As Expected, Team Prenda Trying Desperately To Get Out Of Appearing On Monday

from the well-of-course dept

Fri, Mar 8th 2013 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

All week I've been checking the docket on the Prenda case where the showdown is supposed to be happening on Monday, fulling expecting to see John Steele, Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier and others desperately trying to get out of appearing, and it's finally showed up -- but not via their own filing, but rather opposing attorney Morgan Pietz who received the documents before the court did, and is opposing them, in part by arguing that Team Prenda stalled in filing these documents. Team Prenda try a variety of arguments, first noting that they have nothing (nothing, I tell you!) to do with the case, and they point out that Brett Gibbs and the lawyers he hired are the lawyers on the case. They're even so bold to claim that they have "no dog in this fight."

Even where the court seeks to adjudicate issues between parties, it must have personal jurisdiction over them. Here, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel are not parties and have not otherwise participated in this litigation. As such, the public policy behind the need to determine personal jurisdiction is arguably at an elevated level because, as individuals, they effectively have "no dog in this fight."

As if anyone believes that.

Then they claim lack of jurisdiction by the court:

On March 5, 2013, this court issued an order that eight individuals would have to appear before this court on March 11, 2013. But this court lacks jurisdiction to order those individuals to appear in that they reside outside California, are not parties to this litigation, have not appeared in this action, and do not represent parties to this action.

Moreover, although some of these individuals may have received notice as the court ordered, others did not because those charged with providing notice simply lacked the information necessary to do so. And, even those that were served have not received reasonable notice of the nature of the proceedings they are being ordered to appear in or what is expected of them besides their physical presence.

Further, they have not received a reasonable amount of notice to accommodate cross-country travel or information regarding who will pay for such travel. Based on these factors, the court should withdraw its order for John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Angela Van Den Hemel to appear on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 1:30 P.M.

On top of that, they argue that they "can be nothing more than witnesses."

Here, because they are not parties in this action, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel can be nothing more than witnesses. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 provides that "a witness . . . is not obliged to attend as a witness before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness Is a resident within the state at the time of service." None of these individuals named in the court's March 5, 2013 reside in California... Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction to order them to appear.

Furthermore, they claim that even thought it seems quite likely that they heard about this order immediately after it came out on March 5th, that they didn't actually find out about it until yesterday, March 7th, which (they claim) is not enough notice.

Although counsel submitting this application has been unable to identify any authority addressing the notice requirements to witnesses ordered to appear at such hearings, logic dictates that such individuals should at least be similarly accommodated with reasonable notice. Here, the court's March 5, 2013 order that notice be provided by March 7, 2013 to attend a March 11, 2013 hearing with no further information is fundamentally unreasonable.

Oh yes, and they also say that they need to be paid to show up:

Finally, witnesses are entitled not only to receive payment for their attendance, but also for travel expenses.... But, the court's order not only fails to provide who will compensate Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel for their time and these expenses, but that they will be compensated at all. Given the considerable expense of traveling such distances (including consideration of the fact that one of the witnesses likely has limited means given her employment as a paralegal), especially on such short notice when many common carriers may not have seats available, this is a significant issue.

As is typical for Prenda, throwing any excuse at the wall to see what sticks.

Morgan Pietz has already filed a response noting the claims of the court not having jurisdiction are basically bullshit, since all of these guys have been involved in this and other Prenda cases in California. He lists out each and every person and notes their connection to California or this case in particular. I won't post them all, but here's the entry on Steele:

John Steele has frequently sent demand letters into the State of California, seeking to pressure Internet users into settling copyright infringement claims. An example of only one such letter (undersigned counsel knows there are many more) accompanies this opposition as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicholas Ranallo. Further, Mr. Steele has not been shy about conducting media interviews, with California publications, about his California cases. See http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lawsuit-says-grandma-illegallydownloaded-porn-2354720.php. Accordingly, both general and specific jurisdiction exists over John Steele.

For Paul Hansmeier, they note he already traveled to California for that deposition. Paul Duffy is a member of the California Barr, and has taken over some Prenda cases in California for Brett Gibbs. Oh yeah, and the paralegal Angela Van Den Hemel is accused of violating the court's discovery order in this very case, so the jurisdiction over her is even clearer.

Pietz also claims that the short timeframe argument is bogus too, and suggests that Prenda chose to file this attempt to get out manually in an attempt to delay the whole thing, and even notes the oddity that he got the documents before the court did:

It appears that the Application may have been manually filed in order to create a purposeful lag time (of the motion getting from the filing window to chambers) on what is supposed to otherwise be an emergency motion. It is unclear why undersigned counsel found himself in possession of a copy of the moving papers prior to the Court. Further, the original amount of time was reasonable.

And now... we see what Judge Otis Wright thinks about all of this...

Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 75 3 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 75 3 (Text)

Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 75 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 75 0 (Text)

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: angela van den hemel, brett gibbs, fees, john steele, jurisdiction, morgan pietz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda, prenda law
Companies: prenda, prenda law

147 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:02pm

Excuse me a moment...
HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

EXCELLENT!

YES!

This is going to go over *SO* well, won't it?

Man, I think we need new snacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:47pm

Urgh...
too... much... popcorn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re: Urgh...
  I'm not sure I've ever been more excited with a court case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:57pm
  
  Re: Urgh...
  I ran out. Care to share?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Urgh...
    haven't they changed the meaning of sharing to pirating? either way here ya go *hands popcorn to AC*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Urgh...
      Think of the popcorn farmers you cad !!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Urgh...
  This is why I switched to Junior Mints.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:51pm

C'mon, Chicken Joe! Bawk bawk bawk! You can't whine with out_of_the_asscrack in the choirboy section forever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re:
  Huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 9:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    someone trying to troll the local trolls who always have something to say, nothing nice usually, about how people are just thieving pirate bastards and trying to make excuses when the defenders of insane IP get caught doing worse than those they accuse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Have fun trying to explain the merits of copyright in this case.
    
    Because relevance was clearly never problem for you, mate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Keep squirming, Chicken Joe. Your colleague out_of_the_lube's already turned and ran, just like he did for Evan Stone and Andrew Crossley.
    
    Keep on squirming.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL! What? I'm here if you want to have a substantive discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2013 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your definition of a substantive discussion is the mating call of a chicken.
        
