Google Releases Latest Transparency Report On Gov't Censorship Requests, As Verizon Finally Agrees To Release A Transparency Report

Yet Another Court Not Happy With A Prenda Lawyer

Legal Issues

from the order-to-show-cause dept

Thu, Dec 19th 2013 4:27pm — Mike Masnick

It's been, what, a week or two since we had a story about a judge somewhere being pissed off at Prenda/AF Holdings? You may recall that, over in Georgia there was one of the many AF Holdings/Prenda cases that was a bit more bizarre (if you can believe it) than the others. That is, in part, because rather than having the usual Paul Duffy/Paul Hansmeier/John Steele triumvirate doing the laughably bad lawyering, you had something... worse. Back in the early days, Team Prenda would hire local lawyers to represent them, and down in Georgia they found themselves with quite a peach in Jacques Nazaire, a lawyer who advertised his willingness to pop into court on your behalf via Craigslist, matching the sort of "go get 'em" attitude that Team Prenda seemed to appreciate.

This was yet another case where when the going got tough, AF Holdings/Prenda tried to turn tail and run by dismissing the case, but the defendant, in this case a guy named Rajesh Patel, fought back and sought sanctions from AF Holdings for the bogus lawsuit it had initially filed -- and the whole "forged" copyright assignment by Alan Cooper. Nazaire turned the whole thing into an ongoing circus. Soon after the fight over sanctions began in this case, Judge Wright in California famously issued his big ruling, calling out Team Prenda and AF Holdings for a variety of misdeeds. Patel's lawyer, Blair Chintella, sought to add that ruling to the record, leading Nazaire to bizarrely argue that the Judge in this case should ignore that California ruling because California recognizes gay marriage. Later, he tried again with a bizarre and nonsensical claim about hackers being after him. Then, he sought to file all future documents under seal because some of you people in our comments (yup, Techdirt comments were filed as a part of the case) said mean stuff about him and that was mean.

Throughout all of this, Chintella kept seeking additional evidence via discovery -- which Nazaire repeatedly appeared to ignore completely, or file nonsensical arguments why he wasn't going to comply. Elsewhere, though, Chintella was able to dig up a a series of recordings from GoDaddy customer service in which the same individual identified himself as John Steele, Alan Cooper and Mark Lutz in different calls. He also got Comcast to reveal that a key IP address that was presented in another case as being the IP address that uploaded the content in question, directly belonged to John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, further confirming that they were uploading their own works to file sharing sites (calling even further into question the legality of what they were doing with Prenda).

Oh, and Chintella sought to depose Mark Lutz, the purported head of AF Holdings, who simply didn't show up -- the start of a now repeating pattern of Lutz disappearing rather than showing up when required to by a court.

Still with documents flying back and forth, the judge eventually angrily told both sides to shut the hell up and to stop filing anything.

Having completed the other business he was working on, Judge William O'Kelley of the district court in Northern Georgia, has finally ruled in this case and he's still not at all pleased. He's clearly angry with both lawyers, but the majority of his anger is directed at Nazaire, whom he repeatedly upbraids for a variety of problematic actions. The end result is that he's clearly threatening sanctions, potentially against both lawyers, and will hold a hearing in which both lawyers will need to show cause why they should not be subject to such sanctions. But that's not all. He has also ordered Nazaire to produce the original copyright assignment allegedly signed by Alan Cooper, which is at the heart of this matter. O'Kelley does not appear at all interested in hearing any excuse for not showing up with the original. Among a variety of things he orders to happen for the hearing, the one bit he italicizes is the following:

Specifically, plaintiff must produce the original assignment agreement for inspection.

Note the "must" in there. Somehow, I doubt that he's going to be satisfied.

The Judge is clearly unhappy about Mark Lutz not showing up, and finds Nazaire's excuses to be ridiculous:

Plaintiff’s excuses for Lutz’s failure to attend the deposition are beyond frivolous. Plaintiff’s “justification” for the failure of plaintiff’s managing member to attend his deposition is that Lutz “has been deposed before,” which plaintiff considers sufficient to conclude that “the defense wants Mr. Lutz to fly to Georgia by his own expense for the sole purpose of being humiliated.” ... (“Mr. Lutz has every reason not to appear at a deposition which may also be attend [sic] by individuals who follow a website named dietrolldie and which has identified him as a troll as well.”) (emphasis in original)). However, Lutz was never deposed in this case. The fact that this would not have been Lutz’s first deposition on his relationship to AF Holdings is irrelevant. The fact that there are individuals on the internet adverse to plaintiff’s litigation strategy is irrelevant. However, the court’s ability to address blatant and willful discovery violations is very relevant.

