Prenda Lawyer Says Georgia Court Should Ignore Judge Wright's Order Because... Look! Hackers!
from the great-moments-in-lawyering dept
Remember Jacques Nazaire? He's the local counsel for Prenda in a case in Georgia who was trying desperately to get the judge there to ignore Judge Wright's order in California, which lays out how Prenda's lawsuits are highly questionable, and likely against the law. He was so desperate that he said the judge should ignore the ruling in California because California recognizes gay marriage, among other differences, despite that having nothing to do with anything related to the actual case (which covers federal copyright laws, rather than state laws, and which was filed in the case to provide additional background, rather than as any sort of binding ruling).Well, it appears that Nazaire seems to believe that if he just keeps telling the court crazier and crazier things, perhaps it will ignore Judge Wright's ruling. The latest filing tries, once again, to give the judge in Georgia a reason to ignore Judge Wright's ruling, but again it doesn't make much sense. The filing is rambling and somewhat wacky, seemingly trying to argue that, even though Prenda and AF Holdings are implicated in both cases, they're completely and totally unrelated. He also seems to argue that these filings are just designed to rack up higher billing fees. Note, for example, the slightly paranoid use of capital letters:
That motion was NOT written by the undersigned; nevertheless the defense has filed it in THIS docket apparently for two reasons. 1) to bill for the same and 2) to give THIS Court the impression that either the undersigned or a friend of his drafted and filed the same.But where it gets really wacky is when Nazaire just starts tossing in totally random claims about hackers:
Why would the defendant in this case file a copy of a motion (ECF No. 31, Defendant’s Exhibit B) from the California case and into THIS docket when that motion has nothing to do with this case?What is Exhibit A, you ask? Why it's a random story about hackers claiming to be a part of Anonymous hacking into Paypal. What does that have to do with anything? The answer is nothing.
The undersigned does not know the answer to that question. However, it must be noted that defendants (not the one herein) in these types of cases, typically employ various crafty and intimidating schemes against prosecutors and plaintiff’s attorneys. A newspaper article mentioning other types of intimidation is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.
Here's what I find most incredible about Nazaire's line of reasoning. It is basically "please ignore this other case where the same companies that I'm working for have been called out for fraud on the court, because that's totally unrelated, even though they're the same companies" while at the same time saying "we can't trust anything the defense says because, hackers! And, as proof, here's a random totally unrelated story about hackers."
He goes on to suggest that these hackers are after him, because some moron sent him a stupid email.
Furthermore the undersigned has been personally harassed by these types of defendants (not the defendant in this instant case nor the individuals listed in Exhibit A) because of THIS case alone. (Please see Plaintiff’s Exhibit B attached hereto).Exhibit B is a silly email from someone using the email address "evilpiratemonkey@gmail.com" saying:
You are about it get justifiably screwed by the justice system.Of course, this is a stupid email by whoever sent it, but it's hard to see how that's necessarily "harassment," nor does it show that the person who sent that email is one of "these types of defendants." It's just a stupid email from someone mocking Nazaire (the email address should have been a giveaway on that front).
It's nice to see.
You aren't very smart, are you?
Either way, if I'm the judge in this case, each of these filings only makes me more interested in whatever must be in Judge Wright's order...
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: georgia, hackers, jacques nazaire, otis wright, rajesh patel
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They never fail to deliver!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe this monkey thinks that he can take the same approach to litigation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
even though, not thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This strategy makes sense
To them, the only real reason you could ever despise their obviously criminal endeavor is because you're a filthy pirate downloading on the sly.
This has a basis in truth: I despise people using existing copyright law, using the courts as a type of extortion scheme, the majority of which are totally innocent people who settle not out of guilt but because it's more convenient than legal fees.
What you have to remember is this: the Prenda people aren't "bad lawyers" or a single aberration. They are able to do what they do as a direct result of outrageously backward copyright law.
What's interesting about the Prenda people's worldview is this: they view themselves as defenders of copyright law. They see themselves the same way that the wild-eyed fanatics at Copyhype do, or other blogs run by people without knowledge of economics or technology...as defenders of the law, unfairly railroaded and persecuted by "scary" tech types.
