Hangin' With Mr. Cooper: Prenda's Fight Against Alan Cooper Flailing Badly
from the that-would-be-illogical dept
Prenda: the gift that keeps on giving. Late last week there was some movement in the ongoing fight directly involving Alan Cooper and Prenda. If you don't recall, Alan Cooper -- who was a caretaker for one of John Steele's homes -- claimed that Steele put Alan Cooper's name and signature on various documents, such as those suggesting that he was the person behind shell companies AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 (two of the shell companies that Judge Otis Wright found were actually controlled by Prenda's principles, including John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy). Prenda tried to handwave this issue away, but also refused to answer any basic questions about it. In response, Cooper sued both Steele and Prenda (remember this, it'll come up again).In response, Prenda as a company, and Paul Duffy and John Steele as individuals, all sued Cooper (and his lawyer and anonymous internet commenters) for defamation in state courts in Illinois and Florida. Steele dropped the Florida suit (we believe due to a pretty big procedurial screwup), and the two cases in Illinois were removed to federal court. About this time, Steele called Cooper and left voicemails that are clearly bullying/intimidation attempts. It is, of course, a big legal no-no to directly contact someone (rather than their lawyer) who is suing you while litigation is ongoing, but Steele tried to get around this in the voicemail by claiming the call was not about Cooper's lawsuit against Steele (where Cooper was represented), but Steele's lawsuit against Cooper. Since he was also suing Cooper's lawyer, he knew that the same lawyer was unlikely to be able to defend Cooper in the same case, and in fact some filings in the case suggest that this point was made to his lawyer. Among the voicemails was this one:
Alan, this is John Steele again.Cooper and his lawyer, Paul Godfread, then filed counterclaims in the two remaining defamation cases (one from Prenda and one from Paul Duffy who supposedly runs Prenda). Then Paul Hansmeier (named as one of the Prenda principles by Judge Wright), now representing Paul Duffy and Prenda, argued that the defamation case should never have been removed to federal court from state court, because his own law firm in Minnesota was added as a plaintiff in an amended complaint and you can't get "diversity" needed to remove from state to federal court if two opposing parties are in the same state. As we noted at the time, it seemed like adding Hansmeier's Alpha Law firm was a complete sham, because nothing in the amended complaint involved any defamatory statements towards Alpha Law firm.
You have not responded or contacted me regarding litigation you're involved in. I know you've been served with a third lawsuit. And there are more coming. Don't worry about that.
Well, obviously, if I don't hear from you, I'm going to start filing for certain default motions and start getting relief that way.
I can assure you that just ignoring legal matters, it's not going to go away. I can guarantee you, I'm not going away.
So I highly recommend you at least, you know, follow the rules.... otherwise your life is going to get really complicated.
Phew. So that catches you up to last week. A few interesting things then took place last week. First, on Monday, in the original case that Cooper had filed against Prenda and John Steele in Minnesota, Godfread asked the court for a default judgment because Prenda/John Steele had never replied. Note that Steels has been insisting that Cooper's claims are bogus and that this would all come out in court. If that were true, you'd think that he would have bothered to respond to the damn lawsuit. Also ironic: note above how Steele claimed he would go after Cooper for default. Godfread also points out that Steele and Prenda clearly knew about the case because of the lawsuits they had filed in response. So, they ask the court for a default ruling... and ask for the $4,641,000 that they estimate Steele and Prenda made via lawsuits using Alan Cooper's name.
That very same day, Prenda and Steele finally filed a response (as found by John Henry). The response is basically "we deny everything possible." Of course, as pointed out by Z.Y.U., Minnesota Law (MN R. Civ. P. 12.01) requires an answer within 20 days after service, and we're way, way outside of that.
Leaving that particular case aside for the moment, and jumping back to the Defamation case that Duffy and Prenda had filed back against Cooper and Godfread (where they amusingly and ridiculously claim that lawsuit over identity fraud was "completely unrelated"), Cooper and Godfread have hit back at Prenda's weak attempt to move it back to state court. They're both represented by Erin Russell and Jason Sweet -- two lawyers who have been fighting the good fight against Prenda for a while now. When Hansmeier first filed that attempt, we noted that Prenda's history of being less than forthcoming in its filing made me wonder if it was being somewhat misleading with that filing -- and I would reserve judgment until the inevitable reply was filed. And, yes, it suggests less than full honesty from Hansmeier.