The court finds that Lutz failed to attend a properly noticed deposition and that Lutz’s failure to attend was not justified. Rather than provide any meaningful explanation for Lutz’s failure, plaintiff offered bizarre tangents about how “any new deposition of Mr. Lutz or any interrogatories or any production responses will be sought solely for the purpose of providing a good laugh for” several websites.

He further notes that the law requires him to impose attorneys' fees in this situation, though he'll figure out how much after the show cause hearing. Of course, I'm wondering if Mark Lutz will ever make a reappearance. As we noted recently, while his signature showed up on a recent document, he still hasn't explained another one of his mysterious disappearances, which Team Prenda insisted he would explain.

While Judge O'Kelley makes it clear he's not interested in rehearing stories of Prenda/AF Holdings' actions elsewhere, he's solely focused on misconduct in this case, and he certainly suggests there's been a fair amount of that. Beyond calling out Nazaire for arguments that are "legally frivolous and generally incomprehensible," as well as "nothing more than disjointed assertions that are completely immaterial to the case," the judge has a long list of things he's concerned about and wants to hear Nazaire try to explain:

Nazaire's failure to properly disclose everyone who had a financial interest in the matter
Nazaire's potential failure to properly list all of the lawyers working on the case (earlier, the judge highlights that when Nazaire filed the complaint, he appeared to use Brett Gibbs' email and phone number.)
Nazaire's "failing to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing this case."
And also "whether Nazaire facilitated vexatious and frivolous litigation by maintaining a meritless suit, filing frivolous and unwarranted motions, and making frivolous and unwarranted objections to defendant's discovery requests."

And those are just the issues directed at Nazaire himself. There are separate issues concerning AF Holdings, mainly concerning potential sanctions for a variety of activities, but also whether (as other courts have found) the company committed fraud on the court by filing a case where they had no standing, based on a forged copyright assignment.

The Judge also scolds Chintella for "a lack of familiarity with basic evidentiary and procedural rules" and also asks him to further explain the effort to crowdfund money to hold Lutz's deposition. Nazaire suggests this is sanctionable, and while O'Kelley seems unsure exactly what the problem is, he wants to hear Chintella's defense of this action.

Judge O'Kelley also adds the following "note of caution" which suggests he's not interested in any kinds of games, though given Prenda's history, they seem almost unable to avoid trying to play games. It will be a measure of incredible self-restraint for them to actually abide by the following:

In case this order did not adequately drive the point home earlier, the court is not pleased with how this litigation has progressed. Failure to attend the show cause hearing will not be well received. Failure to attend will result in severe sanctions and may result in referral to the State Bar of Georgia. Failure to directly address the court’s concerns will result in equally severe sanctions.

Notwithstanding this court’s prior order prohibiting the parties from filing additional motions, the parties may file a supplemental brief addressing the court’s concerns to the extent that the supplemental brief provides facts not already present in the record. The parties are strongly encouraged to bring any relevant evidence to the show cause hearing. Specifically, plaintiff must produce the original assignment agreement for inspection. If a party wishes to present testimony that it deems critical to its case, the party should be prepared to solicit that testimony through a live witness. The parties are on notice that they may not use affidavits as a means to circumvent cross examination.

Can't wait to see how that hearing turns out.

192452161 Patel Order (PDF)192452161 Patel Order (Text)

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: blair chintella, jacques nazaire, john steele, mark lutz, paul hansmeier, rajesh patel, william o'kelley
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 19 Dec 2013 @ 4:40pm

"a week or two since?" -- Yeah, nowhere near long enough.
Since the only comments at the moment on your last two pieces are me, you ought to humor me and drop this Prenda crap. The now tenuous connection of bad actor Prenda to your war on all copyright isn't enough to sustain these tedious pieces.
ZOMG! Yet another item on Prenda Law! A staple in the soporific "At The Bench" series. Mike sez (short version): "Wow. Wow. Wow. ... The story is gripping."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/23353022182/prenda-law-sues-critics-defamation.s html

12:39:53[n-522-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: "a week or two since?" -- Yeah, nowhere near long enough.
  Ya know, you're not the only one who reads this site. There are others. Get over yourself, you self-centered jackass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 4:58pm

out_of_the_blue and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raul, 19 Dec 2013 @ 5:16pm

"....may not use affidavits as a means to circumvent cross examination." This judge is obviously savvy to previous Prenda Hijinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oralia, 19 Dec 2013 @ 5:16pm

Typo? - but the majority of his anger is directed at Patel,- I think you mean Nazaie? Or maybe not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re:
  Oops. You're right. It's Nazaire. Fixed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 19 Dec 2013 @ 6:37pm

ouch
I wonder if Prenda will be bringing in the heavy equipment to try to dig through that concrete the Judge poured in that hole they've been digging in Georgia?

