John Steele To Court: You Have No Evidence That I've Done Anything Wrong
from the oh-yeah? dept
And, the next filing in the big Prenda showdown has been filed, and it's John Steele's response to the Order to Show Cause (OSC) for why he shouldn't be sanctioned for a variety of misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Steele builds on the previous filings from Paul Hansmeier and from Paul Duffy and Prenda Law. But the crux of his argument: "Judge, you've got nothing on me. There's no evidence I did anything wrong."Ridiculously, he argues that there's no jurisdiction over him, because despite Brett Gibbs' detailed testimony of how Steele (and Hansmeier) basically ran the entire litigation campaign, that Gibbs' testimony: "lacks specificity regarding Steele's involvement in the subject cases or any California cases, and is otherwise inconsistent or contradicted by others." Amazingly, in support of this, he points to lawyer Jason Sweet's "Perry Mason moment" during the March 11th hearing, in which Sweet noted that Gibbs had claimed to be counsel for AF Holdings. This is really throwing Gibbs under the bus. Sweet's statements were not meant as an exoneration of Steele or Hansmeier (by any means), but rather to show that Gibbs wasn't completely a puppet, but a willing participant in a scheme that was mostly managed by Steele and Hansmeier. Steele goes on to take other Gibbs' comments completely out of context to pretend that Steele had nothing to do with the case (or other cases).
For example, although Gibbs claimed he was supervised by Steele and Hansmeier at Prenda Law, when pressed for specifics about the degree of supervision he received, Gibbs only offered that Steele and Hansmeier gave him authority to file certain cases here. See Dkt 108-5, at 77:8-24. Gibbs' further testimony has revealed he had significant autonomy in handling the cases. See Dkt 108-5, at 77:25-78:4 (claiming Steele and Hansmeier "gave me certain parameters [pursuant to] which I could settle the case myself.");First of all, that is not the "only" thing Gibbs "offered." He also noted that Steele had the ability to use his email address and made it pretty clear that Steele was calling the shots. As for the "certain parameters" claim, that was Gibbs noting that Steele and Hansmeier gave Gibbs very limited autonomy within the context of controlling pretty much everything else. That's so obvious from the context that it's almost amazing Steele would try to bullshit a judge who clearly knows better.
On various other points, Steele dumps the blame on Gibbs (and a little on Hansmeier). And then we get to the Alan Cooper question. On that point, everyone has been consistent: Steele was the guy who got Cooper's signature. So how does Steele try to avoid being blamed for "fraud on the court" over that? First, he repeats the statement made by others that Cooper's signature is meaningless, since the copyright holder wanted to assign the copyrights, no matter who signed on behalf of AF Holdings. And then he completely avoids the question of whether or not he faked Cooper's signature, by saying, basically, it doesn't matter because it's not a sanctionable offense anyway (what....?) and then takes a dig at Cooper's "credibility." Uh, yeah.
The Court stated: "First, with an invalid assignment, Plaintiff has no standing in these cases." Dkt 48, at 9:8. Apparently re-articulating the same concern, the Court added: "Second, by bringing these cases, Plaintiff's conduct can be considered vexatious, as these cases were filed for a facially improper purpose." Dkt 48, at 9:9-10. As both Gibbs and Prenda/Duffy/ Van Den Hemel noted in their Responses To The OSC, the Court is mistaken about the law in this regard; the signature of the assignee is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment, so long as the assignor signs. See Dkt 49, at 25:9-26:19; Dkt 108, at 11:24-12:9.; see also 17 U.S.C. 204(a). Lastly, the Court stated: "the Courtm will not idle while Plaintiff defrauds this institution."; Dkt 48, at 9:10-11. However, even if the Court were to discount the evidence submitted impugning Cooper's credibility and blame Steele for this "fraud,"; it hardly rises to the level of fraud upon the court recognized by the Ninth Circuit, i.e., "a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 926 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1991).I'm sorry, but if anyone believes that the evidence to date impugns Cooper's credibility more than Steele's credibility, they haven't been paying attention. At all.
Regarding any other alleged fraud the Court may consider, as Section III above makes clear, except in rare circumstances not present here, this Court is not empowered to sanction Steele or anyone else based on conduct occurring entirely outside of the subject cases and the Central District. Based on its prior statements, the Court may have erroneously felt otherwise before.
On the question of hiding the ownership of various shell companies, Steele, amazingly, argues that "the evidence" shows that the Court is wrong to suggest that the folks from Team Prenda own/control the various shell companies:
Disturbingly, the Court's apparent conclusions about the relationships between the persons and entities named in the March 14, 2013 OSC wholly ignores evidence to the contrary. Compare, e.g., Dkt. 69-1, pp. 21:18-2, 38:22-39:15, 40:8-12 (regarding who owns AF Holdings) with Dkt 108-5, at 114:5-8 (I do have the picture, and I know who the client is. We have talked about the client, and the client has been running everything. Yeah, I know who the client is”); see also Dkt 108-5at 19:15-18 (suggesting Prenda law is "controlled by Mr. Steele.")This part strikes as the most incredible part of it all. The entire purpose of the April 2 hearing was to answer questions about this very point. And Steele chose not to respond to any questions. And now, in this filing, he's basically claiming "nope, I had nothing to do with it" without presenting any evidence to the contrary. Incredible.
