Paul Hansmeier Tries To Explain Away Brett Gibbs Revealing Prenda Spreadsheets
from the might-not-be-real-and-if-they-are,-so-what? dept
So, last week, Brett Gibbs dropped quite the bombshell in one of the key Prenda cases, in which he revealed some spreadsheets that had been shared with him via a Dropbox account, showing that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier had received about 70% of Prenda's proceeds, despite insisting they had no direct relationship with the firm. As expected, lawyers in other Prenda cases have rushed to file those documents in their cases as well. In Minnesota, Paul Hansmeier has responded, seeking to block the filing of the documents to Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel, who has been overseeing an investigation into the possibility of fraud on the part of Team Prenda. The argument, summed up, is "who knows if those documents are legit, they don't show anything bad, they're not relevant and they were obtained illegally." Almost all of that is, in typical Hansmeier fashion, ridiculous:Second, the documents Mr. Godfread proposes to file are inadmissible because they are not authenticated. Mr. Godfread claims that the exhibits "appear" to be financial records of Prenda Law, Inc. Perhaps he is right, but I have not reviewed Prenda Law's financials and neither, presumably, has he. Until he can authenticate the documents, they are inadmissible;Seems like there's a pretty quick way to take care of that. Judge Noel can put one of the Prendaristas on the stand and ask them if the documents are accurate. Either way, claiming that they're not "authenticated" seems like pretty weak sauce at this stage of the game.
Third, the documents undermine Mr. Godfread's narrative. I have consistently stated—often to deaf ears—that I sold my law practice to Prenda Law in late-2011 and subsequently pursued other interests. That is what these documents show. I am labeled an "old owner" throughout the documents. With one de minimus exception, the only transfers I received from Prenda Law were in consideration of the sale of my practice;As Gibbs detailed in his filing, the use of "old owners" was clearly done to leave open exactly this excuse, but it does not seem even remotely credible given the massive amount that continued to go to both Steele and Hansmeier long after the sale. While it's certainly not unheard of for service businesses like law firms and accounting firms to include a percentage of ongoing revenue for a few years after sale, having this much go to Steele and Hansmeier suggests something else. At the very least, it's quite relevant for a deeper discussion into Hansmeier's and Steele's claims of having no relationship with Prenda.
Fourth, the documents have no relevance to the subject-matter of this case, which was filed as an action for copyright infringement. Although it has since morphed into a different matter, the day-to-day ledgers of a law firm are not relevant to either inquiry;Really? I mean, this one doesn't even require a response, since the "subject-matter" of the case is about whether or not Prenda and related companies and individuals were engaged in fraud. It seems highly relevant.
Fifth, if these documents are authentic, then they were stolen. No business would release sensitive financial documents to its adversaries. I understand that this matter is being investigated and will be reported to law enforcement, as appropriate.Again, as Gibbs explained, it appears these documents were placed in a shared Dropbox account, meaning they were given to him. Yes, at the time he was still part of Team Prenda, but that doesn't mean the documents were "stolen." Anyway, there's something kind of funny about Hansmeier saying that this 'theft' "will be reported to law enforcement." It seems quite likely that law enforcement already knows... and that's because there's an ongoing investigation of Hansmeier.
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: brett gibbs, franklin noel, john steele, paul hansmeier, spreadsheet
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
So go ahead Hansmeier, inform the authorities of the 'theft', and not only legitimize the documents, but get a hearty laugh out of the police as they explain that you can't steal something you were already given.
Of course if he's going to claim that they were stolen(to a Judge no less) and then not inform the police, that would say plenty too...
Also, as a general rule of thumb, I think it would be safe to say that if a person/persons are receiving over 50% of the profits from a company(or the 69-70% in this case), they most certainly still own the company, or at the very least control it, regardless of whatever patsy they've got sitting in the CEO's spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
It's a little legal game they play so that they can continue to claim they have no knowledge of it being true or untrue.
It's not true because of this, this and this. However if it is true, it doesn't matter because of this, this and this.
This sort of BS only happens in the legal world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
And in the world of 5-year-old kids. "I didn't do it. You didn't see me do it. It wasn't my fault. It's not that big a deal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
My dog doesn't bite.
My dog was tied up that night.
I don't believe you really got bit.
I don't have a dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about shooting your argument in the foot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they went to "zee specal lahh skool fer de giftzddzed?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!!!!
Surely this would clear everything up and the lies could be stopped completely from both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am going to be a very sad Aussie when all the Prenda stuff is finished. It is the highlight of the last few months going through my newsfeeds everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subpoena
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like Righthaven and/or Carreon all over again, some lawyers just cannot admit to being wrong, or realizing that they've been caught out on their lies, as their egos make it impossible for them to accept the idea that they might not be as smart as they think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’m not wishing for any of them to harm themselves, mind you. I just think one of them will end up at least trying to take the ‘easy’ way out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either that or he took the money and ran...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They'll go on their merry way with a few million $, and start some new crooked corporation to rape the public with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That or a septic tank ^.^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanted flyers printed yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nom nom nom....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No white collar country club prison for these assclowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who would deny unborn children those things?!?!!? It would be an outrage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My dog doesn't bite.
My dog does bite, but it only bites humans.
You have no right to call yourself "Alan Cooper" since that is a human name and you're not human.
My dog is named Alan Cooper and your client is also named "Alan Cooper" but the suit is illegal since you can't sue based on a dog's behalf.
I never owned a dog.
I did own a dog, but my dog died thirty years ago.
I currently own a dog but it lives in Vietnam and is owned by a Vietnamese person named "Alan Cooper".
Dogs don't exist, and have never existed.
Dogs do exist, but Alan Cooper is a cat's name, this lawsuit is about dogs, therefore the lawsuit should be thrown out.
I am not a carbon-based lifeform and therefore cannot be sued.
Alan Cooper is a time-travelling werewolf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the dog ate my Airline ticket?
the dog is the trust's recipient?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good pleading.
If it is real, it may not have been gotten through proper means. That doesn't mean that it's stolen. The filing clearly states how Gibbs obtained a copy the document, and any original is still available to Prenda, undiminished by the copy. So the question is 'was the release proper'.
Prenda can't claim a copyright on the purely functional accounting data. It's not a breach of attorney-client communications, although that's closer call. Prenda might assert that it's effectively the client. It closer to being a breach of a confidentiality agreement or duty. But any obligation is erased in the case of fraud.
Hansmeier does have a credible claim to not having seen this specific document, and it's reasonable to point out that it's unauthenticated. But given the effort to verify it would be less than the time to write point 2, this isn't an especially useful point. There isn't an objection that it conflict with facts on the record, or that it's not timely (although the reference to motion practice might be read as such).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redundant Arguement is Redundant
"Second, the documents Mr. Godfread proposes to file are inadmissible because they are not authenticated. Mr. Godfread claims that the exhibits "appear" to be financial records of Prenda Law, Inc. Perhaps he is right, but I have not reviewed Prenda Law's financials and neither, presumably, has he. Until he can authenticate the documents, they are inadmissible;"
No? How about now?
"Second, the documents Mr. Godfread proposes to file are inadmissible because they are not authenticated. Mr. Godfread claims that the exhibits "appear" to be financial records of Prenda Law, Inc. Perhaps he is right, but I have not reviewed Prenda Law's financials and neither, presumably, has he. Until he can authenticate the documents, they are inadmissible"
Lets shorten that shall we?
"The documents Mr. Godfread proposed to file are inadmissible because they are inadmissible!"
Prenda's practices are totally illegal because they are totally illegal :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]