        You're not fooling anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:10pm

Federal Jurisdiction?
Aren't Disctrict Courts Federal? Doesn't that kill the jurisdiction question entirely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
  Not in the least. A federal district court sitting in CA does not have personal jurisdiction over everyone in the U.S. The California long arm statute gives the court jurisdiction to the furthest extent of the due process clause, so that means there must be minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:19am
    
    Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
    Perhaps a federal grand jury would have jurisdiction ... or maybe the FBI would like to have a look at the potentially illegal activity traversing state borders.
    
    Nahhh, that will never happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Merrell (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
    Anonymous Coward is wrong. Under Federal Rule 65(d):
    
    (2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
    
    (A) the parties;
    
    (B) the parties� officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
    
    (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
    
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).
    
    In my opinion, subsection C covers them unless Gibbs disobeyed the order to serve them and they did not learn of the order "otherwise." Personal jurisdiction requirements apply to the formally named parties to a case but have no application to the scope of a federal judge's power to command persons to act or to refrain from acting.
    
    Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
      Anonymous Coward is wrong. Under Federal Rule 65(d) . . . .
      
      This is neither a restraining order nor a preliminary injunction, so that rule is inapposite. Had the court issued such an injunction, you would be right that it binds those in privity. This, however, is an order to appear issued pursuant to the court's inherent power, not the Federal Rules. Regardless of the basis of the court's power, it is circumscribed by the Due Process Clause. An order to appear issued by a court without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio and unenforceable as violative of due process.
      
      Personal jurisdiction requirements apply to the formally named parties to a case but have no application to the scope of a federal judge's power to command persons to act or to refrain from acting.
      
      That's absolutely bunk. The court must have personal jurisdiction over the party in order to validly hold it in contempt. It is truly amazing to me that you think a court can legitimately order parties over which it has no personal jurisdiction to appear and legitimately hold them in contempt if they do not. Under your reasoning, every court has personal jurisdiction over every person on earth.
      
      Anonymous Coward, J.D.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of law.
        
        So please explain how a US federal court has jurisdiction over Ben Lauden's son-in-law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of law.
        
        So please explain how a US federal court has jurisdiction over Ben Lauden's son-in-law.
        
        That's a great question. I could address it if he were just a regular defendant, but with him there are issues of the law of war and international law that I have no grasp of. Sorry, I'm no help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        "the law of war" == the winner makes the laws
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        "the law of war" == the winner makes the laws
        
        I was thinking more along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
        
        I'm guessing this guy is an unlawful enemy combatant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
        
        And that means he can be tried by a military tribunal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
        
        That's about all I know on the subject.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        So what, you have to get signed permission to be a 'lawful' enemy combatant?
        
        Way to go, rule of law!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2013 @ 10:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
        Yeah, you're no help at all. You finally realised.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Federal Jurisdiction?
    maybe you should go ask that to the troll loving DC judges. they seem to think they have jurisdiction over everyone in the u.s.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:39pm

Best. Schadenfreude. Evah.
Dance and squirm little worms, as the hook comes ever closer...

Gotta say though, assuming the judge doesn't buy their excuses(and at this point that's almost a given), I fully expect at least a few of them to try and leave the country, given how desperate they seem to be to avoid showing up in court like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:42pm

I know you're not a lawyer, Mike, but the claim that there is general jurisdiction over Steele because he mailed letters to CA and because he answered some questions from a CA reporter is laughable on its face. The claim that there is general jurisdiction over Hansemeier because he attended one deposition in CA is so ridiculous that I can't believe an attorney actually wrote that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 9:27pm
  
  Re:
  I know you're not a lawyer, Mike, but the claim that there is general jurisdiction over Steele because he mailed letters to CA and because he answered some questions from a CA reporter is laughable on its face. The claim that there is general jurisdiction over Hansemeier because he attended one deposition in CA is so ridiculous that I can't believe an attorney actually wrote that.
  
  Okay, how about what an actual long-term litigator in California had to say about it:
  
  http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/08/prenda-law-attorneys-ask-judge-wright-to-lift-order-requiri ng-them-to-appear-monday/
  
  I think Mr. Pietz very clearly has the better of this argument. Brett Gibbs has offered sworn testimony that his activities were directed by Steele and Hansmeier and that Duffy was the principal of Prenda Law � together with the admissions in Hansmeier's deposition, that's more than enough to show activities directed to California establishing jurisdiction over them. The question of whether they had enough time to prepare to appear is the sort of thing that's in the broad discretion of the court � though, if I were making that argument, I sure as hell wouldn't have waited until Friday afternoon to make it, when it looks like gamesmanship.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He's referring to there having been sufficient contacts to justify SPECIFIC jurisdiction. I'm saying the claim that these contacts support GENERAL jurisdiction is ridiculous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He's referring to there having been sufficient contacts to justify SPECIFIC jurisdiction. I'm saying the claim that these contacts support GENERAL jurisdiction is ridiculous.
      
      Are you sure of that? Ken is responding to the specific arguments that Pietz made, and then explains why he think he has the better argument. These would be the same arguments that you claimed you "can't believe an attorney actually wrote that."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you sure of that? Ken is responding to the specific arguments that Pietz made, and then explains why he think he has the better argument. These would be the same arguments that you claimed you "can't believe an attorney actually wrote that."
        
        Yes, I'm sure. There is only general jurisdiction if the contacts with the state are "continuous and systematic." Attending one deposition in California does not open one up to ANY lawsuit there. For example, if Hansemeier and I are in a fender bender in Chicago, I can't sue him in California claiming that his deposition there made him amenable to suit there in an unrelated manner. That would violate his due process rights (I know you probably don't care about his due process rights, but I do). I'm not saying the court doesn't have jurisdiction--it might. I'm saying that the jurisdiction would not be general. It would be specific.
        
        Ken said: "I think Mr. Pietz very clearly has the better of this argument. Brett Gibbs has offered sworn testimony that his activities were directed by Steele and Hansmeier and that Duffy was the principal of Prenda Law � together with the admissions in Hansmeier's deposition, that's more than enough to show activities directed to California establishing jurisdiction over them."
        
        He is merely saying that the activities directed towards California are sufficient to establish jurisdiction, but he does not specify whether he means specific or general. Ask Ken if he thinks participating in a deposition opens one up to general jurisdiction in the state where the deposition takes place. Just because he thinks they have the "better of this argument," it doesn't follow that he's saying that the general jurisdiction argument is valid.
        
