Prenda Lawyer Would Like Future Documents Sealed Because Techdirt Commenters Said Mean Stuff About Him
from the suck-it-up,-buttercup dept
Ah, Jacques Nazaire. You may recall some of our previous posts about Nazaire, a local lawyer in Georgia who was handling some Prenda/AF Holdings cases in that neck of the woods. He's the lawyer who advertises his willingness to appear in court for you via Craigslist, and also argued that Judge Otis Wright's order out in California exposing Prenda's scam was inapplicable in Georgia because California recognizes gay marriage. He also tried to argue that it shouldn't be used because... something totally incomprehensible about hackers having nothing to do with the case at all.That case has continued and there was a hearing back in January that didn't go particularly well for Nazaire. Andrew Norton attended and wrote about it. Anyway, the latest in the case is that Nazaire is asking the court to seal all future filings in the case, mainly because the comments here on Techdirt, along with a few other blogs, have been really really mean about Nazaire. The main purpose of the filing is to try to stop the discovery efforts opened up by the defendant in the case, Rajesh Patel, represented by Blair Chintella, as they're seeking attorneys' fees from Nazaire and Prenda -- and, as part of that, are trying to do detailed discovery to reveal more about the Prenda scam. Nazaire throws a bunch of excuses at the wall for why this shouldn't be allowed. But the request to seal the records is much more interesting to us:
Additionally, the Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that any future filings in this case may be filed under seal. This case has generated much unneeded attention on the internet. Please see Exhibits N-S. While the writers listed in exhibits N-S have the right to post these articles, unfortunately, these articles and blogs have created an embarrassment, misleading characterizations and perhaps an unsafe environment for plaintiff's counsel and third parties. As such, plaintiff is respectfully requesting that all future filings be permitted to be made under seal.So what are exhibits N-S? They're just printouts of the comments pages (not the actual posts) from posts on Techdirt, Popehat and FightCopyrightTrolls. It also includes a press release from the opposing attorney Chintella, as well as Norton's writeup of the July 2nd hearing. In other words, just the kind of public participation that should be had around legal issues happening in a court of law. But because some of you folks here were a bit snarky, Nazaire wants to hide significant parts of the rest of the case from you.
Plaintiff 1) understands that the articles attached hereto have not been authenticated and apologizes to this Court for the same. In such a short notice of time, it is difficult to authenticate these press releases and postings; however, a search on any search engine will prove these articles and postings to be real; and 2) Plaintiff is not criticizing the authors of the press releases and postings and realizes that the attached postings were meant to be humorous and not spiteful; nevertheless, those not familiar with this case may misinterpret said postings. This may lead to anger by those not quite familiar with the case but yet familiar with the captions. As such, it may be best for the court to allow sealing further filings (which may include addresses and personal information of the parties and counsels herein).
For what it's worth, there's currently a crowdfunding campaign that's ongoing, where Norton and Chintella are trying to raise funds so that they can afford to depose Mark Lutz, and possibly John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and other members of Team Prenda. Since the likelihood of actually getting money out of Team Prenda after all this is over, even if they win fees in court, is pretty slim, they'd rather not have to pay the full deposition costs out of pocket, only to see it go nowhere. You can read more about the campaign if you're interested.
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: jacques nazaire, public participation
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You've missed the best opportunity you've ever seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the link:
Donors will receive a copy of any transcript and/or video of what depositions are done (yes, video!).
Holy smokes! Somebody MUST make a torrent of those and share the lulz! I'm almost feeling compelled to donate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Holy smokes! Somebody MUST make a torrent of those and share the Lutz!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
$5: Sticker that says "I helped depose Prenda!"
$10: "Sticker and digital download of transcripts"
$25: "All of the above plus Video download of the deposition"
$50: "All of the above plus a DVD"
$100: "All of the above plus a case of Orville Redenbacher popcorn"
An additional donation of $10 to any tier will include a single serving of popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Alas I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tantrum throwing or strategic filing?
