DailyDirt: Genetically Modified To Fit Our Modern Lifestyles...

Prenda Law Accused Of Trying To Start Over Again Under A New Name

from the when-your-name-becomes-toxic... dept

Tue, Dec 18th 2012 7:49pm — Mike Masnick

We've written a few times about Prenda Law and John Steele lately -- including some of the trouble that Prenda is running into for doing things like being accused of fraud on the court after a crazy hearing in which Prenda denied being associated with the case, despite hiring lawyers and having John Steele present (while trying to deny any role). And then, of course, there are the still open questions about whether or not Prenda set up a shell company by signing, as CEO, the name of a guy who John Steele hired to take care of some property.

For those who have been following these cases, you know that Prenda Law was actually John Steele's "new" firm, after his previous firm Steele Hansmeier was dissolved. Of course, that happened soon after a judge told Steele to stop filing copyright trolling lawsuits.

Given the increasing hot water that Prenda looks to be in, along with the fact that lawyers in other Prenda cases across the country are now alerting judges to Prenda's questionable behavior, the site FightCopyrightTrolls is suggesting that Steele and his crew of copyright trolling lawyers are trying to set up yet another new firm, called the Anti-Piracy Law Group. The evidence is compelling. The group has put up a website at "wefightpiracy.org" -- quite similar to Prenda's existing "wefightpiracy.com." And, that new page, in the fine print, admits that it's Prenda. It also includes a page of sample cases that are Prenda cases -- including the now infamous Tuan Nguyen in Florida, which resulted in that "fraud on the court" issue. FightCopyrightTrolls notes that this new "Anti Piracy Law Group" is already sending out "settlement" letters, using the same address as Prenda Law.

Once again, watching Steele and his friends do what they do, you get the feeling that they think they're smarter than everyone else, and one step ahead of everyone else. Given the events of the last few months, it seems that he's getting closer and closer to being informed that his theory is incorrect.

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: copyright troll, john steele, prenda
Companies: anti-piracy law group, prenda, prenda law

46 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:19pm

This new firm is the greatest definition of irony I have ever witnessed.

Too bad the small print doesn't include the disclaimer: "Arg! We pillage from the poor and give to the rich, after we take our share, of course!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:20pm

Thanks, Mike.

The page embedded above may look insufficient as a proof, but I want to assure that the letters signed by Paul Duffy on the "Anti-Piracy Law Group" letterhead are being sent out. It's understandable that the person who shared that page was reluctant to make the entire demand letter public, even redacted. Nonetheless, it is just a matter of time, and we will have the whole thing soon.

Note also that Prenda Law is not likely being complemented by the new firm, but rather replaced: Prenda Law did not file its annual report that was due in the end of October, and it is not in good standing with the state of Illinois as a result.

Taking the occasion, I want to thank that generous person who presented an early Christmas gift to all us � registered http://www.anti-piracylawgroup.com/ and http://www.antipiracylawgroup.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
radarmonkey (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:24pm

Cut/Paste Error
Of course, the "new" company, when creating the "new" settlement form letters forgot to change the ".com" to ".org" for the email and web address.

OOPS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:26pm

To any lawyers:
Please tell me something as simple as a name change isn't enough to get them off the hook.

Starting up a 'new' company/firm(again) after getting the first one slapped around in the court rooms is bad enough, but if they can essentially start anew by simply renaming the firm(and, let's be honest, the only thing they are doing is changing their name. Same M.O., same address, same owner)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:29pm

Re: Cut/Paste Error
.org is a temporary sandbox, that was prematurely leaked due to sloppiness of the designers, whoever they are.

Apparently the plan is to replace the entire "wefightpiracy.com" with the new design/title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:35pm

Re: To any lawyers:
It works both ways though, if they can hide so can we.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:37pm

Re: To any lawyers:
I hope this is the case, because it opens up a whole market for people to register a company just to use for ISP related stuff, so when you get 3 or 6 strikes you just dump the company and open a new one that will enter into a contract with an internet provider.

That would be glorious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vegetaman (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:46pm

Apparently when I originally grabbed popcorn to watch this ensuing trainwreck unfold, my popcorn tub was not big enough.