        Let me ask you this (I doubt you'll answer though). This ex parte motion was filed manually. Ken, the one that you think is so knowledgeable, says this: "Pietz suggests that the ex parte application may not be online yet because they filed it manually at the clerk's office rather than by e-filing it on the electronic filing system, which automatically and immediately places it on PACER. That's probably right, though it may not be for sinister reasons � as non-parties appearing for the first time in the case, Steele, Duffy, and Hansmeier may not have been able to e-file the document in the case."
        
        But you don't repeat that non-sinister explanation for why they might have done it. Ken's point makes sense: considering that they are not parties in the suit, they would not have CM/ECF access to the case and could not file it electronically. But instead of quoting the knowledgeable Ken who gave a non-sinister explanation, you quote the opposing attorney who makes the baseless accusation that they filed it manually so they could create a delay. FUD much?
        
        And how is that 2-3 business days notice is reasonable? If you found out on Thursday that you had to be in court several states away on Monday, would you think that was reasonable notice? I know you hate these guys, but can you give an honest answer?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        . . . and then piracy was defeated and everyone respected copyright. The end.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There will always be piracy. And murder. And starvation. And rape. And homelessness. Etc. You're just repeating the fallacy of the perfect solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Kids, teens and people in low income households don't give two shits about the corporation funded morality dilemma and no amount of marketing or spinning is going to change that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I'm sure people with an attenuated sense of morality have trouble grasping the moral issues. Mike's banking on that. They're an easy sell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can say whatever you want to, put anyone down you want to, look down on whoever you want to, pretend to be the better man...but at the end of the day people still don't care and piracy will continue unhindered, unobstructed, un-frightened and the only thing you have is your pride.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I'm sure that the hardcore pirates--Mike's Faithful--will never care about other people's copyright rights. They come to Techdirt for their absolution, and Mike dishes it out in spades. It's not your fault you chose to violate other people's rights. Your sins are forgiven on Techdirt. Pax vobiscum. Go forth and violate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ask an 8 year old what copyright is and if he cares about it.
        Go on, I'll wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This works surprisingly well for an 80 year old too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And most people in between.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Being poor is no excuse for disregarding the law, apparently being rich is.
        
        Your righteous indignation is duly noted, how's the weather up there on your high horse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are aware that projection is not a good thing, right?
        
        I mean, if you want to go around doing all sorts of bad things and feeling guilty about it, that's one thing, but then accusing everyone else without evidence, to try and shift the blame for your actions, that isn't going to get you more than laughed at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's a certain delicious irony in this post. the reason Prenda is being chased so hard is that they wilfully ignored the law in California. And you're calling us the moral lessers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's a certain delicious irony in this post. the reason Prenda is being chased so hard is that they wilfully ignored the law in California. And you're calling us the moral lessers?
        
        If they violated the law, they should pay. Sounds to me like it's something that should be handed over to law enforcement, i.e., the executive branch, for investigation. I'm saying that the Techdirters are "moral lessers" because they're fine with summary execution in this case, whereas in other cases they demand that every single issue be litigated and appealed to the Supreme Court before there is any negative repercussion whatsoever for the alleged wrongdoer. They are also "moral lessers" because they are, predominantly, piratical douches who put themselves above others and think it's OK to violate other people's rights. My position is that everyone should be treated the same, whether pro-copyright or against. Crazy, I know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Zem, 9 Mar 2013 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Crazy, I know"
        
        Yes, yes your are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know nothing of me, and to state otherwise is quite arrogant. One would think most honest people avoid making broad stereotypical judgments because they are aware of the inherent inaccuracies - but not you.
        
        From what I have read here and elsewhere, it is apparent that those in question (Prenda & friends) are being afforded their due process rights to a much greater extent than those you berate as pirates and douches.
        
        So yeah - go ahead and with your pretentious attitude, I'm sure it will get you far. You planning on a career in politics?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Zem, 10 Mar 2013 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You know nothing of me"
        
        your writing tells us far more about you than you seam to realise or are willing to admit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Granted, this is true. However, the conclusion that states those who complain (about almost anything) are guilty of (insert something dreadful) is quite incorrect for obvious reasons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Simon, 10 Mar 2013 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I'm sure that the hardcore pirates--Mike's Faithful--will never care about other people's copyright rights.
        
        Your right, hard core pirates do not respect other people�s copyrights. However, I think you misunderstand the copyright problem.
        This isn't about people stealing other peoples work but instead it is a market forces problem. This is possibly an extreme example but compare copyright to prohibition. Now I know there are lots of specifics about each case that are not comparable. I'm not suggesting that movie pirates are going around shooting each other with tommy guns so work with me here.
        
        Swap 'government legislation banning alcohol' with 'media industry refusing to provide music and movies in digital form' and the two situations are fairly comparable.
        
        In that former instance alcohol production became a big underground business to fill a gap in the market that prohibition made. These people were often unscrupulous.
        
        In the later instance services like Napster and LimeWire popped up to fill the gap left in the market due to music and films not being available in digital form.
        In the former instance the government made criminals out of people producing
        alcohol.
        
        In the later instance the media industry has made criminals and bankrupts out of people copying films and music.
        
        Most people would be very, VERY happy to buy their music and films from legal and legitimate sources. However, they don't want to lose functionality in the process. If you bought a record on vinyl or a move on VHS then you could easily lend that to your friend, play it on any HiFi or video player. This has not until recently been the case with music and there are still too many restrictions on films and video games. See the recent fiasco with SimCity.
        
        There is a simple answer to all of these legal and moral quandaries.
        
        Big business, find a way to supply the services that people want at a price point they find attractive. Do not make them criminals, don't take them to court and don't force them to go bankrupt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 3:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Strawman tactics.
        
        Techdirt has never advocated for piracy, that's all inside your brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yes, I'm sure people with an attenuated sense of morality have trouble grasping the moral issues."
        
        Yeah like when the record labels were caught committing commercial copyright infringement in Canada. They whined and pleaded to avoid the same fines they insist everyone else pay for what they claim is the same crime. And then one of them decided the insurance company should pay for them violating the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe those arguing against property ownership over infinitely reproduceable (at little to no cost) ideas have a higher sense of morality than you?
        
