Courts Start Demanding Actual Answers From Team Prenda
from the and-on-and-on dept
The saga of Team Prenda continues, as courts in two of the Prenda cases we've been following have shown that they're getting pretty tired with Team Prenda's attempts to dance around the issues. First up, we've got the various AF Holdings cases up in Minnesota. If you don't recall, these cases had been dismissed, but after the court learned about some of Team Prenda's antics, it reopened the case with an eye towards determining if Team Prenda was guilty of fraud on the court in coaxing settlements out of people on a faulty or illegal basis. Amusingly, late last week, Paul Hansmeier, sticking to Team Prenda's ridiculous strategy of "whenever we're completely backed into a corner, charge!" filed a notice claiming that AF Holdings intended to reopen the original cases. That is, he's now claiming that because magistrate judge Franklin Noel is investigating them for fraud in the original cases, they now want to continue to "sue" people for infringement to show how "legitimate" their cases really were. The notice is worth reading, mainly for the comedic value. Hansmeier claims that Alan Cooper is mentally unstable and was trying to extort money from John Steele. Also, that there was no forgery of Cooper's signature, but rather Cooper "repudiating" his association with AF Holdings.Of course, the main reason for making this filing isn't to reopen the cases, or to make laughable claims about Alan Cooper, but rather this:
However, Plaintiff has reached the outer-limits of what it can learn without the coercive power of formal discovery. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to issue an order scheduling a Rule 26(f) conference so it resolve this matter as quickly as possible.Basically, it's Paul Hansmeier asking the court for a fishing expedition against Cooper and his lawyer Paul Godfread. It's hard to see this as anything more than an attempt to be a nuisance.
However, it seems highly unlikely that magistrate judge Noel is buying anything that Hansmeier is selling. Instead, his latest order shows that he's getting pretty damn tired of Team Prenda's runaround. It makes no mention of Hansmeier's filing, denies the local counsel Michael Dugas' request to be dropped from the case (noting that he signed the forged papers), repeats the findings of Judge Wright in California, and then orders AF Holdings/Team Prenda to explain why Judge Wright's findings shouldn't apply equally to these cases:
The plaintiff shall file a memorandum of law on or before August 26, 2013 showing cause as to why Judge Wright's factual findings are not binding against it in these cases under the common law doctrine of issue preclusion. See, e.g., Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 1997) (issue preclusion appropriate under Minnesota law if (1) the issues are identical; (2) the prior adjudication ended with a final judgment on the merits; (3) the plaintiff was a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue).In other words, Team Prenda's can't just ignore Judge Wright's ruling here, and it certainly sounds like Judge Noel has no time for Hansmeier's plans to play discovery games.
The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect that Mr. Michael K. Dugas remains counsel of record for the plaintiff. Although he filed a notice of withdrawal and substitution, his withdrawal was not effective upon filing under Local Rule 83.7(b) because it would delay the progress of this case. He signed the complaint to which the forged documents were attached. If Mr. Dugas wishes to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff, he must proceed in accordance with Local Rule 83.7(c) and establish good cause to do so.
Meanwhile, back in the Navasca case in Northern California, it appears that the recent sanctions against Team Prenda that Judge Edward Chen awarded have been ignored by Team Prenda, and a magistrate judge in that court, Nador Vadas, would like to know why. Oh, that's not all Judge Vadas would like to know. It appears that Judge Vadas is now taking a special interest in the now-infamous Paul Hansmeier deposition from this case, which was one of the key documents that convinced Judge Wright that Prenda was up to no good. Judge Vadas has some questions he'd like AF Holdings to answer, and they are the kinds of questions that Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, John Steele and Mark Lutz probably don't want to answer about who actually is behind AF Holdings and the various "trusts" such as Salt Marsh:
Hansmeier testified that AF Holdings was owned by a trust, but he could not testify about the name of the trust.... In a May 2, 2013 filing, Mark Lutz, who identifies himself as someone who “manage[s] various adult content related companies, including AF Holdings LLC,” declared that “Salt Marsh is the name of the trust that owns AF Holdings”.... At the hearing, AF Holdings should be prepared to identify the name of its owner and any entity or person having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, beyond Salt Marsh.Those all seem like important questions. Questions that would be easy to answer if there were nothing nefarious going on, but which Team Prenda has avoided answering in any meaningful way for months. The hearing at which they need to have such answers ready will be on August 28th. I imagine it will be quite interesting.
AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why it represented that there were “no known persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities (other than the parties themselves) that may have personal or affiliated financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding other than the parties.” Doc. No. 2 (Certificate of Interested Entities).
AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why Paul Hansmeier was designated as its 30(b)(6) deponent instead of Mark Lutz.
Paul Hansmeier was unable to testify about “the exact mechanisms by which the money goes from” to AF Holdings from the law firms that represent it.... AF Holdings should be prepared to explain these “exact mechanisms” at the hearing, and also should be prepared to provide an accounting of the funds it has received from persons it has sued or threatened to sue for copyright violation based on allegedly illegal downloading of its adult titles.
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, franklin noel, joe navasca, john steele, mark lutz, michael dugas, nador vadas, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
Is there anyone lower or duller than a lawyer groupie? ... Mike just loves discipline at the bench: a real masnickist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
Yes, yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
If you want to know how Out_of_the_blue got their name, google 'Blue Oyster' (NSFW)
Out_of_the_Blue is as bright as a blown light bulb. So yes, you are the dullest idiot in the room
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They said I could be anything... So I'z economist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lutz deposition
He didn't show. Judge O'Kelley's not going to look favorably on it. Of course, maybe the reason he didn't show was because the deposition order was worded to specifically name Lutz, and state that 30(b)(6) substitutions are not acceptable as he is the material witness, not 'the company'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lutz deposition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lutz deposition
The Prenda gang will go into damage control mode here and deny, appeal and make motions to dismiss this Judge from re-opening this.
We have all sen how Team Prenda works and the usual tactics they employ when they are in trouble. That being said can anyone here see Steele letting Lutz answer any question regarding anything to do with these trusts and entities that were set up.
Now way is Steele going to let Lutz answer anything, especially after Lutz Q&A session with the Judge in the Sunlust case where Lutz bumbled his way through and Steele had to feed him answers from the gallery before he got caught.
It is the same reason Hansmeier went and answered the questions in the deposition and not Lutz, they know Lutz will get trapped and it will be entered as a matter of record with the court.
I find it highly amazing that Hansmeier who claims to no nothing of these cases much like Steele keeps popping into them and submitting documents to the court about them, now why would that be?
The Prenda gang will do everything they can to keep Lutz away from this, look for Lutz to be unable to be reached for the next while (I am sure John is running out and buying Lutz an airline ticket to Mexico right now).
Lutz will never be able to keep all the stories straight about who and how he owns this and all these different entities and who Salt Marsh and what type of trust these are.
Lutz plain and simple isn't smart enough, and neither is the Prenda gang apparently for a bunch of guys who know nothing about any of this, but yet are submitting documents to the court on it...lol
Should be interesting to say the least, don't sell those popcorn stocks just yet people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're already abusing it so why not use it? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning got 35 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manning got 35 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manning got 35 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have done this time and time again, and when it is lucrative and that easy cash is coming in, it is easy to forget your oath to uphold the laws as an officer of the court.
Judges calendar are usually so full they don't notice stuff like this, and the Prenda gang when they faced a Judge that did simply withdrew the cases from that court and re-filed elsewhere.
The Prenda gang Judge Shopped as part of it's strategy and loves to file in states that are overburdened and is troll friendly.
It is only because of opposing counsel and the internet community that started to get word out to the people and the courts that there was something very wrong going on here that Prenda is now finding it self accountable to a degree.
It's just Judges are now turning a skeptical eye to how these guys have played the justice system for ill gotten gains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously - pretending that the whole Prenda saga is about them forgetting to dot an "i" or cross a "t" is ludicrous in the extreme.
A bench warrant for missing a deposition without cause isn't some sacrifice to a "Blood God" or inviting "rape" by "super-max inmates", nor is it unusual or exceptional.
Wait - are you OOTB in disguise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are going to be imprisoned very soon and i think a lot of people on the internet will be satisfied they can put their popcorn away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another go around
I have a feeling this time will be worse than last time... & last time they were targeted for various investigations, including RICO suspicions. Those investigations may pick up steam if another judge throws some more facts at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prenda, et alia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]