However, Steele cannot be sanctioned for any of these alleged misrepresentations made to this Court regarding the relationships among the parties and entities named in the Court’s March 14 OSC because Steele has taken no actions nor made any representations to this Court of any kind, nor is there any evidence before this Court that he acted or was otherwise involved in anyone else's alleged misrepresentations to this Court.
I get the feeling that Judge Wright is not going to react well to this particular filing, which (like Hansmeier's before it) makes statements that clearly are at odds with what nearly all of the evidence has suggested is happening, without providing any actual evidence to support their claims.
Meanwhile, despite not being willing to talk to the court, Steele apparently has no problem talking to some in the press, and has told Xbiz that he "never even heard of the case" until two months ago. That seems rather difficult to believe given Gibbs' statements concerning Steele's involvement in his cases. I would imagine that someone involved in the case will quickly make Judge Wright of Steele's sudden willingness to "talk" and the details of his statements.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, evidence, john steele, otis wright, paul hansmeier, sanctions
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This isn't going to go over well
Yeah, hope the judge tells him flat out 'You had your chance to explain yourself, you chose not to, you're out of luck'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for invoking the fifth and talking to the press...yeah...don't know about that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are a witness then you are sworn in and have to tell the truth or go to jail.
If you are an attorney filing briefs you can lie to your harts content with no penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CFAA Anyone?
That has GOT to be a cause for action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wire Tap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wire Tap
You shouldn't expect them to spend time and money on actual criminals, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will the judge rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daaaamn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a matter of time now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dig if you will the response
when lawyers lawyer up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh dear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a strong plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Steele
You NEVER go full retard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a liar and fraud - so what?
So what if I lied to the judge, falsified evidence, led the Alan Cooper fiasco, among other transgressions. You god damn people are simply idiots, including the judge. I mean, what a fucking peabrain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a liar and fraud - so what?
A clear low-life weasel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm a liar and fraud - so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree that it looks like this is a setup for appeal and little else. If clearing the books with 'I'm innocent' was the thought, it should have been done in court when the judge offered it. Now it looks just like what it appears to be, an attempt to weasel out of the results of the Prenda team's actions. Actions that pretty much everyone involved with Prenda internally say Steele is one of the two heads. It is further compounded by being out of court where cross examination can't take place, truth finding won't occur, and lies have no penalty.
You'll pardon that I remain extremely sceptical under the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look what this evil weasel said in that Xbiz interview
In other words, he's trying to make it out like this is all the doing of the Electronic Frontier Foundation persecuting him for doing God's Work instead of his own lying to the court about conflict of interest and operation of a large-scale criminal enterprise.
I find this quote fascinating because in this, there's nothing especially different about an outright criminal like John Steele that can tell him apart from other protectionist scum like Copyhype: they view themselves not as criminals but as people enforcing the law and beseiged by organized conspiracies funded by "Big Tech."
Look in the mirror, trolls. This guy is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes your Honor. Your right. Your entirely wrong. Oh. You actually read my filings... Of course they addressed all of your questions if only you'd read them again theres a lot more said between the lines, but its all good. [/sic]
Steele's responses seems to be �Nyann, nya, nyaa, nyaaaan. Ya can't catch meeeeee! And besides it's everybody else's fault anyway. I didn't say anything so what difference dose it make especially since everyone who did say anything are on drugs or wrong anyway.�
Its not over by a long shot but... The cracks within Prendaa are beginning to show. If a few of the associates or partners would step up and testify they might get some respect for being caught up in an classic money making scheme as hapless followers.
Since the Prendaa ship has breached its only a matter of time when the rest discover that the lifeboats have been confiscated by upper management and everyone must fend for themselves. Classic animal behavior very common in parasitic office/corporate environments. Its likely a few were working for some false/imaginary promise of future promise/payoff/hint-of-riches anyway. (thats right my boy/girl... stick with us and you'll be sitting pretty for sure!)
Would be painful to watch if one did not understand the horrible nature of copyright law. Which is enough to nail the figurative coffin all by itself but there is the obvious added nature of Prendaa capitalizing off of vulnerable social groups. (only sex?)
No sympathy will be wasted on these probable rodents.
http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PatelExhibitP.pdf
The longer one looks at this very compelling chart the more murky and shady this AF Holdings seems. Apparently an off shore 'undefined beneficiary trust' based in Nevis. (where in hell is Nevis anyway??) Rally. What honest law firm operates an off shore account?
Why would they need such an operation unless they expected legal challenge to questionable/shady operations. By the structure of the shell firms all pointing to a mysterious foreign account/trust it could be a further indication/evidence that the creators/operators/litigators knew of illegal operations?
Again, it is hard to see progress unless some warrants or subpoenas are issued. No testimony has been given so its the only way for facts to be collected. This may take a bit longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]