        As proof, I'll just point out that you're the one defending extortionate lying scumbags abusing a legal system for profit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again with the 'moral' argument. No two people will have the same morals. You can't win this argument with the moral play, because it's too deep in the gray. That's why people, mostly people like you, like to drag it down with mentions of rape and murder, which are so far afield as to make you appear to be mentally unstable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again with the 'moral' argument. No two people will have the same morals. You can't win this argument with the moral play, because it's too deep in the gray. That's why people, mostly people like you, like to drag it down with mentions of rape and murder, which are so far afield as to make you appear to be mentally unstable.
        
        Society is not a disorganized thing where everybody gets to live by their own morals. There are norms, often codified into law, and there are fundamental principles like the Golden Rule. Chicken Mike uses the "we all get to decide our own morals!" excuse a lot. It's ridiculous. While we may all have our own moral code to some extent, society has in place mechanisms to deal with the problem of when A's moral code bumps into B's. For example, can I stab you in the eye with a pencil and then just say "my moral code, so I win"? Of course not. Society, which is more important than you, has decided that it's not OK.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what you are saying is that copyright infringement is the same thing as assault with a pencil.
        
        Got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Assault?!? I'm pretty sure it's called rape. Just like copyright infringement is stealing, stabbing someone in the eye is rape.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what you are saying is that copyright infringement is the same thing as assault with a pencil.
        
        Got it.
        
        I was making an analogy, which means I was focusing on the similarities and not the differences. I was giving an example of how there are societal norms that supersede our own personal moral codes. So to say it's pointless to discuss the morality of infringement misses the mark because with copyright, like with so many other things, our own personal moral code is not controlling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was unaware of that particular interpretation of "analogy", here I thought analogies could make reference to both similarities and differences.
        
        Most analogies are bad and yours is no exception. Focusing upon similarities while ignoring the differences certainly does little to better the analogy, this is obvious - right?
        
        I did not state, nor imply that discussion is pointless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was unaware of that particular interpretation of "analogy", here I thought analogies could make reference to both similarities and differences.
        
        Most analogies are bad and yours is no exception. Focusing upon similarities while ignoring the differences certainly does little to better the analogy, this is obvious - right?
        
        I understand that the rationales for disallowing batteries are different than the rationales for copyright. Are you arguing that people are justified in violating people's copyright rights? Please explain what your position is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Battery is no where near similar to copyright infringement. One is a felony and the other a civil offense. One involves physical violence and the other not. To equate the two is simply ridiculous. Stating this somewhat obvious fact is in no way condoning either. I thought this was self evident, apparently it's not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Battery is no where near similar to copyright infringement. One is a felony and the other a civil offense.
        
        Actually, they're both similar in that they both can be either a tort (civil wrong) or a crime. For criminal copyright infringement, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506 & http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
        
        One involves physical violence and the other not.
        
        Yes, that is a difference. There are other differences as well.
        
        To equate the two is simply ridiculous.
        
        Despite their differences, there are similarities. One, as mentioned above, is that they can be either a tort or a crime. Another similarity, the one I made earlier, is that, like so many things, our own moral code does not supersede societal norms and laws. I can't rightfully batter you because I decide that my moral code allows it, just like I can't rightfully violate your copyright rights because I decide that it's OK.
        
        Stating this somewhat obvious fact is in no way condoning either. I thought this was self evident, apparently it's not.
        
        I think it's obvious that one can draw parallels between even substantially disparate things. Nothing you've said had convinced me that the analogy I made is wrong. If you think copyright is special, and it's OK to decide for yourself that other people's rights aren't worthwhile and are rightfully violated, I'd love to hear your arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It always come back to an accusation of copyright infringement, why is that? Do you have copyright tourettes?
        
        Or maybe argumentation equates guilt. Do you assume all defense lawyers are guilty of what their clients are accused of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By the way: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy?s=t
        
        Analogy = 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. 2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine. *** 5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
        
        You can obviously compare differences as well as similarities, but when one speaks of how two things are analogous, one is referring to the similarities between the two things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only thing analogous between battery and copyright infringement is that both are a type of offense, they are not even the same type of offense. Beyond that, there is nothing similar about them at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only thing analogous between battery and copyright infringement is that both are a type of offense, they are not even the same type of offense. Beyond that, there is nothing similar about them at all.
        
        I think that's a narrow and silly view, and you still haven't addressed the analogy that I actually did make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your appeal for morality is shallow.
        
        Copyright which is an artificial construct mainly based on the right to exclude for the purposes of monopoly control of something and was never popular inside society is not the same thing as attacking somebody else unless of course you are counting the millions of people who have their rights curtailed to accommodate one person or company.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you missed it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It was more like a week's notice but of course, true to form, they played by the letter of law rather than its spirit and claim Mr. Gibbs did not notify them until the last possible moment permitted.
        
        This is the same troupe that, based on their recent outbreak of defamation suits, religiously reads every blog and comment on the Internet criticizing their activity. Given the gravity of the situation, plus this story spilling over into a wider tech and legal news audience, any claims that they did not know of Wright's order within hours of its March 5 issuance are bullshit plain and simple. Bull. Shit. Since Gibbs is being thrown to the lions, it will be interesting to see if he contradicts their claims of zero-hour notification on Monday in an attempt to cover his own ass, because if I were Brett I would have called, emailed, and sent a fucking process server after those guys the moment Wright ordered me to tell them to appear, and I would bring copies and receipts to court on Monday in a futile attempt to subdue his wrath.
        
        My suspicion is that the only reason Wright permitted Gibbs two days to serve the rest of the club was to test them. If they had responded immediately or simply chose to show up at the hearing, they would pass the test. If they waited until the last possible moment to try to weasel out, they would fail. They have failed, which will only further inflame Wright's suspicions.
        
        Then consider the circumstances. They are being orded to appear in federal court as part of an investigation into possible wide scale fraud on the federal court system and identity theft. In Judge Wright's district alone there are a few dozen cases pending from Gibbs' buddies' shell companies that participate in the potential fraud. In the state of California maybe around one hundred cases. Nationwide, several hundred. So if their activities are indeed found to be illegal this is a rather large scam, it may set some sort of record for legal malpractice. Giving them more time increases the risk they may destroy evidence, get their story straight, or flee.
        
        Under those circumstances, I think it is pretty fucking reasonable to expect them to drop everything and get to Cali unless they are currently attached to a artificial lung or dialysis machine.
        