But fortunately it is now the holidays, and the necessary 5 gallon buckets of it are readily available!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:49pm

Re: Re: To any lawyers:
You're forgetting the 'high court/low court' bit of the 'justice' system unfortunately. A company/rich person can get away with far worse things than an individual/regular person can, so the question becomes: has this group done enough to get the 'peon' treatment, and actually be punished?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:53pm

WHY ISN'T HE IN PRISON? HOW MANY LAWS DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO BREAK UNTIL THEY ARE PUNISHED?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 8:54pm

Re:
Except the ever heinous crime of Copyright infringement, I mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 18 Dec 2012 @ 9:02pm

As a response to this story, I quote one of the most esteemed philosophers of our time, Mr. Red Foreman:

�Dumbass!�
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 18 Dec 2012 @ 9:02pm

Re:
All of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zem, 18 Dec 2012 @ 9:37pm

He's our bestest buddy
Sometime it takes people likes this to force reform. Legal systems are often fixed when people abuse the system and exploit loopholes. At the end of the day, when he sits in his jail cell, he can sleep soundly knowing that he left the system in a better place than when he found it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 9:44pm

Re:
WHY ISN'T HE IN PRISON? HOW MANY LAWS DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO BREAK UNTIL THEY ARE PUNISHED?

Copyright holders ask this every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 10:46pm

Forgive my bluntness, but when the fuck will these bastards be arrested for racketeering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 11:11pm

Re: Re:
Well, copyright infringement is only one law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:27am

Re: Re:
Somehow, I suspect that defrauding the court is kind of less important than Perceptional "Property".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 1:05am

Re: Re:
And they spend tons of taxpayer money trying to find the right "he", only to more often than not end up suing the wrong person. Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 19 Dec 2012 @ 1:51am

I wonder
Are they still able to collect money from the uninformed, not everyone will browse the internet and come across sites like this with stories about how it is fraud, if they are making a few million from sending out demands then the bad publicity is irrelevant to them, I would say that Steele needs to be investigated much more and any funds from demand letters returned in full, even if it means seizing all his assets, like they did with Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:27am

Re:
Around the same time that the United States of Earthica is assembled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:48am

Nothing to fear.
Not that concerned until they create www.wefightpiracy.xxx ThenaTenant only then would I be concerned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 2:53am

Nothing to fear
Grrr dang 5 am spelling auto correct thenatenant was meant to be then and only then. Wake up my Samsung Galaxy Tab. Previous post should read. Not that concerned until they create www.wefightpiracy.xxx. Then and only then will I be concerned. Wow that was difficult to post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:13am

If I was a judge, I wouldn't be very impressed with Mr. Steele's way of doing business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 3:50am

This is why lawyers have a bad reputation. They're like bubble gum stuck under a table at a fast food joint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 19 Dec 2012 @ 4:07am

Re: Re: To any lawyers:
Except that corporate accumts are generally much more than residential ones. But if you are prepared to pay 2-5 times the along....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 19 Dec 2012 @ 4:11am

Re: I wonder
Actually if they are going to treat it like Kimdotcom they don't need to investigate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 4:59am

I read that as Pretenda Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 19 Dec 2012 @ 5:41am

Re: Re: Re: To any lawyers:
You do not need to get a corporate account with your ISP to register it to a corporation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 19 Dec 2012 @ 5:42am

Re:
See, their plan is ALREADY putting money back into the pockets of corn farmers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 19 Dec 2012 @ 5:50am

Re: Re:
It is a slippery slope for charges to be filed against Steele. He is likely to get slapped with some kinds of sanctions, but most of what has been done has been within the law - even though it is clearly underhanded.

Some of what he has allegedly done is being looked upon carefully (fraud on the court). If he is eventually found to have been intentionally fraudulent, the sanctions could involve him losing his license to practice law and even some jail time.

What the court needs to be very careful about is setting a precedent that makes it possible for other attorneys to end up ACCIDENTALLY ending up in a similar situation. Remember, judges are lawyers too, and if they can come up with a scenario in their head that would make what has been done by Prenda Law reasonable, they are going to err on the side of caution and not issue heavy sanctions - for fear that they or their friends could end up on the receiving end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 5:53am

So out of curiousity
If we theoretically get a 'settlement' letter from Anti Piracy Law Group, do we ignore it, write back and say we know they're full of shit (linking back to here in the letter) or go to the time and expense of calling their bluff and appear in court to watch them fail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:12am

Re: Re:
Oh snap!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 6:40am

Re: Re:
Copyright Infringement is not as heinous a crime as being accused of copyright infringement. Alleged Copyright Infringement is far worse a crime than actual copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 7:13am

Re: So out of curiousity
I'm not a lawyer, but if you get a court summons, you damn well better go - otherwise they will almost certainly win a default judgement.