Even the Judge can see the bottom is in danger of falling out from under them...

Also, if they find a way to keep digging, I see the Devil making another trip down to Georgia... I doubt that one will be about fiddles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: ouch
  The devil went down to Georgia
  He was looking for a soul to steal
  Hired this guy, Nazaire
  Who started a lawsuit there
  
  The defendant said my names Rajesh and it ain't no sin
  To watch some porn right here, in my den
  This frivolous crap I take head on
  Trump your infringement for massive misconduct
  
  Judge William O'Kelley, referee of this battle
  Is starting to agree
  That massive misconduct is what he sees
  Demands to see the documents that might be fake
  Pissed off at Prenda, might burn them on stakes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew Norton (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re: ouch
    Actually, good rhyme, but slightly off.
    
    Patel owns two gas stations, which have wifi. the alleged actions took place on one of those IIRC. (its been ~9 months. Was in the motion to set aside the default)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 6:42pm

And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
Nazaire/Prenda accuse the judge of bias or some other ridiculous charge, attempt to get him removed from the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew Norton (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 7:09pm
  
  Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
  That will take some balls.
  Judge O'Kelley's held his judgeship since 1970 (appointed by Nixon) and was Chief Justice until he retired (and took senior status) in 96.
  
  I don't think that would wash. I think he's actually one of the longest serving federal judges (I think 3 longest currently, and 15th overall)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 7:16pm
    
    Re: Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
    Who needs balls when you have stupidity on your side?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Deranged Poster (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
      That need to be on a shirt & sold
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
    It would hardly be the first time they've tried it, I believe at least two judges, Wright and another judge who's name escapes me at the moment, have been accused of bias in an attempt to get them kicked off the case after making a ruling/order Prenda didn't care for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 8:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
      Judge Noel in Minnesota.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
    So, what your saying is that attempt will basically go down like this:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: And of course Prenda's by-the-checklist response:
  If they follow the secret ritual, it should be done on the New Year eve.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon E. Mous (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 8:03pm

If you think about it, Lutz won't appear, and Steele and Crooks can say that Lutz was in possession of it and John scoured every dive bar, card board box and gutter and still couldnt find Lutz to help make sure Lutz got to this hearing.

If they don't try something like this, I would be surprised unless Steele goes to give some of his whimsical testimony as to how he witnessed the agreement being signed.

Hmm now that I think about it, isn't this agreement signed by Alan Cooper? So didn't Steele say before that Lutz had signed it on Coopers behalf in the case that was before Judge Chen in N. Calif?

I could have swore something like that occurred, of course the Prenda gang could always have Duffy appear and do some of his brilliant court room maneuvers to try and sweet talk the Judge into why he is all upside down on this.

Should be interesting...Here Rico...Here boy! Dinner time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lurker Keith, 19 Dec 2013 @ 8:21pm
  
  Re:
  EVERYTHING you just said lands Prenda "severe sanctions". ^-^
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 9:16pm
  
  Re:
  Them saying "Lutz has it, he couldn't make it here. We'll get back to you with an explanation of why he couldn't after we get in touch with him" would at this point either generate severe sanctions, or generate a bench warrant for Lutz. Neither of which would be good for Prenda.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 9:13pm

also asks him to further explain the effort to crowdfund money to hold Lutz's deposition. Nazaire suggests this is sanctionable, and while O'Kelley seems unsure exactly what the problem is, he wants to hear Chintella's defense of this action

You'd think it'd be considered little different than the standard "send money to defense fund" things that will crop up for other cases. The only real difference being that they were offering to fund a specific portion of the defense, rather than the defense in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 9:47pm

Read the ruling
When this is the very first sentence of the ruling:
Having found itself litigating against a more formidable adversary than an empty chair, plaintiff turned to unfounded accusations and wholesale obfuscation.