        Since this story has been breaking out through the tech news community, many commenters who are engineers have noted that they have been in roles where they have had to fly across the country with a few hours notice to support a critical deployment. Paul Duffy, the supposed sole principal of Prenda Law, Inc., had actually tried to substitute himself for Gibbs as attorney of record, which means he previously volunteered to appear in Wright's courtroom on Monday. Wright did not permit the substitution, and ended up ordering Duffy to appear in addition to Gibbs, and of course then Duffy has a bunch of excuses.
        
        I think it is also notable that none of them have concrete excuses for being unable to attend. No "I have a hearing scheduled at this time in this court for this case," "I'm scheduled for a head transplant," "I'm attending my grandma's funeral." Nothing that could be verified and expose them to perjury charges, just a bunch of boilerplate stalling bullshit.
        
        So no, I don't think 4-7 days notice is unreasonable at all. I *honestly* think that is totally reasonable. What is unreasonable is defrauding the federal court system on a national scale, and any American who believes in the integrity of the court system and the rule of law should not by sympathizing with these guys. I find your arm-waving, excuse making and sympathy for these attorneys-gone-wild frankly sad and pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is only general jurisdiction if the contacts with the state are "continuous and systematic."
        
        Continuous and systematic are two words that can easily describe the large numbers of people Prenda and related entities are suing in California.
        
        For example, if Hansemeier and I are in a fender bender in Chicago, I can't sue him in California claiming that his deposition there made him amenable to suit there in an unrelated manner.
        
        Of course you couldn't - because the fender bender occurred in Chicago. However, if he then travels to California and starts putting out statements that you're a horrible driver, I bet you could sue him there for his statements. And since the above mentioned Prenda and related entities have been suing many people in California for years, then the court has jurisdiction over them.
        
        And how is that 2-3 business days notice is reasonable? If you found out on Thursday that you had to be in court several states away on Monday, would you think that was reasonable notice?
        
        The order was issued on March 5, giving them 4 business days plus a weekend, to appear before the court in a case they were all intimately involved with. Any excuse or other hand waving is utter bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul is that you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh FSM give me strength.
      
      Both General and Specific reside here due to the pattern, histrionics, and absolutely the statements both specifically and generally that were given within the Deposition itself, as well as the general jurisdiction that the Judge has over all the matters that this convoluted case has had to bring together due to the inactions of the parties (including Hansemeier) named in the actual order by the court.
      
      Then you get to the Declaration that Gibbs himself just submitted to the Court (19FEB2013) and you find further proof that the court has absolute jurisdiction over all particulars and principals and third-line individuals in this case due to their own actions, statements, and behaviours.
      
      You on the other hand are sounding as petulant as Gibbs. And seem to object to anything for the sake of objecting because it might be objectionable to even contemplate the merest thought of not objecting to something Mike has posted
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe it's "Alan Cooper" posting here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        average_joe's modus operandi as usual. Some things never change. I'm still waiting for his rants on the merits of copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        average_joe's modus operandi as usual. Some things never change. I'm still waiting for his rants on the merits of copyright.
        
        I'd love to discuss the merits of copyright, but Mike keeps running away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't want a discussion with the merits of copyright with Masnick; I want to know what you think.
        
        You're not the kind of person to run away and whine in other threads about how people won't debate you, are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't want a discussion with the merits of copyright with Masnick; I want to know what you think.
        
        You're not the kind of person to run away and whine in other threads about how people won't debate you, are you?
        
        Ask away. I'm busy today (chores, work, gym, and a sick child), but I'm happy to discuss whatever you want when I can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one else has a life but you - amirite?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, wait a minute.
        
        I just remembered; you're precisely the kind of person to run away and whine about "Chicken Mike" in other threads regardless of relevance to the thread to begin with, then post on your wife's laptop to give yourself a pat on the back.
        
        This, plus the fact that after you promised Masnick to not revisit the site, you promptly came back to post in "LOL! Chicken Mike blargha flargha!", has convinced me that anything you have to offer is a complete waste of time and effort. Maybe when you're willing to believe that not everyone on the side of copyright enforcement is squeaky clean (mind, I'm still waiting to see anyone who has more than a success rate of two out of two million), we'll talk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, wait a minute.
        
        I just remembered; you're precisely the kind of person to run away and whine about "Chicken Mike" in other threads regardless of relevance to the thread to begin with, then post on your wife's laptop to give yourself a pat on the back.
        
        So you don't really want to talk about copyright, then? Bummer.
        
        This, plus the fact that after you promised Masnick to not revisit the site, you promptly came back to post in "LOL! Chicken Mike blargha flargha!", has convinced me that anything you have to offer is a complete waste of time and effort. Maybe when you're willing to believe that not everyone on the side of copyright enforcement is squeaky clean (mind, I'm still waiting to see anyone who has more than a success rate of two out of two million), we'll talk.
        
        I'm sure there are enforcers that are douches just there are pirates that are douches.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are a lot more douche pirates than there are enforcer that are douches unfortunetely.
        
        It is a question of simple statistics.
        
        Pirates > enforcement.
        
        For every enforcer of a monopoly there are tens of thousands of opposing intellects.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - horse with no name, 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    it would depend if that litigator also happens to be an anti-copyright type, right? The only opinion that matters is that of the judge and that of the superior courts above them when the appeals are launched. You know that, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps you should've told joe this, since he wanted to start quibbling in Prenda's defence for the act of sticking their dick in the hornet's nest.
      
      Want to show where Pietz is an "anti-copyright type"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you should've told joe this, since he wanted to start quibbling in Prenda's defence for the act of sticking their dick in the hornet's nest.
        
        These guys sound like assholes. Nonetheless, they should be treated fairly and reasonably. If this were Dotcom, McCarthy, O'Dwyer, etc., Mike would be going apeshit about their due process rights. But when it's someone he doesn't like, he applies a different standard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm curious, what due process rights of theirs are you claiming they have had violated?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm curious, what due process rights of theirs are you claiming they have had violated?
        
        I didn't say their rights had been violated yet. If the court is going to hold them in contempt on Monday for not appearing, there should first be a showing and a determination that the court has personal jurisdiction over them. The burden is not on them as the party being haled into court to show that the court does not have jurisdiction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I didn't say their rights had been violated"
        
        You implied it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You implied it.
        
