Prenda Lawyer Hires His Own Lawyer, Tries To Tapdance His Way Out Of A Jail Sentence By Throwing Prenda Under The Bus
from the it's-not-me,-it's-them dept
A few weeks ago, we noted that not only did Judge Otis Wright not buy Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs' ridiculous claims concerning the mysterious Alan Cooper, but that Gibbs was facing sanctions, including the possibility of jailtime for his actions in the case. Gibbs did the smart thing and found himself a lawyer of his own to respond to these allegations, though the response raises a lot more questions than it answers, and seems primarily focused on throwing Prenda itself under the bus, basically arguing that Gibbs was just a lawyer hired by Prenda, doing whatever the client asked. There's also the admission that he's never met Alan Cooper, and so cannot comment on which Alan Cooper is in charge of AF Holdings, and whether or not there really is an Alan Cooper at AF Holdings at all (which does little to explain Gibbs' silly response to being asked about Cooper earlier in the case):I have never met Alan Cooper, and do not know what the extent of Mr. Cooper's role is in A F Holdings aside from seeing a signature from an "Alan Cooper" on the copyright assignments and pleadings. Based on the assignment agreement, A F Holdings held the valid and exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the film Popular Demand. I was not present when the assignment agreement was executed. I also never had any direct contact with either Raymond Rogers or Alan Cooper. I have never executed a document as "Alan Cooper." I did not play a role in or have knowledge of the assignment transaction at issue. Senior members of S & H provided the assignment agreement to me and informed me that the copyright assignment was a true and correct copy of the copyright assignment and to include it as an exhibit in complaints filed on behalf of A F Holdings L L C . Before filing any such complaints, I confirmed that A F Holdings L L C was in fact listed as the valid copyright holder.But, really the key point of Gibbs' filing seems to be blame Prenda, not me:
I have never had a financial or fiduciary (i.e., ownership) interest in A F Holdings. AF Holdings was a client of S&H and then Prenda. The face-to-face and direct interactions between S&H and later Prenda with A F Holdings were handled by the senior members of the law firms and not me.As for the fact that he "verified" that Cooper had signed stuff? He says he either saw it, or maybe someone at Prenda just told him it was signed:
I confirmed the existence of the client-executed verification either by seeing a copy of the signed verification, or at the very least, being informed by a representative of S&H or Prenda that a signed verification was in the possession of S & H or Prenda.Oh, and he also claims that he asked Prenda for the original copy of Alan Cooper's signature... but Prenda claims that it no longer has it. Uh huh.
In Case No. 84, Mr. Pietz first asked for a copy of Mr. Cooper's verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony on or about December 2012, well after the petition had been discharged. Given the length of time since the case was discharged, I was informed and understand that S&H (and later Prenda) no longer has a copy of Mr. Cooper's verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony.Law firms (real ones, that is) tend not to throw out things like original documents with signatures on them.
Gibbs' filing then goes on to respond to the other issues raised by the court pointing out that Prenda needed to have more proof of people's involvement beyond just an IP address, trying to explain that they really did do more research. However, as the folks at FightcopyrightTrolls have been pointing out, his explanations are highly suspect. For example, Gibbs claims that he had evidence to believe that one of the people he demanded payment from was the likely infringer by looking at Google Maps and determining that his household WiFi was unlikely to be accessible by neighbors. But, a commenter at FCT quickly did the same Google Maps search and points out that there are probably 10 to 30 households in range for a typical WiFi router.
Opposing counsel Morgan Pietz wasted little time in responding in great detail, reiterating all of the details of the game that Prenda and Brett Gibbs have been playing. It's a good read.
What seems increasingly clear though is that Prenda, and its “of counsel” here, Mr. Brett Gibbs, have crossed the Rubicon in these cases, by resorting to fraud, which includes identity theft, sham offshore shell companies, and forged documents.Pietz also points out that Gibbs apparently directly lied to the court. The court had ordered Gibbs to stop discovery (i.e., trying to uncover details of those they were trying to track down information on, in order to send shakedown letters), but Gibbs continued to do so. When confronted on this Gibbs claimed he interpreted the order to only mean that he couldn't do "formal discovery efforts such as pressuring the ISPs to respond to the subpoenas that had been served." The problem there was twofold. First, the court's order clearly precluded much more than that and more importantly, Gibbs didn't even stop pressuring ISPs, even though he directly claims he understood the court's orders to mean he had to stop.
Yet as confirmed by at least one ISP—AT&T—notwithstanding this representation, Prenda did in fact “pressur[e] the ISPs to respond to the subpoenas” notwithstanding Mr. Gibbs’s interpretation of the stay order.One gets the feeling this is not going to end well for Gibbs or Prenda Law.
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, morgan pietz, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Free is not a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network TV wishes it could keep me this entertained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#JusticeInAmerica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except he didn't really through Prenda under the bus...
Instead, Gibbs is still appears to be working with Prenda, but under the guise of working for a company he claims has bought AF Holdings, even though at the AF Holdings depo Gibbs attended, AF Holdings asserted it is owned by a Nevis based trust.
So Gibbs is still in the thick of it. Throwing Prenda under the bus would look a whole lot different, but I think anybody might be wary of throwing an apparent sociopath like John Steele under the bus :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except he didn't really through Prenda under the bus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except he didn't really through Prenda under the bus...
:-) I'm sure John Steele will produce an affidavit that he was in India signed by, um, someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except he didn't really through Prenda under the bus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except he didn't really through Prenda under the bus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets get them all together on Montel Williams show for a good starting shouting match fight then bring out the house caretaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if the originals can't be located for some reason, there darn well better be a paper trail telling where the originals went (and there's still usually a photocopy of the signed original in the client file or on the firm's electronic file system).
IANAL - just work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Steele's deadline to answer the complaint expired on 2/14, but I did not hear about the result yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> I feel sorry for law students, high cost of loans combined with stupidity
> like this.
The law students who spent significantly on their education are probably not the ones that do stupid things like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't show it would be bad and look bad for any lawyer who, by just being a lawyer in good standing, are unavoidably available just dealing with normal client business. Not being able to respond quickly to the usual demands from new clients, defense or prosecution staff and typical timely court filings would ruin any law firm. They either have their shingle out swinging out on the front lawn (and active phone numbers, web address, etc.) or they don't.
It would seem they are counting on only daily fines being levied for a no show on April 2nd. Its possible that they want to attend a smaller hearing, by suffering a few days of fines and criticism for lame excuses, rather than the likely three ring circus on the 2nd.
They may even be counting on the O'l boy network by trying for a private meeting in the judges chambers. However harsh the judge might treat them it would still be out the the public eye. This would also give the advantage of not having to show up with everyone else. (whom some are obviously hostile parties)
Of course if warrants are issued for contempt of court they might show up the very next day or so and in the morning also so as to assure a prompt hearing possibly/hopefully avoiding incarceration. This would also allow some to escape the wild party on the 2nd but only at such a cost.
Then again of course they could always try to run...
Or they might try a scapegoat. “It was all his idea!”, “take one for the team boy” (just a few possibilities of course)
Ultimately there will likely be a trial date. The charges are still being examined. This could take months maybe even years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]