Probably Prenda's greatest strength, and what enabled them to pull the scams that they did for so long before being caught, was the fact that the cases were being filed all over the country, with different judges, different courts, different lawyers... in short, the 'dots' were all over the place, and it was very hard to connect them all and get an idea as to how big their operation really was, and a single lawyer in one of the cases opposing them can only do so much.
With a number of sites covering the cases however, suddenly that was no longer the case. Now suddenly there were a ton of people eagerly digging through old court case filings, the evidence presented, and arguments made, able to point out contradictory statements, lies by omission, and flat out blatant lies.
Suddenly the lawyers facing Prenda down had 'research teams' composed of dozens, if not hundreds of people, some fellow lawyers, to help build their cases by pointing out things that they might otherwise have missed or were unaware of, bringing the 'dots' together and allowing Prenda's activities and statements to be looked over as a whole.
Looked at in that light, the filing would make perfect sense from their point of view, as it's aimed at taking away possibly the greatest weapon/defense those opposing Prenda possess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tantrum throwing or strategic filing?
I agree completely. This is their legal version of "security by obscurity."
The "poor ol' possibly-maybe-threatened-in-the-future me" is a complete red herring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments
Just in case you were serious, I don't think you'd have a case for infringement. First, he's entering this into a court record, which is common sense fair use and recently confirmed by another case just recently written about here. Also, there's no copyright notice anywhere that I've seen on TD, and I find it unlikely you've registered your comments with the correct government agency you would need to in order to sue him. But them, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you could hire one on Craigslist to make some bizarre case that makes a judge get a migraine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments
you are correct that it *HELPS* your case to record your copyright before suing, but i'm not sure it is required...
IANAL, thank dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They say, as if the case did it on its own, behind their backs, in the dark of night, rather than as a result of their increasingly incompetent, comical flailings.
Acting as if the case was able to "generate" attention on its own sounds like police reports stating "the officer's weapon discharged." The humans at the center of the activity had nothing to do with the outcomes, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it have killed Jacques to have set the comment to "threaded" before taking his screenshots? Because I'm having a hard time following the "misleading characterizations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(And how about setting the default to threaded instead of flat.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a) It's plain old HTML.
b) My contact info is on the site, and best of all
c) As I'm listed as expert witness for the defense, he was given my CV in person 6 weeks ago, that includes my mailing address, direct phone number, business phone number, priority email address, So he could have contacted me if needed.
And whats more, my piece took a week to post, because I had to be careful about what I did write. I kept to what I knew for certain happened, and mostly restricting my observations to that of the judge (although I'll be interested to see what he thought of them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Team Prenda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is the judge in one of these case going to say, "It is time for you to hire an attorney. You are diggin a hole so deep you will never get out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though the wording wasn't quite that blunt, Judge Wright has actually done pretty much exactly that regarding Steele.
From the following article:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130718/15593623858/judge-wright-denies-john-steeles-mot ion-says-any-problem-is-steeles-own-fault-directs-him-to-legal-clinic.shtml
'Steele is advised that the Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-19, Main Street Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The clinic is open on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between the hours of 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal civil actions. Steele is encouraged to visit the clinic for advice concerning his case.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQojgdfUAe0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me names all you want, but at least I ain�t defending myself from claims that could see me disbarred or worse.
(That I know of. OOTB might have a trick or two up his sleeve, you never know.)
Sincerely,
S. T. Stone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I made the grade!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the old days of the west, court cases were seen as a right to view, listen, learn of issues, discuss attorney performances before the court, and yes, even entertainment. People would come from miles to sit and witness court room activity.
Now it appears that what court does shouldn't be made public. That it should all somehow magically disappear from those not directly involved in the case at hand, despite the court if not being anything else, being a conservative position based on past historic laws, occurrences, and events.
I suspect that That One Guy's post is actually closer to the truth. For all the suggestions that this lawyer, Mr.Nazaire, seems to make about vague threats to his being, it's funny that I don't remember the first one aimed at him personally. Nor one that has suggested some sort of physical harm come to him in the process of him doing his job.