If you just get a threatening letter from the firm, you have more options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2012 @ 7:49am

Re:
I strongly suspect their share is 100% and most the people they're representing don't even know about the cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 8:46am

Re: So out of curiousity
Baiting them (e.g. sending them a letter telling them they're full of shit) is probably not a good idea. In fact be extremely cautious in any communications with them. Phonecalls etc... are probably recorded and they will use Sneaky Lawyer Tricks�� to try to trap you, or get you to reveal assets/more personal details/more info on your internet activities. Do not believe them if they tell you they know certain things (e.g. "We can see from your traffic history you do a great deal of downloading.") This is essentially cold reading.

Fightcopyrighttrolls.com has a good FAQ for people threatened with copyright infringement suits. Suggest you start there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 9:28am

Re: Re: So out of curiousity
While I 100% agree with what you are saying (don't poke a mad dog), I don't think they record phone conversations: too risky. In many states ("Two-party" states, which means the consent of both parties is needed to record) recording w/o consent is a serious, potentially criminal offense. Even if they can get away with it, I'm sure such recordings are not admissible in the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: To any lawyers:
This is true. You don't even need one to be able to cash checks in the company name. In fact, you shouldn't bother with a corporate account unless you have specific need for a service that comes with it (handling payroll tax payments, for instance).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: So out of curiousity
This.

If I got a threatening letter from them, I would just ignore it. If I got a summons, I would go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
In many states practicing without a license is a serious offense. Doesn't stop 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
If I got a letter from them, and had no knowledge of what they said I was downloading, I don't think I would ignore it.

I'd respond with a letter that indicated a Google search indicated numerous references to how their operation was a scam or illegally practicing law. Thus, I would demand more information on their organization to verify their accusation. I would also demand information on how they had identified me, as their method would seem to be significantly flawed - without more information I would be unable to provide a reasonable explanation of why it was flawed and had mistakenly identified me. And I would keep records of the communication, telling them so, and that I was prepared to retain legal counsel if necessary.

Again - I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. If that wouldn't scare them off, then nothing would and you should start thinking about a decision to settle or to defend yourself in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:30pm

Re:
Quick back of the envelope math explains why.
He is worth millions.
The high court doesn't hold its membership to the same standard as the low court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
Steele will make it his mission to crush you under his heel if you put up a fight in this manner.
He will waste all kinds of money running up your bill and blood pressure.

How one gets a scare letter without the notice from the ISP first is worrisome. Most courts have required the ISP to send notice when they allow the early discovery.

The best defense would be seeing if the reference case is listed on fightcopyrighttrolls.com or dietrolldie.com

Pretenda via its tax shell companies currently has cases in court where they have no right to bring any action. Sloppy sham copyright transfers are sloppy.

The best response is to get educated about the case.

If the paperwork is issued by a court, you should consider a lawyer to prepare an answer... never ignore the court.

If it is just a scare letter, educate yourself about the case and prepare for Pretenda to robodial you at all times of the day or night making threats about taking you to court unless you pay now.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, this is not legal advice. I do however have MUCH experience with copyright trolls and their methods. I must be good SJD lets me post stuff. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
I would do all that if I were actually facing some kind of legal action. Threat letters aren't legal action. Companies use them all the time to try and scare people into responding -- hopefully just settling, but any kind of response can be valuable. Remember, never volunteer any information of any kind to an attorney you aren't paying.

So if it's just a threat letter, I'd ignore it. Odds are excellent that nothing more would come of it -- but if I made a big stink for them, they might be inclined to pay special attention to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HoustonLawy3r (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 5:57pm

Re: To any lawyers:
No, this will not get them out of trouble. One of the exciting things about being an attorney is that we cannot hide behind limited liability as far as our own malpractice and criminal actions go. Similarly, it is the state ethics board that would bring the attorney up on charges -- not his law firm. Thus, it means absolutely nothing that they keep changing names. The only thing they are succeeding at is confusing judges and the accused defendants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]