...you know it's going to be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 10:18pm
  
  Re: Read the ruling
  And here I didn't bother to read it because I figured it would be boring legalese...
  
  Well, I'll give Prenda this, they do seem to bring out the best and most hilarious in judges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 10:59pm
  
  Other gems include:
  'The notice of objection is legally frivolous and generally incomprehensible.' (Take a guess who's objection that's talking about)
  
  'Plaintiff spends several pages opining on professional rules and the events in this case with no discernible logic or purpose'.
  
  'Plaintiff's response is so vacuous it barely constitutes a response.'
  
  'The fact that this would not have been Lutz's first deposition on his relationship to AF Holdings is irrelevant. The fact that there are individuals on the internet adverse to plaintiff's litigation strategy is irrelevant. However, the court's ability to address blatant and willful discovery violations is very relevant.'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 10:02pm

What burden of proof (if any) does the judge need to issue sanctions?
Let's say that at the hearing Prenda says "we searched high and low for Lutz, but it's like he disappeared off the face of the Earth". Would the judge need to have some evidence that they're lying, or would "c'mon, that's ridiculous" (translated into legalese) be sufficient for the judge to issue sanctions? Further, lets say that they brought in documentation of their efforts to find Lutz (signed affidavits from neighbors saying they haven't seen him for weeks, a signed affidavit from his landlord that he suddenly stopped paying his rent, etc). Would the judge have to take that at face value and refrain from issuing sanctions on that particular issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:05am
  
  Re: What burden of proof (if any) does the judge need to issue sanctions?
  The judge has said he wants witnesses, not affidavits, so they would have to produce the neighbour and landlord in court where they can answer questions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: What burden of proof (if any) does the judge need to issue sanctions?
  Let's say that at the hearing Prenda says "we searched high and low for Lutz, but it's like he disappeared off the face of the Earth".
  Prenda is more likely to say something like: "we searched high and low for Lutz, but it's like he disappeared off the face of the Internet".
  
  lets say that they brought in documentation of their efforts to find Lutz ( [...] a signed affidavit from his landlord that he suddenly stopped paying his rent, etc).
  More like: a signed affidavit from his ISP that he suddenly stopped paying his bill.
  
  C'mon man, something more than an online search would like totally require actual effort dude.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 10:56pm

Does Mark Lutz even exist?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this "Mark Lutz" character is complete fiction. Has he ever appeared at any hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re: Does Mark Lutz even exist?
  Yes, he has shown up in court a few times, though his appearance has generally not been to Prenda's benefit, and for the most part he was simply acting as Steele's puppet, just saying what he was told to say.
  
  The following covers what could be Lutz's finest hour in a court-room(or an audition for a comedy sketch in the worst possible place, take your pick):
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121130/17100821190/copyright-troll-case-tossed-fraud-court- after-abbott-costello-worthy-hearing.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: Does Mark Lutz even exist?
    Having shown up only a very small number of times and only saying something scripted by another person could actually be interpreted to mean that perhaps Lutz does not exist.
    
    I'm not saying this is the case, but wouldn't it be funny. I'm sure various courts would find it amusing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Does Mark Lutz even exist?
      Hmm, you could be on to something...
      
      Did anyone check to see if there have been any strange 'strings' attached to the clothes Lutz was wearing when he showed up in court, looked over to see if maybe Steele's mouth was slightly open any time Lutz was 'speaking'...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 12:28am

"The fact that there are individuals on the internet adverse to plaintiff�s litigation strategy is irrelevant."

Why is the phrase "on the internet" there? There are plenty of individuals adverse to plaintiff, and they use the internet to express that, but I'm sure they have reside in houses and work in offices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 12:37am

Aww poor J-Nizzle...
I think I said it before, and I will say it again...
You aren't very bright are you.

I feel for Blair, I think he let emotions win the day a couple times. I think everyone faced with the insanity coming out of the temple of Pretenda walks a tight edge of sanity and tries to keep it together.