Have a look in the mirror, trolls, and luddites like Terrence Hart or Devin Hartline. These guys aren't an aberration - they're YOU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Might have something to do with the fact that Judge Wright ordered it to be so? Why does it seem that most of the people on team Prenda struggle so much with simple reading comprehension (not to mention simple logic)? And how in the hell did these people manage to pass the bar?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am the loudmouthed gay guy with the word Anonymous in his nym calling this tragic moron an idiot and his bosses scammers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd be pretty spooked too if an evil pirate monkey with 1337 h@x0z 5ki11z started emailing me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My nym doesn't have "anonymous" in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This strategy makes sense
Ummm yeah, I agree. Extortion and Fraud make them criminals and they should be dealt with as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chewbacca Defense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets have a checklist of his submission:
1) Submit arguments and exhbits that have nothing to do with case at hand. Check
2) Take Federal Judge's order filed with the court that involves Prenda case and deny that it relates to said Prenda case. Check
3) Blame opposing council for difficulties in arguing said case. Check
4) Ask Judge to ignore submissions by anyone not affiliated with Prenda. Check
By chance before he became a lawyer , was he entertaining at kids parties and making balloon animals and honking a horn while wearing big red floppy shoes? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Boojum
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chewbacca Defense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chewbacca Defense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/nazairecraigslistad.pn g
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Announcing the next EXHIBIT B contest!!!
Hi there Boys and Girls!
Why let EvilPirateMonkey@gmail.com have all the fun and glory? You too can get included in Jacques Nazaire's next wacky court filing just by dashing off a hastily composed missive.
Here's all you need to do:
1) Think up crazy or insulting or even completely factual stuff.
2) Email it off to Jacques Nazaire.
3) Sit back and bask in the resulting fame.
Just think about it! You could be the very next winner* like EvilPirateMonkey@gmail.com in the hilarious Prenda Circus of Copyright Litigation Shame!
(*Contest not legal in Rhode Island and Cochise County, Az.)
.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very compelling arguments indeed. Is he billing for these shenanigans?
He forgot to include pictures of his dinner and a status update.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So I just made a gift to Nazaire: next time you, Jacques, can build your pleading on the fact that the owner of a blog critical to your (fake) client and your scumbag masters expressed sympathy to evil hackers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Extend the hand of friendship.
"Your honour, the dog ate my motion"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chewbacca Defense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Extend the hand of friendship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nazaire needs to keep on filing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Maybe the 'fame' went to my head?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He is hoping to mislead the court in order to make them sympathetic to his plight, and ignore how he and his employers have been violating the law.
Oooh he got 1 email. Isn't this the same fellow who about shit himself when his emails were submitted to the court? Did he get permission from the sender? Or are his rules different each time?
How many harassing letters has Pretenda et al send out?
How many harassing phone calls have they made?
You pound on your military record, you pound on but but but gays, you pound on but but but hackers... you should go pound sand you moron.
You either placed or answered an ad on Craigslist to get into this case to make money. This leads people to make judgements about your skills. Your filings confirm those judgements as maybe not being harsh enough.
You have no case and wasting the courts time should be punished.
And the person who emailed you is right, you aren't very smart, are you. Had you actually been harassed (by the way Gibbs tried the whole they are picking on me trick as well and he had cancer on his side and failed with this gambit) you would file an actual complaint. An actual complaint would let you attempt to get the records to locate your single email sending harasser. Unless of course you already know who created and sent that email and have no need to investigate further. Your bosses forged documents and carried out fraud on the courts, to think for a second an unverified email that you refused to investigate counts as evidence assumes the Judges are as gullible as you. Bonus points for not posting the whole headers, it makes it much harder for anyone to take you seriously.
You really aren't very smart are you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
...that really is too much! Bwahahahahaaaa!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, Chintella tweeted that the sanction motion hearing is set to June 20, 2013.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawyer
[ link to this | view in thread ]