Prenda Lawyer Claims Judge 'Abhors' Copyright Holders After Judge Becomes Curious About Who Alan Cooper Really Is

from the discovery dept

We've been covering the bizarre situation surrounding some of copyright troll Prenda Law's cases that involve two companies -- AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 -- where a mysterious person named "Alan Cooper" was listed as CEO. That, alone, isn't so mysterious. But what made it odd was that a guy who took care of one of John Steele's homes reached out to some of the courts hearing cases involving those two companies to note that his name is Alan Cooper, and he had reason to believe that Prenda had used his name illegally as the pretend CEO of these companies. A lawyer in California fighting some of these Prenda / Ingenuity 13 cases, Morgan Pietz, called this to the attention of the court. In response, Prenda's California lawyer, Brett Gibbs, threw a bit of a hissy fit in which he refused to answer some simple questions concerning who actually runs Ingenuity 13, and who "Alan Cooper" really is. Gibbs then sought sanctions against Pietz, which were quickly rejected (pdf) by Judge Otis Wright.

Pietz then asked the court to basically put the case on hold and to order Gibbs / Prenda to respond to his questions concerning AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13:

This motion is made on the ground that "good cause" exists to authorize the limited discovery requested, per Rule 26(d)(1), because, very recently, deeply troubling factual allegations have been made which suggest the plaintiff is engaged in a widespread and systemic fraud on the Courts affecting thousands of ISP subscribers. Specifically, very troubling questions have been raised as to whether Prenda Law, Inc., has misappropriated the identity of one Mr. Alan Cooper of Minnesota, holding him out in federal court filings as the principal of plaintiff Ingenuity 13, a shell entity organized in St. Kitts and Nevis, without Mr. Cooper's knowledge or consent. For weeks, undersigned counsel, and others, have sought answers from Prenda Law, Inc. and its clients AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC, to try and put these concerns to rest. None of the answers proffered to date have been at all reassuring; to the extent Prenda has engaged on the issue at all, the only answers provided have been evasive to a degree that is almost comical.

The filing goes on to point out that Prenda could have avoided all of this by simply producing the Alan Cooper in question and showing that it's not John Steele's housekeeper.

If Prenda Law would simply identify the "Alan Cooper" who it claims is the true principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC and AF Holdings, LLC, or even confirm that such a person actually exists (notwithstanding the allegations of Alan Cooper of Minnesota), this ex parte application would not be necessary. Essentially, whether or not there is another Alan Cooper is the million-dollar question. However, Prenda Law has explicitly stated that it will not address any of the troubling factual circumstances raised by Mr. Cooper, or answer any questions on this topic, unless it is compelled to do so.

Courts don't often grant this kind of thing... but this time it did. Right after Christmas the judge granted the order in full, meaning that Gibbs and Prenda are now required to answer the following questions:

1. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no?
2. If the answer to the first interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number.
3. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no?
4. If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
5. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no?
6. If the answer to the fifth interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number.
7. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no?
8. If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
9. If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at Ingenuity 13, LLC and the dates such position was held.
10. If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at AF Holdings, LLC and the dates such position was held.
11. Eleventh Special Interrogatory: Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of Ingenuity 13, LLC?
12. Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of AF Holdings, LLC?
13. On November 26, 2012, when undersigned counsel emailed Brett Gibbs to ask for a routine extension request, Mr. Gibbs responded by email “I would have to check with our client about that request. Just an FYI, our client usually does not like to grant these types of requests on short notice unless there is a reasonable chance that settlement may occur in the case.” Later, Mr. Gibbs purported to have an answer on his query to the “client” regarding an extension. Who is the client contact at Ingenuity 13, LLC that Mr. Gibbs spoke with on this matter? Note, no details of the communication are being requested, just the name of the client contact.
14. Reference is made to the following civil actions filed by AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC in the Northern District of California: 4:2012-cv-02049-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02393-CRB; 5:2012-cv-02394-LHK; 3:2012-cv-02396-EMC; 3:2012-cv-02404-SC; 4:2012-cv-02411-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02415-CRB; 4:2012-cv-03248-PJH; 3:2012-cv-04218-WHA; 5:2012-cv-04219-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04446-EJD; 5:2012-cv-04447-RMW; 5:2012-cv-04448-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04982-CRB; 3:2012-cv-04216-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04217-RS; 5:2012-cv-04445-LHK; 3:2012-cv-04449-SC; 3:2012-cv-04450-MMC; 3:2012-cv-04976-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04977-WHA; 4:2012-cv-04978-PJH; 5:2012-cv-04979-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04980-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04981-RS. With respect to the copyright assignments attached to the complaints in these actions, as Exhibit B thereto, which all appear to have a similar signature by "Alan Cooper," please state whether the person who signed these assignments was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread — yes or no?
15. If the answer to the fourteenth interrogatory is no, then state all contact information for the person that did sign these documents, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.

