Latest Team Prenda Shenanigans: Arguing Nevis Law Applies In California; Also Mark Lutz Makes An Appearance... Sorta
from the good-luck-with-that-argument dept
John Steele and Paul Hansmeier (who various courts have made clear, make up the core of "Team Prenda") are engaged in so many different lawsuits in which they're getting hit with so many different orders to pay up for their questionable behavior that it may be difficult to keep up. However, in Northern California last month, Judge Edward Chen ruled that Steele and Hansmeier are liable for sanctions and attorneys' fees awarded against "AF Holdings," the semi-mysterious shell company set up in Nevis, which many people (including courts) have recognized was almost certainly set up by Steele and Hansmeier themselves as some sort of way to (a) hide the fact that they were representing themselves and (b) to hide where the money goes. Of course, as court after court has seen through this charade, things aren't looking good for Steele and Hansmeier who should be fearing the eventual law enforcement response to all of this, which is almost certainly approaching.However, they just can't resist fighting the fight, because that's what they do. When backed into a complete corner, Steele and Hansmeier tend to go into attack mode, trying any and every argument they can possibly think of, no matter how insane. But, and here's the key, they make those arguments with extreme confidence, as if only a moron would think they were wrong. The reality, of course, is that almost all of their claims are laughable. Take for example, the latest one in response to Judge Chen's ruling. Steele and Hansmeier have filed very, very similar filings that (among a few other arguments) try to argue that they cannot be found to be considered the "alter ego" of AF Holdings because Nevis law says that can only be done with the permission of the people being claimed to be the alter ego.
Under Nevis law, accordingly, a person may become an alter ego of a limited liability company only with his or her express consent.Yes, AF Holdings was registered in Nevis, but if Steele and Hansmeier automatically think that means they can avoid liability in California, their legal skills are even worse than previously expected. Remember AF Holdings was the one who sued first... in California. The issue here is who is responsible for the absolutely bogus lawsuit. And the Court has very good reason, and significant evidence to support, that it's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Pretending that registering the company in Nevis somehow gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card is laughable.
Meanwhile, across the country, in the one case where Prenda actually seemed to be having some success, in front of former RIAA lobbyist Beryl Howell, John Steele has withdrawn as counsel and substituted Prenda buddy Paul Duffy. That, alone, isn't particular noteworthy -- these three guys seem to pass around cases like a group of high school kids under the bleachers passing around a joint. However, what is noteworthy is that in filing this, Steele notes that the "Plaintiff consents to Attorney Steele's withdrawal in this matter, as noted by his signature below." Who's the plaintiff? Why, it's the very same AF Holdings. And whose "signature" is it? Why, it's "Mark Lutz." And the date of the signature is... November 5th.
That's interesting. Because back at the end of September, Mark Lutz continued his magic disappearing act by not appearing in a Minnesota court, despite being ordered to be there. Hansmeier was given until the next day to explain the disappearance, and filed a substance-free brief that basically said, "I'm sure Lutz has a good reason, which he'll tell you about when he can." Specifically, Hansmeier told the court:
Based on my prior experience with Mr. Lutz, including Mr. Lutz's in-person attendance before this Court on August 5, 2012, I believe that Mr. Lutz will be able to provide a good-faith reason for failing to make his flight to Minnesota.While there has been plenty of activity in the docket for this case (including Hansmeier's weak attempt to get magistrate judge Franklin Noel kicked off the case), there has been nothing from Lutz since Hansmeier's promise on October 1st that Lutz would explain what happened. In fact, he hasn't appeared anywhere.
But... suddenly his signature appears on November 5th in a different circuit? Hmm. It would appear he's fairly tardy in getting in his explanation. Of course, there's been some chatter on Twitter wondering if this is really Lutz's signature. We have examples of his actual signature on previous filings, so you can compare. Here's the latest one, supposedly from November 5th:
Of course, here's the issue. If we give Steele and Lutz the benefit of the doubt here that the signature is legitimate -- and I'm willing to do exactly that -- it would appear that they've got a different problem to deal with: the fact that Lutz never explained his absence in Minnesota. I'm trying to think if there's any other option. Either Lutz has flat out ignored a court order in Minnesota, or someone forged his name in DC. If anyone can come up with any other option, I'm all ears. I guess there's the possibility, also, that both things are true -- that he both ignored a court order and had his signature forged -- but that doesn't make the situation any better...
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: edward chen, franklin noel, john steele, jurisdiction, mark lutz, nevis, paul hansmeier, signatures
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Alternatively, such dogged insistence of innocence could have another explanation, one backed by that little slip of yours at the end there, '...smear our good name.'
Can you say 'oops'?
Still, I must thank you, I, and others, can always depend on your hilarious posts to bring a guilt-free laugh, as laughing at an actual blind person is deplorable, whereas laughing at the willfully blind is always a good time.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Suggested response:
Judge: That's nice, but here in the US, you've been named responsible for fines and fees levied against AF Holdings, so get out the checkbooks you two.