        I don't think so. My point has been that the short notice and personal jurisdiction issues invoke due process concerns that somehow get swept under the rug on Techdirt because these people are not Friends of Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remembering back, I did say (and do think) that the 2-3 business days notice for an out-of-state non-party to appear in court, especially where jurisdiction is challenged, is unreasonable. So you're right, I did imply it. Sorry for my confusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 4:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yet you act like a child and are unable to even realize it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I didn't say their rights had been violated yet. If the court is going to hold them in contempt on Monday for not appearing, there should first be a showing and a determination that the court has personal jurisdiction over them. The burden is not on them as the party being haled into court to show that the court does not have jurisdiction."
        
        You're right. The burden is on them to GET THEIR ASSES TO COURT when summoned. Go ahead, don't go and play jurisdiction games. See how far you get.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right. The burden is on them to GET THEIR ASSES TO COURT when summoned. Go ahead, don't go and play jurisdiction games. See how far you get.
        
        So you think Dotcom should have just gotten on a jet and not challenged jurisdiction?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dotcom did not initiate the legal proceedings.
        
        Perhaps if Prenda and related entities did not want to be subject to appear before a California court when given 4 business days plus a weekend notice, they shouldn't have started suing people in California.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have the prenda dudes got swated?
        Have they been arrested and forced into public cameras in less than flattering conditions?
        Has the Judge and the DOJ issued gran statements about how those people are criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
        
        Nope, the judge in this case notice a funny smell and it is following it and it is doing it so in a manner that was not granted to Kim Dotcom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So it's due process to illegally spy, SWAT-team and extradite someone who's not Prenda but it's not due process to demand that confirmed grandma-chasers come clean about their records and methodologies. Got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently so.
        
        Justice is blind, right? Corruption not so much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 9:30pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe you were just laughing to hard from the excuses to understand the response.
  
  As Pretenda and the others have filed in courts far from where the alleged evildoers have done their acts on multiple occasions, this is filed under what is good for the goose...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  "I know you're not a lawyer"
  
  And you are? .... What does this bring to the discussion other than a weak attempt to undermine credibility. Obviously your opinion is biased, and this sophomoric retort does nothing to lessen the overall low quality of your posts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    I read the brief, and I thought it was funny that he was claiming that attending a deposition in a state opens one up to general jurisdiction there. I made a relevant comment about the substance of the brief that was the basis for this article. Sorry you don't like it. I also think the short notice is rather unreasonable, especially considering that the personal jurisdiction issue is far from clear. These are not litigants or attorneys in the particular case. To tell them on Thursday that they need to be in California on Monday is unreasonable. They should be given time to resolve the personal jurisdiction issue. I think these guys sound quite suspicious, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there is in fact fraud, but that doesn't negate their due process rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You did not answer the question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Very observant. I addressed your concern about what I was bringing to the discussion. What are you bringing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks, no applause necessary.
        
        Although your reply is valiant, said concerns remain unaddressed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      IIRC , forgive me I've been reading to many filings lately, they were invited to the party previously. Had they produced Alan Cooper of AF the Judge would have been satisfied. Instead they filed a bunch of lame attempts to deflect once again... and made the Judge a little more cranky. Only after Gibbs tried passing the buck to anyone but himself did the Judge demand that all of the players come to town.
      
      Gibbs knew this was what the Judge wanted before the order DEMANDING they appear. If he was to stupid to have actually informed his "employer" that this was the path they ended up on, thats on Gibbs. Add to them not being able to produce even a phone number for Alan Cooper of AF, the filings showing some alleged irregularities and fighting a lawsuit that could have been ended by producing 1 Alan Cooper of AF and they opted to ignore that option instead filing snide comments.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Brett is that you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it's almost whiny enough to be....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I thought it was funny that he was claiming that attending a deposition in a state opens one up to general jurisdiction there.
      
      He didn't just "attend a deposition." There was a 306(b)(6) deponent of A.F. Holdings, and he testified on their behalf.
      
      So, unless you think A. F. Holdings has "no dog in this fight," you're just being an ass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        a 306(b)(6) deponent
        
        Uh, "a 306(b)(6) deposition where A. F. Holdings was the deponent." Durr.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you mean 30(b)(6). What's the relationship between AF Holdings and the plaintiff here, Ingenuity 13? AF Holdings, the corporate entity, is not a party here, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the highly contentious issue right there.
        
        What exactly is the relationship since in one instance you have trusts not paying anything for others considerations nor owning anything other than copyright assignments who are tasking other firms who supposedly don't own anything or pay anyone and just have 'of counsel' relationships with other firms (Barratry raises its ugly head for me) and NO ONE knows who is doing whom or with what.
        
        Have a read of Gibb's declaration [pdf] filed Feb 19 (same Date as that other Deposition actually) and tell me if he even knows whom is who or what the hell is going on. Then we have Lutz - this guy is either an absolute genius of leadership or basically the poor slob who has no freakin idea what he signed himself up for. Oh and when you read Gibb's declaration read my comment about it on Kens article.
        
        Also re that Gibbs Declaration - he states that "Livewire Holdings LLC recently purchased AF Holdings LLC . AF Holdings LLC thereafter became a wholly owned subsidiary of Livewire Holdings LLC ." Whereas in the Deposition they say that AF Holdings is owned by a trust - hmmmmmmmmm!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you mean 30(b)(6)
        
        Yep, sorry. I got that from the Pietz deposition, by the way, so you could have RTFM (as it were).
        
        AF Holdings, the corporate entity, is not a party here, right?
        
        Yes, it is. Judge Wright consolidated a whole bunch of Prenda's cases when it was revealed that Prenda, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 were all basically the same people, playing LLC shell games.
        https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609356-gov-uscourts-cacd-543744-57-0.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it is. Judge Wright consolidated a whole bunch of Prenda's cases when it was revealed that Prenda, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 were all basically the same people, playing LLC shell games.
        https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609356-gov-uscourts-cacd-543744-57-0.html
        
        Thanks for the link. I don't follow this case too closely since I don't think there's many interesting points of law involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re:
  John is that you? or do you go by the name Paul now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:46am

Am I the only one who caught this?
Moreover, although some of these individuals may have received notice as the court ordered, others did not because those charged with providing notice simply lacked the information necessary to do so.