First, it makes a strong case (as I had suggested) that Hansmeier's firm, Alpha Law Firm, was added for no other reason than to try to keep the case in state court and out of federal court. But, even more importantly, it points out that Prenda apparently mislead the court in getting the amended complaint filed. That's because to amend the complaint, Prenda would first need to ask the court for leave to amend, which it did not. Even worse, the lawyer representing Prenda, Kevin Hoerner, apparently convinced the court clerk that there was no need to take that important step because (he claimed) the defendants (Cooper and Godfread) had not yet been served. Except (1) they had and (2) Prenda knew they had because John Steele called Godfread hours after they had been served (and days before this "amended" complaint was filed) and left the following voicemail:
“Mr. Godfrey. This is John Steele calling. I understand that you just got served. So, I do need to know if you are going to be representing Mr. Cooper in this suit as well. Obviously there is a conflict of interest that I can see but obviously I’m going to have to defer that decision about whether you are going to represent your co-defendant to you. Uhm and I leave the question as to the other suits that are coming your way in the next few days, I’ll just wait until you actually get served before I bringing those up, but at least on this issue, this suit, I do need to know if I may contact Mr. Cooper directly or if I will be working through you. All right. Thank you.”That's the call I mentioned earlier in which Steele was making sure that Godfread wouldn't represent Cooper in this particular case, which Steele seems to think made it okay for him to reach out directly to Cooper. So, Prenda knew that the defendants had been served, and told the court they had not in order to file an amended complaint, where the amendment appears to be solely to add a sham plaintiff in the same state as Cooper and Godfread to block them from removing it to federal court. Oh, and did we mention that Hansmeier's filing to move the case back to state court was filed well past the deadline to make such a filing?
As I said, Prenda is the gift that just keeps giving.
In another filing, Russell and Sweet, representing Cooper and Godfread, also hit back at Prenda's attempt to dismiss their counterclaims. Here, the most interesting part is more evidence being filed that Steele pretended to be Cooper. In particular, they file a document from GoDaddy, showing what is clearly John Steele (it's using his email) registering various domains while claiming to be Alan Cooper. Just last week Steele demanded to see evidence that he faked Cooper's name. Well, there it is. That same document also shows that the domain was originally filed with Prenda's address in Chicago, but then was moved to what appears to be John Steele's sister's house in Phoenix. Oh, and also customer service records that show that John controlled the account.
And, just for good measure, there are a couple more filings showing that John Steele (and sometimes Paul Hansmeier) bought the various domain names used by Prenda Law (despite claiming that they had nothing to do with the firm) and that Steele continued to control that account (he called for customer service a few times) for quite some time, again contrary to Steele's public statements.
I fully expect to see Steele continue to tapdance around this, and maybe give a few more interviews to the press where he doesn't really answer the questions, but it would seem that reality has an unfortunate habit of eventually coming out. Given all of this, it would look like Cooper has a pretty strong change of winning his initial lawsuit against Prenda and Steele (though I doubt the $4 million is going to show up) and Prenda and Paul Duffy's nuisance defamation lawsuit in response is probably in trouble as well.
Oh, one more fun tidbit in the filings. I'd mentioned above the absolutely ridiculous statement in the lawsuits against Cooper and Godfread, that Cooper's lawsuit against Prenda was a totally "unrelated matter." Yet, the filing notes that not all of Prenda's lawyers were told not to admit the connection. They point out that in the infamous case in Georgia, where Prenda's local counsel Jacque Nazaire has tried to get the court to ignore Judge Wright's finding of fact because California recognizes gay marriage, Nazaire also flat out admits that the cases are connected. Sweet and Russell suggest: "Apparently, Atty. Nazaire did not receive Plaintiff’s memo to lie to the Court on this issue." Ouch. Oh, and there's a lot here, but extra credit goes to whoever finds where Russell and Sweet did a slightly subtle homage to Judge Wright's famous ruling.