Alternatively, if the judge was really feeling in a snarky mood, he could bring an atlas to the court, point out Nevis, point out California, and then explain, using small words, how despite Prenda's claims, Nevis is not actually California, part of it, or even remotely near it.
Also, is the 'Never' bit a typo in the legal filing, and therefor left intentionally, or an accident from typing it up for the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggested response:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The typo is not in the original.
Also -
"Notwithstanding Defendant's counsel's prodigious effort in racking up over $20,000 in legal fees for filing a perfunctory answer and a cookie-cutter motion for an undertaking"
They really can't help themselves, can they?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are inviting this OTHER court to read their appeal and make decisions based on it... o_O
It is nice how he tried to throw Gibbs back under the bus, paint him as a turncoat who sold out his client, and the ever popular defense of we had nothing to do with that and even if we did it would totally be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think a previous Judge's comment is fitting...
Did you think the court needed more paper?
(I paraphrase)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another parasite to english translation:
"If the mark had just shut up and paid us, they wouldn't have incurred such hefty legal fees fighting, so it's their fault the amount is so high!"
Yeah, they really cannot possibly imagine that they might just be wrong here, they're just so very sure that they'll triumph in the end, and be able to continue their extortion racket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has Lutz ever been seen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has Lutz ever been seen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has Lutz ever been seen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, but naturally horse with no name, average_joe, out_of_the_blue and darryl will be quick to chime in their defense, claiming that all judges involved are IP-unfriendly and probably filthy pirates, too. Copyright enforcement's best and brightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And obviously, you and the other thieves on this website will censor my comments while keeping your filth promoted to smear our good name. It's a travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Alternatively, such dogged insistence of innocence could have another explanation, one backed by that little slip of yours at the end there, '...smear our good name.'
Can you say 'oops'?
Still, I must thank you, I, and others, can always depend on your hilarious posts to bring a guilt-free laugh, as laughing at an actual blind person is deplorable, whereas laughing at the willfully blind is always a good time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now that is very telling.
Helluva good catch there That One Guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh...wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'*our* good name'
To follow these cases at all while asserting that they are about piracy would take the bold, brash dishonesty of Steel or Hans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I think this is a misinterpretation.
I think he's saying "[Mike Masnick] will smear the good name of [average joe, horse with no name, and out_of_the_blue] by censoring my comment, but keeping the filth you've written about [those same people] visible.".
Still laughable, but I don't think there's any implication that he's in any way actually associated with the Prendarasts here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not only that, I find it somewhat hard to believe that someone who doesn't have a hefty stake in the outcome could so completely ignore the mountains of evidence against Prenda, insisting that the entire legal system is after them, rather than realizing that it's Prenda that's at fault, though given I've seen worse willful blindness, I admit that could be coincidence too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
horse with no name might not be into pornography, but anyone in support of the RIAA and copyright maximalism do have a vested interest in what's going on. Prenda has merely taken the RIAA's business model and leveraged on the element of sleaze to make their quick bucks, using the same ways of cutting corners to swiftly obtain thousand-dollar settlements from intimidated households. The RIAA gave any "content creator" the licence to whine "piracy!" to a judge and convince them to turn a blind eye to everything - legitimacy, evidence, etc.
Now thanks to Prenda being completely incompetent douchebags, that isn't the case. Even trolls (Malibu Media) desperately trying to distance themselves from Prenda are suffering setbacks (e.g. if you claim multiple Does are participating in the same infringement you only get to claim a maximum of $150,000 in total from Does, not $150,000 from each Doe). FCT has its own prolific sympathy troll Maurice Ross claiming that if the standards of evidence brought forward by plaintiffs and content creators is any higher than it currently is, they will starve.
They might not be Prenda - they might not like Prenda, as horse with no name loves to claim - but anyone bent on IP enforcement has a vested interest in the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think its hilarious that you don't seem to be able to win in court or even in a comments section on a blog against 'filthy pirates' (on a side note the Simalians might get a bit pissed off if you keep calling them filthy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who claimed Prenda wasn't to blame
When he was asked why
He gave a big cry:
"He wiped off my face when I came!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I say the signature is a forgery."
Some disclaimers. I'm not a handwriting expert. I've never qualified as any kind of expert witness. I'm merely speculating and expressing my opinion.
Having gotten the disclaimers out of the way, I would like to share a few observations.
As an (ex)artist, I see signatures as 'works of art'. From my perspective, the 'z' in both signatures could not possibly be by the same artist. On the other hand, the vertical sw/loops in the purported Nov BS5 Lutz signature match very closely in style and feel with Steele's on signature on the same document. Funny that.
I spent two years in college pursuing a fine arts degree. As part of that, I took 4 semesters of drawing. In addition to at least one major drawing every week, we were required to do 50 rough sketches each and every week. Am I being pointless here?
Not really. It meant that every week, we spent every Fri afternoon doing group critiques of each other's work. It didn't take very long be able to identify anyone's work the first time you saw it in class. This was one course of study where you couldn't pay anyone to do your homework for you.
Signatures are very personal pieces of individual art. It takes real talent and skill to (at first glance) successfully forge someone's signature.