I look forward to what comes out of GAND, my smiling avatar in more court docs entertains the hell out of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew Norton (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  It was a kinda emotional day. I had major butterflies in my stomach and I barely said a word the entire hearing. Also the computer Blair was using to display documents to the court was running Ubuntu, not Windows, so he was flustered by the switch as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BSD32x (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  Can someone clear up for me what exactly Chintella did to deserve possible sanctions? I'm somewhat new to this story but unless it was just some kind of procedural error it seems crazy to me a judge would sanction the defense counsel here unless he said/did something completely out of line considering he's dealing with Prenda here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MM_Dandy (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As far as I can tell, the only thing for which Chintella is facing sanctions is for crowdfunding Lutz's deposition. It looks like Nazaire's argument is pretty weak here, so Chintella has a pretty good chance of actually avoiding sanctions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew Norton (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There are potentials for effectively acting otherwise than in the best interests of the client when a layer accepts money from a third party. Thus the referenced rules make it clear that such things are to be done with the clients informed consent, and with the people funding being unable to direct the litigation, or obtaining information that's privileged.
    
    Not going to be too hard to prove there were no professional standards violations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BSD32x (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 2:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for clearing that up, I've heard of people taking up collections for defense funds before so it seemed odd to me that something about crowd sourcing made it inherently different.
      
      I think an interesting question going forward will be whether this scares off other attorneys from crowd sourcing, I really hope not given that these suits have expanded into poor performing movies/music/tv/etc and there are bound to be people who would like to support the falsely accused that fight back. IANAL, but I'm guessing that with this judge's seniority and reputation it would be a bad precedent if he issues sanctions based solely on that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IMO Judge is just pissed off at Blair (arguably MUCH less that at Nazaire), so he found an excuse to get at him. Under other circumstances this minor violation (if it is a violation at all) would be met with a blind eye. I hope that 1) Judge will calm down; 2) Blair will be apologetic and humble.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Dec 2013 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think the Judge was also less than impressed with much of the back and forth in the motions. There is so much information out there about Pretenda, and trying to introduce all of it from all of the various sources becomes an overwhelming torrent (heh) of data.
        I think the Judge would have preferred having the data to draw his own conclusions from, rather than having all of this paperwork from other courts and other cases dropped upon him.
        
        It is the drawback to web Pretenda has spun around itself, all of these different threads that are connected but not everyone likes walking into a web.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  J-Nizzle just had the shizzle taken out of his pizzle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 2:27am

The mole people, always entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

horse with no name, 20 Dec 2013 @ 2:30am

Will this post get censored for two weeks? Waiting and seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 3:05am
  
  Re:
  You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:42am
  
  Re:
  No one believes you, Dilbert.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 5:56am
  
  Re:
  Doesn't matter - reported.
  
  Buh-bye.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:58am
  
  Re:
  horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 4:27am

Why are those scumbags still allowed to practice? They should be stripped of their licenses permanently. On top of that the bar should be fined for not doing it a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:33am

I'm concerned
I worry that Lutz is dumped at a Salt Marsh in a Duffy bag with a Steele bar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:55am

Is Lutz a real person? Has anyone ever seen him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:13am
  
  Re:
  He is. Take my word.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  I personally have not seen him, but a couple of sheriffs badly wanting to meet him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry for bad grammar and a bad link. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/07/18/wanted-a-fugitive-named-mark-lutz/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 21 Dec 2013 @ 1:55am

The fact that there are individuals on the internet adverse to plaintiff�s litigation strategy is irrelevant. However, the court�s ability to address blatant and willful discovery violations is very relevant. [emphasis added]

To quote Grandpa Simpson: That's a paddlin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 11:35pm

out_of_the_blue and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dormammu (profile), 12 Jan 2014 @ 7:41pm

Prenda Still Laggjng
http://madisonrecord.com/news/262192-lightspeed-defendants-ask-court-to-hold-prenda-attorneys-in-con tempt-for-not-paying-261k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE MIGHTY DORMAMMU (profile), 15 Jan 2014 @ 9:00pm

Another Prenda Recap
http://legalnewsline.com/issues/class-action/246531-defense-attorneys-say-venue-tactics-mark-another -chapter-in-prenda-saga
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lolz, 18 Jan 2014 @ 1:09pm

Shari Duffy's advice of the day...
Tip of the day..

Be very strategic when making friends, especially in college. Pick ones from different parts of the country and different nationalities and those with large families if possible. Family gatherings where you invite yourself to their homes are always better with a crowd. Always offer to travel with them and encourage your parents to pay for it and use the "I need more culture and experience argument" to get those plane tickets paid for. Lastly, marry men older than you so that you have time to enjoy your friends later in life. Since women outlive men you can look forward to seeing them in your golden years. My best friend is slated to inherit a villa in Spain..so when I am old and grey we can tend to the vineyard and snicker at sunset.

Have a great Weekend!

s. duffy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]