Morgan Pietz Objects To Duffy's Bond In Prenda Case, Points Out More Typical Prenda Tricks
from the check-for-john-doe dept
We were a bit surprised that Prenda Law's Paul Duffy actually filed a bond to cover the amount that Judge Otis Wright ordered Team Prenda to pay in legal fees for their shenanigans. To date, Team Prenda seems to go out of its way to play games and to avoid doing what the court is actually asking, so it seemed like a bit of a departure to see them actually file a bond (if a few days late, and with some protest). But, apparently, we should never underestimate Prenda's game-playing.The lawyer opposing them, Morgan Pietz, has responded to the bond asking the court not to accept it until a variety of changes are made, and which highlights the type of petty activity that Prenda is well known for engaging in. The most brazen, perhaps, is the fact that Duffy made the bond be in the name of "John Doe" for the unidentified client, but Pietz points out that, given that's not the Doe's real name, it's possible that they may get a check that can't be cashed. That's the kind of thing that has Prenda's name written all over it -- doing something that pretends to be helpful, when inside they're laughing about the "trick" they pulled on people.
That's not all. Duffy, in his filing, had said that Pietz had not been cooperative in having a "meet and confer" to agree on what the bond amount should be. But Pietz tells a very different story, and provides the email evidence.
The first undersigned counsel heard about a bond, or payment, from any Prenda party (with the exception of Mr. Gibbs; his motions will be addressed by separate response) was on Monday May 20, 2013, when Paul Duffy sent a short email on the subject, offering to post a bond in the amount of 125% of the amount awarded in the Sanctions Order. Undersigned counsel dutifully responded later that day (to all parties), outlining a number of concerns about the amount and conditions that should attach to a supersedeas bond, reiterating concerns raised in the appellate response papers regarding no stay of the non-monetary aspects of this Court’s order, and requesting that Prenda respond with their views on the substantive topics raised. Exhibit 1.In case you can't look at the exhibit, the email that Duffy wrote back to Pietz -- which was clearly not an automated response -- was the following:
On May 21, 2013, this Court issued an Order Denying Ex parte Application for Stay of Enforcement ; Order to Show Cause Re Attorney’s-Fee Award. ECF No. 164. The next day, after close of business on May 22, 2013, still not having heard anything regarding payment or a bond, undersigned counsel again emailed all Prenda parties in another attempt to meet and confer regarding appeal bond details. Exhibit 1. In response to the May 22 query attempting to spur further discussion on the several points raised by undersigned counsel previously on the bond issue, Mr. Duffy wrote back “You had no substantive points. If you think of some and can articulate them coherently I would be glad to consider them. Thanks for thinking of me.” Id. Shortly after receiving Mr. Duffy’s foregoing email, undersigned counsel pointed out to everyone that such a response was not very helpful, and invited the rest of the Prenda parties to respond in substantive fashion. Nobody did. Mr. Duffy, however, did write the whole group one more time, in nonsensical and vaguely threatening fashion, to indicate that has apparently made a conscious decision to send undersigned counsel’s email messages to the SPAM folder. Exhibit 1
Thanks for your message Sir/Madam! Unfortunately, due to your inappropriate language and messages, which are within the access of my young children, I must place you in my "spam" filter. Unfortunately, I delete such messages daily without reading them. I wish you a speedy recovery, and make it a GREAT day!Among the other problems with the bond, is that only Duffy has signed onto it, and as Pietz points out, since there are many different parties, each appealing separately, it's not at all clear as to what happens if some are exonerated, while others are found guilty. And, of course, Pietz argues that the amount is way too low, because it should take into account the likely cost of the appeal as well. Oh, and Pietz also wants it to be clear that Team Prenda can't get out of paying the bond by declaring bankruptcy.
Basically, it looks like Team Prenda simply can't resist playing its games -- once again, seeming to think that it's so much smarter than everyone else, that it can run verbal rings around those exposing their efforts.
Update: And... Judge Wright has just basically agreed with Pietz, conditionally granting the bond, but only if Duffy makes a bunch of changes to deal with the claims that Pietz brought up, and also says they need to add another bond for $135,933.66, to get the total up to $237,583.66 which is the amount Pietz argued was proper given the circumstances.