The order also requires them to produce identification documents for the people identified in the questions above, along with proof of their employment at the companies in question. Oh yeah, and also to produce the "signature" of Alan Cooper on documentation which Gibbs had claimed (in earlier court documents) that he had seen on various other court documents.

Given that the judge has, in short order, denied Gibbs' request for sanctions while granting Pietz's request for such discovery, it would appear that the judge isn't buying Prenda's story and is at least curious as to whether or not Prenda can turn up an actual Alan Cooper who is not John Steele's housekeeper. It appears that Prenda has until January 10th to produce the information. Of course, instead of doing that, Prenda appears to be throwing the judicial equivalent of a shit fit.

On New Year's Eve, Gibbs filed one of the more extraordinary motions you'll see, arguing that Judge Wright, in merely asking Gibbs to answer who the CEO is of Ingenuity 13, is impossibly biased against copyright holders and should be removed from the case. I am not joking.

The story Plaintiff now sets forth is rather simple: Honorable Judge Otis D. Wright, II simply abhors plaintiffs who attempt to assert their rights with respect to online infringement of pornography copyrights. Honorable Judge Wright’s abhorrence of such assertions of right under the Copyright Act has risen to a level such that a neutral observer would have reasonable grounds to question Honorable Judge Wright’s impartiality. Indeed, in light of Honorable Judge Wright’s conduct, Plaintiff contends that it would be impossible to convince a neutral observer that Honorable Judge Wright regards this particular type of case impartially.

What follows is a rather ridiculous diatribe, in which Gibbs argues that somehow Judge Wright has it in for companies like the ones he represents, because they dare to enforce their copyrights. He points to an earlier ruling from Judge Wright in a Malibu Media case in which the judge is clearly aware of how copyright trolling works, and says it's somehow unfair for the judge to actually call these companies out on the fact that they're using the court system as part of a business model, rather than for a legitimate judicial purpose. More importantly, he never points out why this absolves him from having to identify just who is Alan Cooper, and whether or not Prenda lied to the court about Alan Cooper and the various companies he's associated with. Of course, nowhere does the evidence show that Judge Wright is biased against copyright holders -- merely concerned that those who are engaged in copyright trolling have a legitimate purpose for what they're doing. His actions, to date, have all revolved around requiring such companies to prove that they're not just in the legal shakedown business -- but rather than do that, Gibbs is throwing a temper tantrum. Crazy.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, copyright, discovery, john steele, morgan pietz, otis wright
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Copyright Troll Prenda Law Dances Around The Simple Question: Which Alan Cooper Runs AF Holdings?

from the still-waiting... dept

Well, well. The saga of copyright troll Prenda Law continues, getting more and more ridiculous by the day. First there was the comedy routine in a Florida courtroom, where Prenda denied representing the client, while at the same time effectively controlling the case by hiring the lawyers, and where John Steele (who clearly is connected to Prenda) just happened to show up in the courtroom. Then there's the Alan Cooper saga, where a caretaker of one of John Steele's properties in Minnesota began to worry that Steele was engaged in identity theft, and had falsely named him as the CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity13, two companies involved in Prenda copyright trolling cases.

A California lawyer, Morgan Pietz, who is apparently representing clients sued by AF Holdings and Ingenuity13, thought all of this was interesting enough that he alerted the courts hearing the related cases to both situations, which apparently set off Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs (also named as the guy who "hired" one of the lawyers in that Florida, despite Prenda denying any involvement in the case). The key question asked by Pietz: is the Alan Cooper associated with AF Holdings and Ingenuity13 the same Alan Cooper taking care of John Steele's property? Or are they different. There is, of course, an easy way out for Prenda if the Alan Coopers are different: just say they're different and show some evidence.

Instead... we get something else. First, a rambling and confusing filing from Gibbs in which he never addresses that simple question, but lashes out at everyone. He attacks the charges from Alan Cooper that his name and identity are being used against his will, not by saying that they are different Alan Coopers, but just by saying that Pietz "failed to perform a basic investigation to determine if the allegations contained in the letter are true." Gibbs does say they are false, but still provides absolutely no information on Alan Cooper, instead relying on the fact that a single court has said that it will take no action on Cooper's letter. Also, Gibbs accuses Pietz of attempting to "defame" AF Holdings with the Florida transcript, though I'm curious how attaching an actual transcript from a court case counts as defamation.

Pietz then filed a supplement to his original filing which responds to Gibbs' filing, noting that it "does not provide a single substantive fact designed to assuage any of these very troubling concerns. Rather, Plaintiff's opposition attacks the evidentiary foundation for Mr. Cooper's assertions, plus ad hominem attacks on the undersigned, an on Mr. Cooper's attorney, without responding substantively to any of the deeply troubling issues raised by Mr. Cooper." Furthermore, Pietz submits an email exchange with Gibbs which gets even more ridiculous.