I can't imagine any ven diagramm where the set including 'talent' and 'skill' intersect with the set 'Prenda Team'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I say the signature is a forgery."
Some disclaimers. I'm not a handwriting expert. I've never qualified as any kind of expert witness. I'm merely speculating and expressing my opinion.
Having gotten the disclaimers out of the way, I would like to share a few observations.
As an (ex)artist, I see signatures as 'works of art'. From my perspective, the 'z' in both signatures could not possibly be by the same artist. On the other hand, the vertical sw/loops in the purported Nov BS5 Lutz signature match very closely in style and feel with Steele's on signature on the same document. Funny that.
I spent two years in college pursuing a fine arts degree. As part of that, I took 4 semesters of drawing. In addition to at least one major drawing every week, we were required to do 50 rough sketches each and every week. Am I being pointless here?
Not really. It meant that every week, we spent every Fri afternoon doing group critiques of each other's work. It didn't take very long be able to identify anyone's work the first time you saw it in class. This was one course of study where you couldn't pay anyone to do your homework for you.
Signatures are very personal pieces of individual art. It takes real talent and skill to (at first glance) successfully forge someone's signature.
I can't imagine any ven diagram where the set including 'talent' and 'skill' intersect with the set 'Prenda Team'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is he alive?
A) Alive, but fled the country. (Most likely I'd say, and the one I'm guessing is true)
B) Not so alive, tossed in a ditch somewhere. (Possible, but unlikely)
I'm really hoping at some point a judge will order him to show up, and when that doesn't happen have a bench warrant written up to make him show up, as a sudden disappearance like what seems to have happened to Lutz really needs to be looked into, especially given Prenda is hanging so much of the blame on him as their newest scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is he alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is he alive?
A) Is still in Las Vegas trying to win money to pay judgments.
B) Is just now waking up in a roadside ditch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is he alive?
C) Hold up in a cheap motel where they have provided him with basically endless alcohol to keep him quiet and out of sight, the hope being he drinks himself to death.
At this point they need a fall guy, and the last few stood up before the bus ran them all the way over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure on November 5th, we was playing cards with Bigfoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You cracked the case!
(Or is it just wookies that do that?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You cracked the case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A house of cards
I'm no lawyer, but isn't this called money laundering? And isn�t this illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A house of cards
No, something like that would be more likely to fall under tax evasion, fraud, and similar laws; stuff which gets the IRS all jittery with excitement, and anything which perks up the IRS is usually considered a very bad thing for anyone they're interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things. First, vexatious litigants count on their right to have their arguments heard to bog down proceedings indefinitely.
Second, it could be a gambler's fallacy at work: the idea that they have to keep going to "make back" what they've lost. It's how people ended up with $5 on Deal or no Deal. Also, how casinos makes tons of money. Also, why I have a phobia of gambling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
these three guys seem to pass around cases like a group of high school kids under the bleachers passing around a joint.
:-3
Anyway...still the biggest tie to the case is the RIAA...I'm sort of wondering if there is a deeper connection with the RIAA besides Beryl Howell...this might take a LOT of digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard to hold a pen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may be a different (and more plausible) theory: due to his dependency on "recreation," Lutz's level of sobriety is very volatile, hence his signature is inconsistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His history of DUI and subsequent repeated need for Steele and Hansmeier assistance supports this. As does Steele's stories explaining Lutz's absence at hearings.
As for relying on Nevis law to avoid being named an alter ego, that's a weak argument.
We don't even know that Nevis law has any relation to the case. But since Steele brought it up, the door is open. We have a single document on point, a bad photocopy of the Nevis registration of AF Holdings. No document ties that corporate registration to any activities here. We have only testimony (from the Hansmeier deposition)and unsupported claims. There is no retention agreement. No evidence of direction being given to the attorneys by a principle. Lutz has consistently been unavailable for a deposition or cross examination. No money has flowed to or from AF. Its only claimed asset is a movie copyright assignment, which it apparently paid nothing for. And the assignment document contains a forged signature.
In short, there is no foundation for using AF Holdings to shield Steele's actions, and especially not for standing behind Nevis corporate law.
On the other side, we have the extensive evidence and testimony that Steele and Hansmeier conceived and directed this scheme. The OSC hearings were their opportunity to distance themselves from the "client". The burden of proof shifted to them, and they put nothing on the record to show that there was actually a distinct client. (Note that they wouldn't have need to testify to submit documents, so remaining silent doesn't excuse the lack of paper trail.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appeal after appeal after appeal.
Seed in enough "evidence" that can be questioned as much as the JFK assassination, and these cases will carry on long past the lifetime of many of the Judges who might hear it.
And meanwhile, all of the money they got slowly dwindles away. We don't have debtors prisons anymore so them not being able to pay landing them in jail would be argued even further.
I am still curious, if we have a lawyer in the house (I know we do), there is caselaw I am aware of that allows people owed debts to seek to take real property when the person/entity refuses to pay up. How much time does it take to finally hit that point? Also can they then move for discovery to find assets and holdings that might have had ownership transferred in an attempt ot become judgement proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flip-flop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flip-flop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]