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: bond, john steele, meet and confer, morgan pietz, otis wright, paul duffy
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"I wanted to follow up and inquire: were you planning on complying with the Court's order, and, if so, when?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cant wait for Prenda's response to Pietz filing with Judge Wright, I expect a lot of fury, anger and pouting and a big whine about poverty.
I can't wait to see Judge Wrights ruling and see what he say's in it about Prenda blowin g off the meeting with Pietz for the bond requirements and conditions which was in his order.
This will be most interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another defeat for Prenda, wonder if Stelle and Duffy are throwing a temper tantrum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It will be interesting to see if everyone has to pony up for their share of this bond, but I would bet that Duffy and Steele are throwing a tantrum right now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"As the Prenda Turns"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "As the Prenda Turns"
Serving suggestion: Your choice of titles needs revision, as As the Prenda Turns suggests a soap opera, rather than a highbrow, true-to-life sitcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "As the Prenda Turns"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Further, the Prenda parties shall be required to post an additional bond in the amount of $135,933.66 (which is the $237,583.66 total, minusthe $101,650.00 bond that the Prenda parties other than Mr. Gibbs have already posted) to cover costs on appeal, which includes attorneys fees shall be subject to all the same conditions as the bond noted above".
I love the fact that Judge Wright threw in this gem into his order:
"Failure to post the additional bond within 14 days shall result in the imposition of additional sanctions".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so how come these idiots get 'asked' by the Court? anyone and everyone else get 'told' by the court. it almost seems like judge Wright is helping the Prenda crew to play the games rather than exerting his authority. perhaps if he weren't being so lenient, they would get the message?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By giving them as many chances as he has for them to explain their actions, any appeal(s) they file are not going to go over well for them the second the judge learns what sort of crap they tend to pull when in a courtroom.
Or put another way, Judge Wright has provided them countless opportunities to show their character, and in particular their honestly, which they have failed miserably to do, and when any future judges can safely assume that team prenda are going to be lying as much as they can, odds are they're going to treat any statements given by them as suspicious, and that is not going to be good for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> character, and in particular their honestly, which they have failed miserably to do
Actually, I think Prenda and conspirators have done an outstanding job of demonstrating their level of honesty and character.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they're lawyers. Judges make decisions for the betterment of the legal profession.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976478
If some ordinary group had perpetrated the kind of nonsense that Prenda has, the FBI would have thrown them in the klink. Instead, all of the Judges involved have let Prenda off with warnings, or maybe not even that.
It's a travesty, but very revealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^^^^^
Great point, yeah, Duffy is just trying to be an a$$hole, but he also comes off as a complete loser of an attorney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> That sure makes me feel like he is compentent
> and will keep my private communications safe.
Beyond the issue of privacy and confidentiality of communications, there is the issue of letting children read the email of an lawyer who works for the worst kind of pr0n producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure smells bogus to me. Not to mention the Doe on the bond itself. That's pretty much a guarantee that Prenda is still playing games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So great
I can hardly wait to see what turns up on the docket over the next week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Karma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta protect the kids ...
Yeah, that says a lot not just about his legal skills and ethics, but also about his parenting skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta protect the kids ...
But actually, there's no production or clients. Their sole business was a shakedown, with a minimal involvement of actual porn.
It may even transpire that the torrent was empty.
The metadata alone was sufficient to make the case.
Does this remind me of another scandal...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gotta protect the kids ...
There were clients once upon a time. Back when Prenda first started. See the story about the guy complaining about how Prenda wouldn't tell him any details about what was actually going on.
It's just at some point they decided they wanted all the money themselves, and then they set up the shell games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why aren't they here defending their Prenda buddies. Maybe Prenda and conspirators' actions are each an anomaly. Each. And. Every. One. Each misstep was just another anomaly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Duffy will claim that a bug in his spam filtering software caused Pietz to be put in his spam list, without Duffy being aware of it.
2) Duffy will accuse Pietz of unprofessional behavior for not attempting to contact him by phone after the email stopped working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3) Pietz's request that the bonds be made payable to him rather than John Doe is evidence that his client doesn't actually exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe just for fun and to amuse judge Wright, Duffy could make the bond and the check out to the IP address, since an IP address == a person. I'm sure everyone involved would find it highly amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"An account identified solely by number, sir? Can't be. We were forced to give those up some years ago. You will have to give a name. We have no record of that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]