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, defamation, john steele, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course that may be giving him a little too much credit in the intelligence/maturity categories, so it'll probably be more of the same: objecting to evidence being presented, suing or attempting to sue Cooper's lawyers, and trying to get yet another judge dismissed if he even looks like he might consider allowing the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The more Prenda drags it out, the more they will have to pay in attorney fees to their representatives.
2. It's quite entertaining to see them die very slowly and the defendants not having to pay one cent to their own lawyers is AWESOME.
3. This case will now definitely set the case against the MPAA and especially the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except as a classic example of how it can be misused!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail time we hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail time we hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The anticipation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
For something of interest, topical, and relevant, read:
What freetard are you: Justified, transgressor or just honest?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/ofcom_freetard_field_guide/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
You're just mad that the world "stupid" in your message header could be substituted for the word "copyright" and it'd still make perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, just as entertaining as Prenda's pathetic attempts at lies, misdirections, and fraud, your repeated and hopeless attempts to pretend like nothing is happening never fails to amuse, so thanks again for the laughs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
Maybe some Dr Jeckel Mr Hyde crap going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
Even so, it's worth a response at least.
What freetard are you: Justified, transgressor or just honest?
...written by Andrew Orlowski, one of the biggest Luddites and outright liars that has ever worked for "Big Content."
I particularly like how he: 1. misrepresents the results of the report, and 2. insults its authors, while 3. not even giving a link to the report itself.
The actual study is here:
OCI Tracker Benchmark Study
�Deep Dive� Analysis Report
And here are some articles that are actually honest about what the report says:
Ofcom Study Shows Piracy Isn�t So Cut and Dry
Piracy research once again shows biggest downloaders spend the most
'Worst' File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than 'Honest' Consumers
In reality, it's just more research that shows how very, very wrong you are. So, thanks for bringing it up!
...Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WALL OF TEXT is Mike's homage to stupid lawyers.
Why should it? They stay even with your senseless drivel, simply reporting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These form of shenanigans is precisely what produced the American revolution against the British and it has not gotten any better since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe must be so proud, bless his little heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summarization...
We are going to sue Mr. Cooper for defamation.
Prenda in the State of Georgia under Nazzaire:
The defendant is lying...Mr. Cooper doesn't exist.
*facepalm's to the point where my head explodes from such utter stupidity*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Found the homage
"Despite a preponderance of judicial precedent to the contrary, John Steele insists"[t]he fact that people take the
Fifth Amendment, against compelled testimony, is not allowed to be a negative inference." Joe Mullin, "Look, you
may hate me": 90 minutes with John Steele, porn troll, Ars Technica (May 10, 2013). Defendants find such an
assertion ... highly illogical."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Found the homage
You win the extra credit points...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey just a reminder....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As SJD reported Duffy is still sending out letters from the newest incarnation of their shell game of firm names seeking payments and they flat out plainly say they will call the targets neighbors asking if they are responsible for downloading the porn on your account...
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/05/12/ethically-handicapped-prendas-boss-paul-duf fy-signs-a-new-batch-of-extortion-letters/
Isn't it time that someone actually stops them from extorting the long list of names they have obtained by defrauding the courts? This is one of those times when Justice needs to move faster to protect citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2038583/porn-troll-case-prompts-isps-to-fight-to-protect-c ustomer-ids.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is the Judge who didn't care that she lacked personal jurisdiction over the people targeted in her court.
This is the Judge who went on the record complaining that ISPs and users had to do more to protect copyrightholders, ignoring that there is nothing in the law to support that view.
There are other oddities to come out of her district as well where it is suspected she applied pressure to other Judges to reverse decisions they made to allow discovery and such. There is a reason DC was such a popular district for Trolls.
One hopes after her decision is reversed she gets some sort of punishment for her behavior in these types of cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think that Beryl Howell's behaviour on the bench has been worse than, for instance, Judge James H. Peck's behavior ?
