Prenda Actually Wins A Round; Order To Pay Back Settlements Tossed In Minnesota
from the well-that's-unfortunate dept
For months now, we've been covering how Prenda had been losing pretty much every one of its legal fights concerning its fraudulent copyright trolling practices. I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but Team Prenda has bounced back with an actual victory. You may recall that one of the (many) key Prenda cases was taking place in Minnesota, where magistrate judge Franklin Noel, becoming aware of what was happening with Prenda in other courts had reopened a bunch of Prenda (via AF Holdings) cases in Minnesota to explore if Team Prenda had committed fraud upon the court. Noel dug in, demanding actual answers to various questions that Team Prenda had avoided in other cases, eventually ruling against Team Prenda and (importantly) ordering the law firm to pay back all the settlement money it had taken in via those cases.Well, it appears that's all for nothing now. Judge Joan Ericksen has apparently stepped in to put magistrate judge Noel in his place, pointing out that he went way beyond what a magistrate judge is allowed to do and then actually siding with Prenda lawyer Paul Hansmeier in saying that the fact that team Prenda forged Alan Cooper's signatures on the copyright assignment isn't fraud on the court... and, in fact, saying that it basically doesn't matter at all. First, as to a mere magistrate judge sniffing out these problems, judge Ericksen isn't having any of it:
AF Holdings consistently objected to the magistrate judge’s authority to determine whether it had committed a fraud on the Court. The magistrate judge had no such authority. See Reddick v. White, 456 F. App’x 191, 193 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“A motion for sanctions under the district court’s ‘inherent’ power is not a pretrial matter under § 636(B)(1)(a). Magistrate judges have no inherent Article III powers—they have only those powers vested in them by Congress. Congress has not created statutory authorization for magistrate judges to exercise inherent Article III powers.”Furthermore, Ericksen points out that, as a magistrate judge, Noel can't really make an order like he did (which is likely accurate), but instead can just make a recommendation for a "real" judge like Ericksen to review. And Ericksen just doesn't seem concerned about the forgery, lying and other shenanigans from Team Prenda.
Cooper’s signatures were immaterial to the decision that granted AF Holdings expedited discovery.... AF Holdings’ submission of the agreements with Cooper’s signatures—legitimate or not, authorized or not—to evince the transfer of the copyrights to AF Holdings did not amount to a fraud on the Court.It's somewhat disappointing to see a court not all that concerned that an effort that involved forgery is really no big deal, especially when it was about copyright trolling, a practice of abusing the court system to hound people into paying up to avoid having to fight a lawsuit.
That's unfortunate, but given how many other courts have ruled on Prenda's efforts and the multiple referrals to state bars, DOJ and others, I would imagine that this is merely a slight and brief reprieve for Team Prenda.
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, copyright, copyright trolling, franklin noel, joan ericksen, john steele, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So what does count then?
If forging documents and signatures, then used to sue or extort via threats to sue aren't considered 'fraud on the court', I have to wonder just what does reach that insanely high bar?
They presented fraudulent, intentionally fraudulent at that, evidence to the court to get them to do something, if blatant lying like that isn't considered fraud, then I can't imagine what more they could do that would count to a judge like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what does count then?
INPUT: Judge let's Prenda slide on forgery
OUTPUT: Where has Prenda's money gone? Long time passing...
With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what does count then?
At least... Provided you meet the following criteria:
1) You are an Elite, or
2) You are a Corporation, or
3) You are a Lawyer, and
4) You are not just a regular citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what does count then?
No, if you are a regular citizen liar that doesn't get you nailed for perjury either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?
Perjury seems to be for serf VS government official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all for stopping these law firms from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force Prenda to send back monies already collected.
Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legitimately?
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legitimately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lawyers would NEVER knowingly do exactly what Prenda has done time and time again in court after court, so it doesn't matter.
See cause one might think that a sham transfer with a fake name to a corporation might give rise to the idea that the accused never got to face their accuser. This shame document made it difficult for anyone to challenge and facts in the case. How can one investigate when the ownership is hidden? How are we to know there isn't another document in a folder somewhere where 'Alan Cooper' sold off the copyrights to someone else and they kept suing while not owning the rights to do such.
Must protect the legal system... even at the expense of the people it victimized. Which is why it is nice that even with all of the other details now known about this, the victims if they wanted to try and sue to get back their money now can't bother to argue that the case was a shame because fraudulent documents don't matter in that district.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless how they got the judgements is via fraud on the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swap a few words and re-read
'While the courts can put a stop to a [scam artist's] ['settlement'] letters going forward, forcing the [scam artist] to pay back that ['settlement'] money that had already been paid to [them] was a step over the lines.
I'm all for stopping these [scam artists] from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force [scam artists] to send back monies already collected.'
"Well I'm terribly sorry the plaintiff managed to scam you out of your life savings using fraudulent legal threats, but since he's got the money now, I'm afraid you're out of luck, all I can do is tell him in a stern voice not to get caught doing it again."
That seem like a fair thing to you? It may or may not be legal, I couldn't say for sure either way, but allowing someone to keep the money they conned/threatened/extorted out of their victims certainly doesn't seem to me like how things should go, unless the punishments they suffer are extensive enough to make them lose at least as much as they managed to con out of people, so at the very least they aren't coming out of it with a net gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.
