What Can Judge Wright Do To Team Prenda Tomorrow?
from the getting-ready dept
In case you'd forgotten, tomorrow is the date of the second big Prenda hearing by Judge Otis Wright, following the March 11th hearing, which clearly did not satisfy Wright's curiosity about Team Prenda. While I'm still wondering if anyone (other than Brett Gibbs) is going to show up, Ken White has a great run down of what Judge Wright has the power to do. So, in case you were hoping for something dramatic, it's not like he's going to order them dragged off and thrown in jail.He has some power to issue sanctions or argue that they're in contempt, but all of those powers are somewhat limited. And while they can be damaging, it may not go as far as some people hoped. The bigger issue may be if Judge Wright decides to refer the matter to others -- including various state bars, the US district courts and circuit court bars, and (of course) to the US Attorneys' Office. While he notes that all of these places tend to be busy on other things, getting a referral directly from a federal court judge usually makes these folks wake up and pay some attention -- and, at the very least, begin an investigation.
Ken also doubts that Judge Wright will rule immediately, but will see how the hearing goes. Ken predicts that he then will issue "a carefully-worded order with findings of fact" and then likely make referrals to the state and federal bars. Either way, we'll cover the details...
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: brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul hansmeier, peter hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, livewire holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's justice for ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ AC#1: Yes, lawyers can and do get away with murder.
Mike just loves discipline at the bench: he's a real masnickist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
A judge, even at the district court level, can hold a lawyer in contempt - i.e. put them in a holding cell in the local jail - the exact same way they can with a defendant. The trick is, they must bring them back for hearing every 72 hours. But they can, if they're willing to have a rehearing every 72 hours, keep them there indefinitely.
My boss was a district court judge for almost 2 years. One time, a deadbeat bought a car, made the down payment with a worthless check, then failed to make 11 months of payments before the car dealer finally sued him. When brought in for a hearing on the matter, the man said, and I quote "I have the money. I just don't see why I should pay them."
After over a dozen hearings and almost 2 months in jail, he finally decided to pay them. She brought the man up for hearing every 3 days until he finally changed his mind. It was a lot of work on her part, but she was rather offended at his total lack of any intent to pay his bill, so she made the effort to force him to do it.
So yes, if a lawyer (or defendant) refuses to follow a judge's orders, through the magic of every-3-day-hearings, they CAN (but rarely do) hold them there literally forever. The question is this: Will Prenda Law piss them off badly enough to tempt Judge Wright into doing something this drastic.
Knowing Prenda, I'd bet the guys in the tank will be getting some company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
Here, aside from the order to appear, there's nothing to coerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
If he'd committed a crime she could charge him with, great, hit him with it, but throwing him in jail via a technicality for two months just to get him to do what she wanted is wrong on so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/ars-qs-paul-hansmeier-speaks-just-not-about- copyright/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the April 2nd hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It would be funny if he were to later say he never knew of the April 2 hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, Techdirt. Home of the Pirate Apologist Par Excellence. The best part is how he denies that it's true. Part of me thinks that he's so messed up in the head that he might really think that. But then I remember that he's a dishonest dirtbag and an obsessive liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then I remember that he's defending people who are habitual liars and advocates of terrorising innocent people.
Dishonest, unscrupulous filth, the lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
merriam-webster.com
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (Prenda Law seems like a good example)
dictionary.reference.com
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. (Such as the earlier commenter)
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others. (seems like a good description of most IP trolls)
Remember that for many, many people the courtroom is a more terrifying threat then a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Admittedly, it's also a rather immature retaliation - if the pro-MAFIAA ACs can incorrectly refer to Mr Masnick as a "pirate apologist" and people he defends as "thieves", I have literally no problem correctly defining them as apologists for terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike hasn't defended the actions of Thomas-Rasset, Tennenbaum or anyone else successfully sued. He's argued over the damages pretty consistently.
But when the guys you venerate so have to resort to outright illegalities in order to get things done, then perhaps the law needs to be a ton clearer.
IS there a way to remove the trolling model with changes to the law? Sure, but any attempts to legislate such will be met with howls of anguish from the MPAA and their ilk. And that, more than anything else, is a huge problem. Because there absolutely needs to be a considerable reform of copyright/patent law. Because as it is? It's one of the major reasons that China and India are winning economically (but not the only one - privacy issues are another reason why I think that India is going to do better than China in the mid-term).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have a dog in this fight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally I'm expecting a veritable avalanche of 'my dog got sick/I missed my flight/I was never served/I had a medical emergency' and so on, should be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I'll bet that most show...
They tried their last minute "You have no jurisdiction" gambit, got bench-slapped for it hard, and Judge Wright in his writing has made it pretty clear that he wants those three in his courtroom, even if their lawyer won't accept service on their behalf.
Thus they can either fly coach and turn up today or fly Con-Air and turn up for the next hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, I'll bet that most show...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disappointment is not expected. Expect to be impressed by the preposterous legal wanking, technically not technical almost lies and literal shanking of the truth with never once actually breaking the law to the extent that rage and delight will be experienced several times upon reading of the event and commenting thereafter.
What happens tomorrow depends much on who does and does not show up and the rational given for that. A lot of us might imagine immediate lighting and thunder thrown at the Prendaa group and or associates but that would only happen if they clearly defied orders to appear and explain very specific questions about the apparently funny paperwork and maybe who did and who did not sign them.
Since most of the involved have already defied an order to show up there is already enough rope to yank if the judge sees fit.
Its kind of obvious that Prendaa has already ticked off Judge Wright who was probably not happy to wade through the considerable obfuscation/weaseling already spewed out. I expect some sharp questions about such.
If the past is a portent of the future and the similar excuses like declarations of non jurisdiction, claims of its somebody else's problem, hardship whining about having to show up, fascinating theories of how the apparent paperwork snafus don't matter, etc.
My fave moment might possibly be when/if Peter (of 6 8 8 1 Forensics ?) takes the stand. Some brouhaha has been raised about seeding a possible honey pot and it seems likely that the rest of the Prendaa bunch does not have the technical wherewithal to do any such thing. -crosses fingers- (just making a wild guess.) Some careful groundwork might be laid for further questioning about this important matter.
What does seem to be clear is that Prendaa and associates do not want to show up with media present and may not even under great threat. A relatively private hearing in a day or so even if it cost a few grand in fines may be a possible strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]