"Those charged with providing notice" is Brett Gibbs. He was ordered to serve seven people; four of them are part of the ex parte application, and obviously got served. Of the remaining three, we've got Mark Lutz, the "Alan Cooper" who is not a guy in Minnesota, and Peter Hansemeier.

Gibbs has used Peter Hansemeier's "expert" testimony in the past, so Gibbs can't convincingly deny knowing where to find him. Mark Lutz is a registered member of the bar, at least for the present, so he'd be easy to track down. It's pretty clear they added that bit specifically to refer to "Alan Cooper".

I have a sudden, marvelous suspicion that when everyone gets dragged into court, Gibbs is going to say that he didn't serve "Cooper". Then Judge Wright is going to ask Steele where to find "Cooper", and Steele is going to dig that hole even deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:28am
  
  Re: Am I the only one who caught this?
  Lutz was a paralegal, do they register those with the bar?
  
  Steele already started digging...
  "I do not provide any legal services in either California or Florida."
  Funny he was representing himself in his lawsuit vs the internet... he did ask for lawyer fees before dismissing the case. Sounds like he was providing legal services to himself... and well that would be naughty as he signed his note promising to not play lawyer in Florida or else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zem, 9 Mar 2013 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Am I the only one who caught this?
  Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way.
  
  Can you serve your self, when suffering from multiple personality disorder?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cline (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Am I the only one who caught this?
  Lutz could say that the only contact info he has for Cooper is a phone number, and that Cooper simply isn't answering his phone or responding to messages left on his answering machine. Of course, if he said that, the judge would want to know the phone number, would be able to determine the address the phone number belonged to, and from there...
  
  If he wanted the Cooper issue to permanently go away, he could do a variation on the above: the only contact info he had for Cooper was his phone number, and that number was on his smartphone. Except that, oops, his smartphone got damaged to the point of destruction (or got stolen), and double oops, he never synced up his smartphone with his computer. So sorry, your honor, but Cooper is now and forevermore unserviceable.
  
  Of course, the second would certainly get him contempt of court, but if the alternative is worse...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymouse, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:33am

arrest warrant
I think the next step is an arrest warrant for all concerned.The judge can ask the feds to get involved by just making the reasonable assumption that there is fraud involved in this case.

Thanks for the entertainment techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re: arrest warrant
  I think the next step is an arrest warrant for all concerned.
  
  That would resolve the issue of who gets to pay for the transportation and lodging to get them there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ralph, 9 Mar 2013 @ 7:35am

BIG BIG POPCORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WDS (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:14am

Travel Pay
It would be nice if the judge responded by denying all requests other than the Travel Pay/Pay to appear and ordered Prenda to pay it directly, not as a billable expense to their client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: Travel Pay
  Pay them for the travel and then include the expenses in the fine when they're found in contempt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:49am

This seems to be the first time PRETENDA LAW, has ever been concerned about jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re:
  *takes his nickel*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:05pm

Bench warrant time!
If this judge does his job, he will issue a bench warrant for all of these dipwads! Some time in jail, and loss of their licenses to practice law might have some effect on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:15pm

Yeah... I kinda have to agree that this order isn't reasonable. Even leaving jurisdiction aside, less than a week for someone out of state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:47pm
  
  Re:
  Angela is that you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:21pm

The entirety of the Prenda Law case can be summed up in song:

Cue's Tap Dance from the Broadway musical..."Chicago"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
special-interesting (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:41pm

What I want to say is... (#22 anonyomys) said:

�Have fun trying to explain the merits of copyright in this case. Because relevance was clearly never problem for you, mate.�

And. I mean reeeeeeaaalllllyyy want to! What respect to individual privacy and the laws of such have they shown at any time. What respect for the law itself have they shown at most times? The chicanery, foolery, outright misdirection, phony documents for shell firms, etc?

One of my classic arguments is that we should not support the draconian 'intent of the law' (unofficial, official doctrine) and stick to the exact letter of the law. (and throw out the rest as unconstitutional)

As this political drama plays out I would be proud that these copyright Trolls get put in jail for their utter contempt of the court practices, individual constitutional privacy violations and business law including mail/wire fraud (somehow the, most likely, plagiarized (copied?) or forged signature of the caretaker (Alan Cooper) got to Florida), etc.

Please stick to the letter of the law. It establishes good precedent.

On that note: �An example of only one such letter (undersigned counsel knows there are many more)� The judicial validity of the California District Court would be solidified if more than one letter were submitted because only one (hope the others are filed quickly) may not be enough to establish obvious jurisdiction. An extra few travel days time might happen also and assign expense responsibilities on the final court date. (just serving a registered letter takes a day or so)

More specifically: the court is looking into perjury, forgery of submitted documents, misrepresentation of evidence and probably more things I can recognizance. In the area of violation of court procedures judges have broad somewhat undefined powers like daily fines and incarceration.

It looks as though the judicial community itself has been disgusted (finally) in the way (a typical copyright dog. Sorry for not being PC.) the Prenda case has been presented and maneuvered. Its hard to piss off so many judges and, the judicial system, will probably follow up with to some fitting end.

A best result would be that the judicial system begins to recognize that the copyright dogs (maximalists, whatever) need incentive to respect constitutional individual rights and the law itself.

The succulent irony of this particular case shines brightly and few have provided such, in general, brilliantly phrased commentary.

-looks around for popcorn vendor- Two beers with that please. (This might take a while and hope the hot dog salesperson makes it over here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:25am

I'm just going to say what I don't believe anyone else has said.

AJ, the person who is STILL in law school and is most definitely a non-practicing attorney and has no ACTUAL legal experience whatsoever, is saying everyone is wrong, but most definitely that Ken, a federal prosecutor for 19 years, is wrong.

Yeah. I'm totally convinced AJ is correct and definitely knows what he's talking about. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  I'm just going to say what I don't believe anyone else has said.
  
  AJ, the person who is STILL in law school and is most definitely a non-practicing attorney and has no ACTUAL legal experience whatsoever, is saying everyone is wrong, but most definitely that Ken, a federal prosecutor for 19 years, is wrong.
  
