Prenda Law Tries To Dismiss Case After Being Accused Of Directly Violating Judge's Orders
from the these-guys-again? dept
We've been covering a number of stories about copyright trolling law firm Prenda Law lately, and each time, we're somewhat amazed at their really brazen attempts to abuse the court process to basically get information which they can then use to pressure people into paying Prenda not to be sued over copyright infringement. Some of the more amazing cases we've highlighted include the one in Florida where the judge accused Prenda of fraud on the court after a court hearing that was worthy of a comedic movie. And then there's the ongoing questions about the mysterious Alan Cooper who may or may not be Prenda founder, John Steele's, housekeeper, rather than an actual executive running a firm that Prenda is representing. Oh, and let's not forget Prenda's big bag of tricks in another set of cases. Basically, every time Prenda Law / John Steele pop up, it's not long before serious questions follow.So... here we go again. The site DieTrollDie has the story of a Prenda case in Colorado against one William Cisa and "1385 "joint tortfeasors." Basically, Prenda is trying to get information on 1,386 people... from whom they will then demand settlements. Unfortunately, the judge in that case initially allowed "discovery" to go forward, allowing Prenda to get some info on all of those people. Eventually, the magistrate judge realized that something sketchy was going on and reversed the order on discovery and killed the outstanding subpoenas to ISPs for info. The magistrate judge, Kathleen Tafoya, also made it clear to Prenda not to contact anyone whose info it had received:
Insofar as any personal identifying information of the non-party “joint tortfeasors” has already been provided to Plaintiff from the “joint tortfeasors’” ISPs, Plaintiff is prohibited from further communicating with these subscribers.Sounds good... except that the anonymous person behind DieTrollDie noticed that a lawyer hired by Prenda, Timothy Anderson, had been filing lawsuits for Prenda in Virginia -- including some against the people associated with the IP addresses uncovered in the Cisa case. And, remember, the CO court made it clear that Prenda is prohibited from communicating with those people... and yet it's filing lawsuits.
The person behind DTD sent an email to the court alerting it to this likely violation of Judge Tafoya's order... and soon after that Anderson sought to dismiss the Cisa case entirely, without bothering to respond to the claims of violating the order. Whether or not the judge decides to do something about this, I imagine that the judges in the cases in Virginia may be informed about the background here...
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 trolls, john steele, prenda, tim anderson, william cisa
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Off-topic question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off-topic question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off-topic question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off-topic question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Off-topic question
(the original title of my question was "I am a pedant")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"these-guys-again?"
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
All the news you saw last week on other sites, re-written to cherry pick points that fit Mike's agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "these-guys-again?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "these-guys-again?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "these-guys-again?"
Why are you against a purported copyright plaintiff doing its litigation business out in the open, in the sunlight, in front of God and everyone instead of hiding and running to the darkness like cockroaches?
Why shouldn't plaintiffs be required to initiate separate individual cases against each defendant and then begin discovery?
If this is nothing more than an extortion shakedown (which it in fact is) then why shouldn't that fact be made plain for all, including the court, to see, and the extortionists be held responsible for their fraud upon the court?
If this is a legitimate copyright action, then there is a legal process the rightsholders can follow. Sue unidentified defendant. Begin discovery. Discover identity of defendant. Properly serve defendant so they can prepare their defense. Continue litigation. Repeat process for each individual defendant. Is that so hard? It's the way it is done. It's been done that way for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prenda, the Law Bender
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might have something to do with it being commonly called Pretenda Law now, a phrase made popular in the circle of those who follow copyright trolling cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It makes each one just that little bit more hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*waves at DieTrollDie*
Much like the person behind FCT is infact... *GASP* SJD.
*waves at Sophisticated Jane Doe*
All the cool nyms are known by 3 letters... like me, TAC.
Anyways, this get much funnier when you read this...
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/01/01/where-are-you-going-mark-why-now/
Mr. Lutz is having a fire sale of possessions before he leaves the country. Now would be a good time for some angry Judges to make sure that defendants and witnesses aren't fleeing the jurisdiction.
I mean we do demand extradition of copyright law breakers, I wonder if that applies to those on the other side too...
LOTS of Money in a foriegn tax haven... seems like a good reason to flee before the house of cards falls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt
Who knows if someone actually looked into the business practices there might be a nice long list of felony charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contempt
Even though it would probably fail, i just want to see all these trolls be forced to plead incompetence to defend themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt
Is this being heard in high court or low court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt
The example was a case where an individual was asked to provide information to access his accounts online, when he refused, he was held in contempt of court until he agreed to release the information.... which in theory could be indefinitely....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prenda Law & Sunlust
DTD :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prenda Law & Sunlust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: question
They "hire" local lawyers to file the cases in each jurisdiction.
The shell companies they sham transferred the copyrights to are based in a tax haven where there are no corporate records kept and to try and find the correct parties involves having to hire local lawyers and put up $25,000 (IIRC).
IL has no ethics violations, I recall the case of a lawyer who was disbarred 6 or 8 years into his prison sentence because they finally got around to dealing with it.
Its copyright law, the odds of the DOJ actually doing anything to people "defending" copyright law are about nil.
Many of the victims of this scam will NOT come forward because the media would attach their name to scandalous porn titles and focus on that, rather than the fact there was no evidence and they paid simply to protect their reputation. IIRC one of their clients is currently being investigated for soliciting underage girls to perform in their works, would you want your name related to CP in any way shape or form?
Even if we "win" we are still going to lose, justice will not be served. Howell will still be on the bench favoring trolls over the law and forcing other Judges in her district to obey her demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusing Legal Issues
Prenda ignores the judge because there are no teeth in the law regarding what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]