Transcript Of The 12 Minute 'We're Done' Prenda Hearing Released
from the read-it-during-a-coffee-break dept
We had Ken White's awesome analysis of what happened at the Prenda Law hearing earlier this week, but now the full transcript of the hearing has been released so you can read along (or figure out how to incorporate it into the necessary movie script). Here's just a snippet, though the full thing is at the link above and embedded below.THE COURT: Can you tell me, for example, who directs the litigation here in California? Who makes the decision as to whether or not cases are dismissed or settled for how much money? Can you tell me that?That is one (quite reasonably) unhappy judge...
MS. ROSING: Your Honor, I can't testify.
THE COURT: "Yes" or "no", please. Because we need to move through this. Can you tell me that?
MS. ROSING: I personally cannot tell you that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Do you know whether or not there is another Alan Cooper other than the one that was here at the last hearing?
MS. ROSING: I am not aware of another Alan Cooper, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Good. What happens to the settlement money?
MS. ROSING: Your Honor, obviously, I represent Mr. Duffy and Ms. Van Den Hemel. I don't have personal knowledge of any of this.
THE COURT: Why weren't notices of related cases filed? Who made the decision to hide from the court the fact that all of these cases were related.
MS. ROSING: I do have a judicially noticeable document on that, your Honor, where the Northern District declined to relate the cases.
THE COURT: That is a different thing. That is consolidating them.
MS. ROSING: It is actually an order declining to relate them.
THE COURT: Same plaintiff, same film, same causes of action, and they are not related? Excuse me? Okay. Tell me this. Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?
MS. ROSING: Your Honor, there is no evidence before this court at all that the law firm or any, well, certainly, my clients, Paul Duffy or Angela Van Den Hemel, have any financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Did you read Hansmeier's deposition?
MS. ROSING: Yes, I did, your Honor.
THE COURT: And then you make the statement you just made?
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: john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda, prenda law
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Rosing should have just answered "What??" to every question from the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not that satisfying
Needs more suspense and drama, riddled with anger and violence. Also, it's too short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not that satisfying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not that satisfying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not that satisfying
I'd pay to buy that on blu-ray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no one appreciates what a punishment is like until the same punishment is bestowed on them. that's why i keep hoping on hope that someone as rich and powerful as Google grows a set and goes against the entertainment industries!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they gots the ducats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ms. Rosing: Well, your honor, what I would like to argue because my clients are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, we weren't allowed...
The Court: Excuse me? They are giving up their right to be heard. (continues)
This less then a page after being directly told by the court the entire purpose of the day was for them to be given an opportunity to say their piece.
Pretty ballsy of that Lawyer if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What do they do when they have to go grocery shopping? Do they claim they have the right to pay for what they want and not have to go through the register?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is one of the reasons copyright trolls like them almost always drop any case where their target is willing to take them to court over it, because they really don't like having to answer questions put to them, or being forced to present their 'evidence'.
Unfortunately for Prenda(and fortunately for everyone else), this time they ran right into a judge unwilling to just accept them at their word, which explains the blanket silence, incredibly vague answers when they have to say something, and the crazy lengths they've gone to to avoid even having to show up at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court transcripts as Paranoia dialogue...
The poor, hapless clones (the other people role-playhing) always thought that if they phrase the question just the right way, they'll get the information they need to, er, survive to the end of the game.
One of my main jobs as GM was to invent, usually on the fly, all sorts of reasons why "that information is above your security clearance".
That Prenda Hearing dialogue sounded like half the games I ran... Good times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It needs to be clear whether the representing attorney 'can't say' because of attorney client privileges or because they do not actually have the information. The ambiguous phrases like 'I can't say' are quite maddening. The judge should not have to pull each little detail for every question. Are they really trying to force him into questioning every detail of a reply? Such as every time Rosing responds, ask every time: 'can you 'not say' because you are the representing lawyer?', 'can you 'not say' because you do not actually know the information being asked?', 'if you do not know the information, do you know whether it exists or not', 'if you do not know the information, do you know whether your client knows if it exists or not'
Then enforce the 'Yes or No' response. Hell, just state 'I can't say' will be taken as having knowledge of the information and not being able to respond while 'I do not know' will be taken as not having any knowledge of the subject of the question. Define the ambiguous statements they are trying to hide behind, then hold them accountable for their statements when you finally dig up the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just too entertaining...
And I might just do it along with the previous "who's on first" that Prenda did last time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love this judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad this judge can't give lessons to other judges on how to run a case that quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge was clear in mentioning fraud going further to state that this hearing was about �,attorney misconduct such misconduct which I think brings discredit to the profession.�
What did delightfully surprise me was the judges determined recognition that all of the shell firms were one and the same with Prendaa. More surprising was using such recognition to point out that �,notices of related cases,� have not been filed throughout the Prendaa universe of shell firm lawsuits. Sounds like reasonable charges to me.
More seemingly binding was the comment �Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?� Financial interest is quite an important link.
As a layperson it would totally piss me off if the firms represented by a legal firm were themselves owned by that same legal firm. The term fleecing comes to mind. It also is a clear motive to anyone without a minimum of scruples might want it covered up.
Its kind of hilarious that they would be able to get another court to not recognize such a cozy arrangement. A lot filings are just taken for granted without any high level of proof other than what is submitted. Makes one wonder what was transcribed or not during such a filing. Possibly submitted in between a dozen or so other more normal pieces of paperwork during a busy moment? Who knows? Just another example of funny paperwork? Might even be used as evidence of willful misdirection.
The event was not without some good old fashioned follow the money detective work in trying a bit to untangle the complex network of shell firms and which one gets the money. (wonder if off shore accounts are used?)
Without direct testimony the judge must piece together the Prendaa puzzle with his own staff. Is hard to see progress without a search warrant or subpoena issued to a lot of funky shell firms. Bank records, corporate officers, assets, etc.
And all this is in addition to what was discussed earlier. The story unfolds as the mysteries are explored and as in all real life drama the plot is a thing of past tense revealed only after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I once heard a saying that goes like this...
When the law is on your side, you pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts.
When you have neither, you pound on the table.
This all boils down to table pounding through the whole mess. Now that they have the chance to speak for themselves, suddenly it's the 5th. It screams louder to me than an air horn what is going on. I am sure the judge, having been on these cases from the start is better informed than I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well it seems to be both. She gotten no information concerning the ring leader or who it is among them, and she's the one who has to answer to the judge because the assholes are leaving her out to dry. Clearly by her tone she was doing her best to defend them, but in the end I think she realized there was no way to. As a defense lawyer will tell you, Ms. Rosing was legally bound to defend her clients as beat she could. Unfortunately for her, Prenda won't give her the information she needs to defend them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it very telling when lawyers bringing a case to the courts need lawyers to say they won't answer any questions. What happened to their original case?
Was this on SNL years ago or something? Seems almost original! Do we have to wait until season 2 to find out about Alan Mony & Salt Marsh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]