  Yeah. I'm totally convinced AJ is correct and definitely knows what he's talking about. /s
  
  I don't think I've contradicted anything Ken has said. Ken thinks there is probably jurisdiction, and I said I think there might be, but I think, at least based on the facts as stated in the opposition (e.g., H. attended a deposition--and that's it), that jurisdiction is specific and not general. There might be facts other than those in the opposition that establish general jurisdiction. I don't know. The other point I made is that I think these guys should be permitted time to argue the personal jurisdiction issue, and I think the 2-3 business days notice is unreasonable for an out-of-state non-party to be ordered to appear. I'm just expressing opinions, and I don't believe I ever said that Ken is wrong. In fact, I also agreed with him that there was a non-sinister explanation for the manual filing. If you think I've said something wrong, why not discuss the point on the merits rather than this silly collateral FUD-based attack on my credibility?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 11:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Three years later, I think the results have spoken for themselves. You're a fuckwit, and not even the remotely amusing sort.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  Sorry, but as far as I was aware AJ had graduated (I'm sure I even congratulated him last year for that very reason) and just because a lawyer does not practice law (placed a shingle up) does not mean they don't know anything about the law.
  
  I don't practice either, for a lot of reasons - one being I am quite content to consult, teach and perform as a forensics expert instead and another that and I'm too much of a cynic in my old age to not be annoyed by clients, and would probably be held in contempt too many times ;P
  
  Personally I think both AJ and Ken have valid points of view here, that's what law is all about the studying and analysis using living rules and procedures to get the best outcome possible by arguing convincingly for your client (whomever they are).
  
  I cannot state one way or another on the bench book rules nor procedural practice of American courts (no need for me to know nor do I care to - too many I need to know in my own jurisdiction) But Ken would be the first to point out that he could be wrong.. why? because he doesn't know every single thing about this case in fact no-one other than the principals involved and the Judge do (and even then that's sometimes a gray area).
  
  So unless you're absolutely positive that you have done the hard slog of understanding Federal rules and procedures to do with exactly what the Judge here has done sometimes it's better to STFU first and educate yourself.
  
  To tell you the truth from what AJ has stated before about law and he is ethically and professionally bound by having gotten a JD to not state certain things one way or another he has carried himself well, better than a certain Mr Gibbs has (the walking talking miracle of law is the law it seems).
  
  Yes I know he has a bug up his posterior about Mike's inactions or actions or Whatever (don't care) but would you rather his civility or Bob and/or OOTB's absolute weirdness?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're assuming that "Chicken Mike! Bawk bawk bawk!" counts as civility, G Thompson. I say you're being extremely forgiving.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Compared to Bob, Daryl or OOTB that "Chicken" statement is the epitome of civil and courteous behaviour! I mean have you read the dribble that they type?
      
      Though as I said... yes he has a bug up his arse about Mike and Copyright and Mike not talking to him...whatever. Again though when it comes to what he DOES know and has the professional knowledge to speak on, US Law, the 'chicken' statement is irrelevant.. And people bringing it up in irrelevant context is just perpetuating it all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thanks. I don't practice because I'm still in school getting another degree. I'll be taking the bar either this summer or next, depending on how a few irons in the fire turn out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 12:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      De nada.
      
      Though if you don't mind, what degree are you currently seeking? Personally, looking at the current over supply of law grads in USA any Bachelors or Masters other than the standard J.D would be a very good idea. (Business and/or Technical degrees are highly sought after)
      
      I did it the other way, Got my BCompSc then a fair few years later received my LLB. Though I also hold a Teaching Certificate nad considering a Professional Doctorate. Constantly learning ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        De nada.
        
        Though if you don't mind, what degree are you currently seeking? Personally, looking at the current over supply of law grads in USA any Bachelors or Masters other than the standard J.D would be a very good idea. (Business and/or Technical degrees are highly sought after)
        
        I did it the other way, Got my BCompSc then a fair few years later received my LLB. Though I also hold a Teaching Certificate nad considering a Professional Doctorate. Constantly learning ;)
        
        I'd rather not say since I don't like to give out too much personal info on TD, but you've got the right idea. I love learning, especially about the law, and another degree (or two) will let me learn and make me more attractive to employers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good on you, and if you ever get the urge (or feel insane enough) Digital Forensics isn't a bad way to spend your time.. though I'm biased...and insane :)
        
        Though one thing about employees, and this should be true in the USA a piece of paper is ok.. But experience (even self taught espec. in tech fields), tenacity and the knowledge that you are always learning (and also teaching what you have learnt to others) is a BIG plus, and it's not really about the credentials its more about will you be a good fit (personally and professionally) within their organisational culture. Remember they are wondering if they can spend 40hrs+ with you every week for a long time.
        
        Though remember one thing... have a semblance of a life whilst studying too ie: HAVE FUN and obey the 11th commandment!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! What's the 11th Commandment?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thou shalt not get caught! :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    would you rather his civility or Bob and/or OOTB's absolute weirdness?
    
    AJ has moments of civility and clarity. But then, so to ootb and bob -- although admittedly less often with them.
    
    In general, though, I would not call AJ and more "civil" than the other two. Although he is a bit more intelligent and a bit less entertaining.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:03pm

Idiots arguing on the internet...
Arguing on the internet is like racing in the Special Olympics....Even if you win, you're still retarded. Good job retards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Morons, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:09pm
  
  Re: Idiots arguing on the internet...
  Sorry if I offended with the word "retard". But since some of the biggest retards here seem to be "lawyers", I think it's a step up. What was that joke about 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?.....Oh that's right, that means there's 500 more scumbags at the bottom of the sea, and that my friends, is a good start.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zem, 10 Mar 2013 @ 10:47pm
  
  Re: Idiots arguing on the internet...
  mnn, don't know much about the special olympics do you? There are many categories for each event that deal with different disablities. To say they are all retarted is just ignorant.
  
  Unfortunately fo you, the special olympics do not have a category for the ignorant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zem is a retard, 11 Mar 2013 @ 7:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Idiots arguing on the internet...
    Ohhhh, so schooled. Yes, unfortunately fo' me, lol. Fucking retard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 2:19am

*warms up the popcorn popper*
Less than 12 hours...
*rubs hands together*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:23am
  
  Re:
  You know I can actually imagine you doing that.
  
  Most likely whilst rubbing your moustache ends through two fingers of one hand and grinning like a loon! ;)
  
  Don't be surprised though if an adjournment is given.. though that just means you'll get time to prepare properly with lots of snacks, drinks and noisemakers for when they do all have to appear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]