What I do remember is him being poked fun at for substandard abilities and devious tactics, coming from left field, totally unrelated to the case, as he has practiced (giving benefit of the doubt in that word) his craft.
So he looks bad, he's one lawyer against an army that pretty much as a public consensus knows right from wrong. Under the words looks like a motivation of a child pouting and stomping his foot at the mean grownups.
Yeah, I think I have the picture now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahahah ha ha
-
Jacques Nazaire, let me introduce you to Mrs. Streisand. Mrs. Streisand, take it away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nazaire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Page 10 of the second document...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Page 10 of the second document...
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Page 10 of the second document...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Page 10 of the second document...
W-H-O-O-O!! H-O-O-O-O!!
Oh Wait.
As the announcer of the contest, I am disqualified from participating.
-And- I live in Cochise County.
DAMN!
Jacques Nazaire, so help me God, I will have my revenge!
Even if it takes me six years to get my law degree, I will face off against you in a court of law and I -will- expose you as the "Pink Pantied Legal Lightweight" that you are.
Wait...Nevermind.
Your last filing just did that for me.
Ahhh, sweet, sweet revenge.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He filed the case, right ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation: Judge please hide my BS from the general public they are embarrassing me by pointing out how totally corrupt and awful I am. I cant have them spreading the truth about my extortion suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to propose a new word
We shall now say "Nazaired".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Butthurt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 - Threaded, its not just for other people.
3 - 1st Amendment blah blah blah... ummm aren't these the same asshats suing me and others over online comments? Didn't they try an end run around the law to get names and chill free speech?
Oh and as they left the link to my bio intact in the comments, I added a link to it back to a letter I wrote to Judges a while ago on FCT.
It lets the Judge/Clerk know we are aware that they say we are bad people, but the sheer volume of the site should raise serious questions.
I like it when they are stupid and let me talk to the Judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 2 cents
It's obvious to everyone, Mike, that you have no respect whatsoever for law enforcement, and the same goes for your church flock here. Do you consider lawyers for copyright holders less than human and figures for your own twisted entertainment? Never mind that you pilfer and steal from these people, but you refuse to even give them the civil expectations of fair standards and due process. Did you think that John Steele and Jacques Nazaire were going to take your baseless accusations and insults lying down?
Have you considered that all these "victims" could have just paid John Steele the money he and the rightsholders were entitled to, and all this could have been avoided? Perhaps you should look at some of these "grandmothers" you claim to be protecting, instead of getting all uppity about legal practitioners of the law, who are guilty of nothing more than asserting their own righteousness against the scourge of piracy.
I also notice you still haven't answered my question here: Are you employed by Wyden's office or doing consulting for them? You seem to be giving them very wide access to your blog and audience. Campaigning for Wyden for President 2016, perhaps?
On another note: to the childish idiot above who continuously insists that I am an opponent of due process, you couldn't be more wrong. I pray that one day law enforcement will ding you for each and every illegitimate file you come in contact with and "due process" you for life in prison. People like you with no respect for copyright law must be taken off the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
It's obvious to everyone, Mike, that you have no respect whatsoever for law enforcement, and the same goes for your church flock here.
Well, respect is earned and there just doesn't seem to be many in the law enforcement community willing to make that effort.
Do you consider lawyers for copyright holders less than human and figures for your own twisted entertainment?
Prenda? Yes. All the way across the board? No. Keep in mind that actions and statements of Prenda's lawyers provide the entertainment. We just comment on it here. If Prenda approached the bar set by legitimate legal representation, we'd probably have much, much less to say about it.
Never mind that you pilfer and steal from these people, but you refuse to even give them the civil expectations of fair standards and due process.
What? Accusations of theft aside, as far as I can tell, we haven't gotten Prenda banned from any courtrooms or denied them "fair standards," whatever the hell that means. I suppose it's flattering that you believe this blog has the power to deny due process, but that flattery is tempted by the sheer ridiculousness of the accusation.
Did you think that John Steele and Jacques Nazaire were going to take your baseless accusations and insults lying down?
No. But it would obviously be better for them if they did. Crying to the court about the "mean internet" only draws more attention to their incompetence and extraordinarily thin skin.