The United States has impeached fifteen federal judges so far. Does Beryl Howell really deserve to be the sixteenth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As there appears to have been pressure on other Judges in the district to support rulings not in the interest of justice, the ignoring the courts duty to make sure it actually has jurisdiction over people facing it, disallowing any challenge by people to protect their data being released by a court so far removed from their home because they are not a party to the case seeking their information, and the hand wringing that defendants should have been doing more than the law requires them to...
Note I said some sort of punishment, not impeachment. While I am very familiar with the cases, not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the Judicial system.
As it appears she makes rulings based on her former position lobbying rather than on the rule of law, one really needs to wonder is this someone we can trust to be the impartial figure at the head of trials?
I know of at least 1 Judge who recused herself from a case because she held stock in a company with a similar name to a plaintiff, but to avoid anyone questioning she removed herself from the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you were thinking we should just dock her pay?
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I do know is there seems to be a bias in her court and district that favors 1 side over the other before any real evidence is presented. That is a problem and needs to be dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Does Beryl Howell really deserve to be the sixteenth?"
Do you really want that question answered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. The question is being raised, and deserves a serious answer.
I will state that I do not believe impeachment proceedings should be brought in the House without good reason to believe that conviction shall be obtained in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless I can convict I shouldn't even bother to bring a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't take a lawyer to understand right and wrong.
That is the duty of a conscientious prosecutor.
It is utterly improper to bring proceedings for the sake of abusing the defendant�absent belief that you will ultimately prevail. If you do not have a good-faith belief that you can convict, you must �of your own volition� move to dismiss. You must not wield the procedure itself as a club to bludgeon a defendant.
I understand that many prosecutors today do not respect their ethical obligations. It is common today to multiply and enhance charges merely to bring additional pressure for a plea�rather than with the belief that a court will ultimately uphold those charges. But such behavior is wrongful. It is as wrongful as the equally common behaviour of withholding Brady / Giglio material from a criminal defendant. It is not right. It is wrong. It is an abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aaron Swartz
Dajaz1
RojoDirect
MegaUpload
Weev
Any case brought forward by Prenda, USCG, Evan Stone... the list continues
Run down the list of stories here at TechDirt and you can find a long list of cases being used to punish and/or harass using "interesting" versions of the law to support the claims.
Prenda has been handed lists and lists of names by courts who never took the simple step of limiting their use of them once the Doe cases were dismissed for failure to serve. It appears the single time a court told them to not use the list of names they filed named cases in another district.
What you imagine should be happening, does not happen.
People with money and power are routinely removed from the lists trolls pursue, by their own admission. Because they could fight back and expose the scam.
Prenda did not get here in a month, this has been going on as the world turned a blind eye to people being crushed by a legal system all to willing to give their names to lawyers who routinely managed to never name anyone in court, unless they thought they could get a default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, take the prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens. After it came out that DoJ had withheld Brady / Giglio material from the defense, one of the prosecutors, Nicholas A. Marsh, 37, committed suicide. So, you see, at least one prosecutor took his ethical obligations seriously.
Seriously enough to commit suicide over it�I don't know how much more seriously a prosecutor can take their ethical duties. At any rate, we can demonstrate that it happens once in awhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who says Prenda ever really had a liscense to practice law in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Er, I mean, "infringed".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The lists need to be taken away from them until the matters surrounding the fraud upon the courts is settled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or d oyou actually think they learned their lesson about stealing ids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro-Prenda Sites?
One would think Prenda would have arranged for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
Prenda could arrange for a publicity site, but considering that their best representative is Nazaire, going by his attempt at PR, Prenda could dig another few feet to bury themselves in and achieve the same effect. John Steele's in no liberty to register for more GoDaddy domains under Alan Cooper's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
You mean someone else to forge the signature of on a shell company document, right? They haven't had any actual clients for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
I've not dug deeply into how Sunlust was setup, but Collete and whatshisname are supposedly in charge of that one. And that case still has time to detonate on them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
Yet there doesn't seem to be any.
If you can't find someone supporting them, just try to think how far off the track they are. I mean really, its the damn internet and there's no one that thinks they're right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better yet, a mini-series on the Comedy network. I'd actually pay to see it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]