaintiff's opposition attacks the evidentiary foundation for Mr. Cooper's assertions, plus ad hominem attacks on the undersigned, an on Mr. Cooper's attorney, without responding substantively to any of the deeply troubling issues raised by Mr. Cooper." Furthermore, Pietz submits an email exchange with Gibbs which gets even more ridiculous.
Pietz asks Gibbs to answer these simple questions, and Gibbs refuses is an increasingly agitated manner. Eventually, they had a brief phone call, though the two differ entirely on the nature of that call. It does seem clear that Gibbs hung up on Pietz, though both accuse the other of unprofessional activities. Pietz insists that the claims that he yelled or cursed during the call are simply and totally false. However, it does appear clear from both accounts that Gibbs simply refuses to answer two simple questions: (1) What is the name of the client that Gibbs speaks to at AF Holdings and (2) can he provide Alan Cooper's signature, which Gibbs' "confirms" was appended to one of the exhibits filed in the case. Considering that the filing states the following, directly after an electronic claim that Alan Cooper signed the form (it's typical for lawyers to note "/s/" in electronic documents for where a physical copy was signed).
I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(f) that counsel for Plaintiff has signed original notarized version of the above Verified PetitionSo, Pietz just wants to see that original signature from Cooper for somewhat obvious reasons, given the concerns listed above. And yet, Gibbs not only refuses, but when Pietz asked him directly on the phone about it, Gibbs himself admits that his answer was "I am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." In Gibbs' own email, he displays the way in which he has treated these conversations:
As I told you over the phone, when you asked "Is there another Alan Cooper?", I said "I am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." If your question had been framed more pointedly, and not so vague, maybe I could have provided you with a specific answer.That's the kind of statement made by someone who thinks they're brilliant -- but isn't. All it serves to do is make lots of people aware of this. Parsing words when the clear intent of the question is obvious doesn't make you look intelligent. It just makes you look like you're avoiding the question because you don't want to answer. Similarly, Gibbs' insistence that he didn't hang up on Pietz seems equally dubious by his own explanation:
Mr. Morgan, I did not hang up on you. I take offense to your purposefully twisted version of things. At the end of our conversation, I said that "it was nice speaking with, I had other things to do and good bye" [paraphrasing]. That is not "hanging up" on someone, that is called ending a phone conversation (with respect, I might add).Again... all of this dancing and parsing could be solved quite simply: by Gibbs or Steele or anyone actually showing that the Alan Cooper who is supposedly in charge of these holding companies isn't the Alan Cooper managing a Steele property in Minnesota. If that were the case, you'd think it would be quite simple for this to be proven. The fact that they're avoiding it only suggests that the most obvious possibility is the true story. As these stories advance, you get the feeling that this situation is going to end up being even more ridiculous than Righthaven by the time it's all over.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, john steele, mogran pietz
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity13, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor typo:
Should be 'where John Steele (who clearly is connected to Prenda)'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor typo:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They reinforce the idea with porn producers that they are losing millions to evil pirates, not because they think they can charge $60 for a streamed video.
They offer to go get these pirates and make them pay, they don't mention the thousands they demand... they mention the hundreds the porn makers will get from evildoers.
Then they started offshore holding companies and did sham transfers of many copyrights and are actively working on hiding the money trail and evade taxes.
These idiots don't represent the entertainment industries, they represent every fucking reason lawyers need to be shot.
(For the Secret Service, this would be a statement that is extreme to point out something, not an actual threat... unlike the ones Steele made against myself and others.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should hope so. I have my popcorn ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Train Wreck Lawyering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as for the article itself...
Dancing around, and giving non-committal answers to such an insanely simple question as a name... just blows the mind that they actually seem to think that their actions aren't doing anything but confirming the suspicion about the imaginary, or unknowing CEO of their company.
I cannot wait for a judge to get tired enough of their shenanigans that he/she orders them to have the 'person' in question show up in court, with several forms of legal identification; I'm sure their reaction will be absolutely hilarious.
"I regret to inform you your honor that our CEO will be unable to appear in court in the foreseeable future, as his grandmother died, his dog is sick, he is sick, he recently had major surgery, he has a terrible fear of cars, trains and airplanes, he..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And as for the article itself...
Clintonesque (comparative more Clintonesque, superlative most Clintonesque)
In a manner reminiscent of the style of former U.S. President Bill Clinton; usually involving a hypertechnical parsing of words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And as for the article itself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further ironic in that Identity theft has less of a fine than the duplication of a file. Yet actually harms and takes something away that costs real world legal action and costs to get back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is hilarious !!
Could it be 3D printing ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Rule
Morgan Pietz: Kevin McDonald
Brett Gibbs: Dave Foley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on what I've heard so far it seems obvious that AF Holdings is mostly an empty\dummy company whose CEO is the same Alan Cooper that we have seen so far. There is only one question left.
Was Alan's name taken without his consent or did he get cold-feet and is now lying about being involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the courts should allow cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the courts should allow cameras
But then it'd be copyright, and there'd be release windows... We'd never get to watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the courts should allow cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the amount of time you've already spent,
"As these stories advance, you get the feeling that this situation is going to end up being even more ridiculous than Righthaven by the time it's all over."
YES, here you've dispensed with all but "inside lawyering".
My advice (feel free to NOT take it, your dullness serves my purposes too): Drop this entirely.
Advance to the next re-write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the amount of time you've already spent,
You're free not to read it, or post about it.
But then, you won't be able to bill your masters for it, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the amount of time you've already spent,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the amount of time you've already spent,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
defamation claims
It's a little something I learnt when researching the law thanks to the UK IPO office censoring me for alleged defamation of collecting societies (as Glyn wrote about in July) It's a case that's still ongoing, as I'm trying to find out the facts of what they've been doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple question.
There is an army of shell companies represented by Pretenda Law, each one slightly more refined than the last. Each of them is about moving money to a tax haven where no one can learn, without a lot of money and a local lawyer, who the principles of the companies are... and well the country doesn't require that paperwork to be filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Prenda Law Comedy Gold, Part II: Hanging With Mr. Cooper".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did you check for breathing?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
Witness: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All you other Alan Coopers are just imitating
So won't the real Alan Cooper please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike - please pick up the phone and call them.
It would be an interesting conversation and good reporting. Now, I am off to buy more popcorn so I can sit back and enjoy the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To bad he has no real money else he would be called colorful like Molusconi in Italy that is a convicted criminal billionaire that made his money on media entertainment and news and could be re-elected president of Italy again.
I just hope this doesn't end in pizza like the Italian political scenery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourcing opportunity
"Where's Alan Cooper" (it would be AWESOME if he would wear a striped shirt for us)
If a group of college students can crowdsource finding a weather balloon, can't we use Facebook and Twitter to ask every Alan Cooper if they run AF Holdings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The saga continues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The saga continues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The saga continues
Big news: Judge Wright has granted a discovery aimed at solving the Alan Cooper mystery (and, potentially, uncovering a fraud of epic proportions)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]