Have you considered that all these "victims" could have just paid John Steele the money he and the rightsholders were entitled to, and all this could have been avoided?
Have you considered these "victims" might actually be victims (without the scare quotes)? A business model predicated on filing multiple lawsuits based on nothing more than an IP address isn't much more than low-level extortion.
Perhaps you should look at some of these "grandmothers" you claim to be protecting, instead of getting all uppity about legal practitioners of the law, who are guilty of nothing more than asserting their own righteousness against the scourge of piracy.
Bullshit. Pay attention. Prenda has been caught seeding its own files simply to "grow the business," with John Steele making some moves that appear to induce infringement.
I also notice you still haven't answered my question here: Are you employed by Wyden's office or doing consulting for them? You seem to be giving them very wide access to your blog and audience. Campaigning for Wyden for President 2016, perhaps?
That's for Mike to answer if he feels he needs to entertain your conspiracy theories. Of course, it may just be that Ron Wyden is one of the few representatives whose views have consistently aligned with the viewpoints here and one of the few people in Washington incessantly battling against intelligence agency overreach and bad "cyberlaws."
I pray that one day law enforcement will ding you for each and every illegitimate file you come in contact with and "due process" you for life in prison. People like you with no respect for copyright law must be taken off the streets.
Wow. That is fucked up. You honestly think copyright infringement, if there's enough of it, should result in lengthy prison sentences?
"Respect for copyright?" What a strange, sad little phrase. Again, like the law enforcement above, the abuses perpetrated under copyright law won't earn it any respect. And the endless extensions aren't helping.
I cannot believe people like you who feel so powerless despite EVERY decision on copyright going in your favor over the past several decades and various copyright industries having the DOJ, ICE, FBI and others on tap for enforcement. Quit your crying. It's just embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My 2 cents
This means do not respond or try to reason with me as there is nothing to reason with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
That's the big question though isn't it. I (probably, no telling if you're Duffy or Steele) know a little more about the case than you do, and there are significant questions about any entitlement they're due, except perhaps a visit from the FBI.
I have the feeling the judge saw it that way too, based on my observations of him during the hearing last month. As he heard more and more of the details FROM BOTH SIDES, and in answers to the questions he asked, he was not entirely convinced that AF Holdings/Prenda deserved anything either, and that's why he ordered discovery.
I may not be a lawyer, but you don't order discovery on a case in this stage unless you've got big questions over the legitimacy of the case brought before you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
No, it doesn't. Exhibit A: see quote above.
Gonna report you for being a lying scumbag though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
Not true - they have no respect for copyright terrorists.
"Never mind that you pilfer and steal from these people..."
Since when? Prove it or apologise for lying.
"...but you refuse to even give them the civil expectations of fair standards and due process"
I don't see any case where Techdirt or the courts have denied due process. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest Prenda wants nothing more than to circumvent such standards entirely.
"Have you considered that all these "victims" could have just paid John Steele the money he and the rightsholders were entitled to, and all this could have been avoided?"
I agree that Steele and the wrongdoers should indeed be paid what they're enititled to.
I just doubt that they would accept a check for $0.
"People like you with no respect for copyright law must be taken off the streets."
Again, false - we respect copyright, we don't respect the abuses of it, such as the campaign of terror that's been waged since the Napster days.
People like you who are under the delusion that the acts you defend are moral, and desirable, should be thrown out onto the streets. At least then you'd be making an honest living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsafe environment? I LOL'ed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was so threatening he submitted it to the court with much hand-wringing and complaining... but managed to skip involving the authorities in the situation.
He works with people who have called the EFF a terrorist organization.
He filed papers all about bad things Anonymous have done, calling them terrorists as well, IIRC.
And the gay marriage thing...
I am the Antichrist to him, and this pleases me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He filed papers all about bad things Anonymous have done, calling them terrorists as well, IIRC."
Wow. Pot calling the kettle black, much?
Here's hoping he gets his comeuppance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
January 8, 2014 baby. January the eighth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]