Except the ruling is not about that at all. It was just about whether or not there was fraud on the court. So your analysis makes no sense.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking a scoop off Bullshit Mountain...
I'm all for a few corrections, but the big questions upon the court are not being answered and from what's been said, it's just a little bit off the top of all of the problems of Prenda.
I can't help but think that Prenda is breathing a sigh of relief right as they fall over the edge into the volcano.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emboldened by today's Erickson's ruling, Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy paid their debt in full... in cash... in 70 dollar bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have neither respect nor faith in either the legal or political system in this country anymore. I'd probably move if it weren't for the fact all the countries I might consider moving to didn't kowtow to the US at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Affluenza is a real disease and it seems to be communicable. Recent theories suggest that the debilitating disease is transmitted from person to person via money. The more money you have, the more likely you are to contract the disease.
Scientists at the Center for Disease Control are working closely with members of Congress in order to better understand the epidemic and develop a cure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albeit it is a case law reference, it is, IMO, still insulting to use the term “infringer” affirmatively, while no determination on the merits against defendants has been made, neither as a judgment, nor a jury verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, where was the fraud?
Just because Prenda Law is misleading the courts regarding their appearances and testimony doesn't mean it has anything to do with the monies they received.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all, there was good evidence that Prenda themselves(Steele in particular if memory serves) had posted the files in question, so that people would download them and they could then turn around and threaten to sue those that did so.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/02204423292/new-anti-prenda-court-filing-lays-out-tons -evidence-suggesting-john-steele-uploaded-videos-to-bittorrent-himself.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/ articles/20130815/12351224190/comcast-confirms-that-steele-hansmeier-controlled-ip-address-used-to-s eed-content.shtml
So, strike one.
Second, all they were basing their lawsuits and threats of lawsuits on were IP addresses, which numerous courts have found to not be enough to positively identify someone. Add to that, the 'program' they used to gather the IP addresses was, again if memory serves, one run by a friend of Prenda, and one that they refused to let anyone check for accuracy.
Strike two.
Finally, just because someone paid, does in no way mean they were guilty. If presented with the choice of coughing up a few hundred, or even thousand dollars, or going to court, with the massive costs of time, money, and effort that involves even if you win, a lot of people are going to chose #1, even if they are completely innocent and know it.
Furthermore, by suing over porn titles, people are given yet another reason to just pay rather than go to court, as even if they are completely innocent, they'll still be on record as accused of downloading porn(with some very... 'creative' titles I believe), something many people would be more than 'happy' to pay to avoid.
Strike three, that argument's out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I'm rather sure I remember that part.
They got caught.
Honey pots will do that.
Then they received a settlement letter.
As part of the scheme.
They paid the small settlement.
And somehow that makes the whole process 'not a fraud'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You missed that their 'neverwrong' system "caught" at least 1 woman who did nothing wrong... and only after the media started asking questions they magically corrected that error after hounding her day and night to pay them for a 'crime' she didn't commit.
You missed the flat out lies in their settlement letters, misrepresenting the law to ratchet up the pressure. One might question how an officer of the court is allowed to LIE about the law.
Didn't you hear? They claim they got NO MONEY. They all worked for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, where is the fraud you ask .. if you refuse to look for something, it is likely that you will not find it.
Just because someone is a bad actor doesn't mean they deserve scrutiny, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TAC (That Anonymous Coward - the guy with the Guy Fawkes mask as an icon) was one of the Does unfairly targeted - based on IP address alone. That's all they had on him. I believe him when he says he didn't do it. Don't you?
The only evidence to the contrary is an IP address. That's not proof of anything other than the presence of an internet connection. Have you ever tried to track down an individual via their IP address. Go on, try. Let us know how you get on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
University of Minnesota
Minnesota around the same time. I wonder if they know each other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: University of Minnesota
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't good for Prenda
Why?
Because if that happens, then everyone watching will probably be satisfied that some semblance of justice has been done and that they've been punished sufficiently for their many, MANY crimes.
And if it doesn't?
I suspect that by and by, anonymous will take an interest. As you might have noticed, they tend to react eventually and inevitably to injustice. And I would really, really not want to be any of the Prenda principals if and when anonymous decided to turn its attention their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Slight change needed there, Prenda's actions had nothing to do with 'enforcing copyright', that was just the legal fiction they spun to justify their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*Green smoke billows at the front and nearby, a shoe pokes out from behind a twitching curtain*
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Copyright the Great and Terrible has spoken!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't be any more disappointing than a judge overstepping his or her bounds of power and due process thus giving scum like Prenda/AF Holdings a leg up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she is behaving like a certain judge who has sat on copyright trials after being a copyright industry employee, got a touch of bias from somewhere!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
women and power....
Human nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: women and power....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: women and power....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a half logical world, Team Prenda would be jailed. But not in the mighty US of A, no siree. There, they get paid to keep going. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darn! There goes their perfect record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous
Looks that way to me.
www.popehat.com is showing an Anonymous banner with the window title of "You've been hacked by Anonymous" and all sub-pages are returning 404 errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]