Pietz asks Gibbs to answer these simple questions, and Gibbs refuses is an increasingly agitated manner. Eventually, they had a brief phone call, though the two differ entirely on the nature of that call. It does seem clear that Gibbs hung up on Pietz, though both accuse the other of unprofessional activities. Pietz insists that the claims that he yelled or cursed during the call are simply and totally false. However, it does appear clear from both accounts that Gibbs simply refuses to answer two simple questions: (1) What is the name of the client that Gibbs speaks to at AF Holdings and (2) can he provide Alan Cooper's signature, which Gibbs' "confirms" was appended to one of the exhibits filed in the case. Considering that the filing states the following, directly after an electronic claim that Alan Cooper signed the form (it's typical for lawyers to note "/s/" in electronic documents for where a physical copy was signed).

I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(f) that counsel for Plaintiff has signed original notarized version of the above Verified Petition

So, Pietz just wants to see that original signature from Cooper for somewhat obvious reasons, given the concerns listed above. And yet, Gibbs not only refuses, but when Pietz asked him directly on the phone about it, Gibbs himself admits that his answer was "I am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." In Gibbs' own email, he displays the way in which he has treated these conversations:

As I told you over the phone, when you asked "Is there another Alan Cooper?", I said "I am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." If your question had been framed more pointedly, and not so vague, maybe I could have provided you with a specific answer.

That's the kind of statement made by someone who thinks they're brilliant -- but isn't. All it serves to do is make lots of people aware of this. Parsing words when the clear intent of the question is obvious doesn't make you look intelligent. It just makes you look like you're avoiding the question because you don't want to answer. Similarly, Gibbs' insistence that he didn't hang up on Pietz seems equally dubious by his own explanation:

Mr. Morgan, I did not hang up on you. I take offense to your purposefully twisted version of things. At the end of our conversation, I said that "it was nice speaking with, I had other things to do and good bye" [paraphrasing]. That is not "hanging up" on someone, that is called ending a phone conversation (with respect, I might add).

Again... all of this dancing and parsing could be solved quite simply: by Gibbs or Steele or anyone actually showing that the Alan Cooper who is supposedly in charge of these holding companies isn't the Alan Cooper managing a Steele property in Minnesota. If that were the case, you'd think it would be quite simple for this to be proven. The fact that they're avoiding it only suggests that the most obvious possibility is the true story. As these stories advance, you get the feeling that this situation is going to end up being even more ridiculous than Righthaven by the time it's all over.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, john steele, mogran pietz
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity13, prenda law

John Steele's Property Caretaker Intervenes In Copyright Trolling Case, Alleging Identity Theft

from the prenda-law-comedy dept

Remember the comedy routine that really was a copyright troll court hearing involving notorious copyright troll lawyer John Steele and a bunch of lawyers who all denied representing the plaintiff? We hoped that people would take that transcript and turn it into a movie, and now, apparently, we may have Act II. Ars Technica and Fight Copyright Trolls both have the odd story of a man named Alan Cooper, who just happens to be employed by John Steele... but as a "caretaker" for some property Steele owns in Minnesota. And, well, I'll let his lawyer explain the details:

My client had for several years acted as a caretaker for a Minnesota property owned by an attorney by the name of John Steele. When visiting his property, Steele had on numerous occasions bragged to my client about a plan involving massive copyright legislation in multiple jurisdictions. He also specifically instructed my client to contact him if anyone asked about various corporations, that Cooper was to call him. When Cooper confronted Steele about that, Steele told him not to worry about it. Needless to say, my client was suspicious, but did not know what to make of this situation. Upon learning about the many lawsuits filed by AF Holdings and learning that AF Holdings has a CEO with an identical name he began to investigate further, eventually prompting him to retain counsel.

[...] When investigating this matter and calling the number listed on the wefightpiracy.com website, I confirmed that Steele is currently "of counsel" with Prenda Law. I called and emailed local counsel, Michael Dugas to give notice of representation and find out if there was in fact a different Alan Cooper with AF Holdings. Within an hour of giving notice to Prenda Law and local counsel of my representation, Steele himself called my client several times in a row and asked if he had been talking to attorneys in Minnesota. Because I had not yet heard from from attorneys Dugas or Steele, I looked for an alternative phone number for attorney Dugas and found a different number than the one that appears on the pleading.... Calling that number, I heard a voicemail message which said "Prenda Law." I again left a message, but have received no response. Because I have no response from Dugas or Steele, and because Steele has contacted my client, my suspicious are now increased.

Today, I receved an email from another attorney at Prenda Law, Paul Duffy, suggesting that their client, AF Holdings, probably would not volunteer information. I reasserted my request to confirm that there was another Alan Cooper at AF Holdings. Shortly before sending this letter, Duffy emailed me again and said that I should not contact his office again.

My client would like certainty that his identify is not being used without his knowledge and against his will as the would be CEO of AF Holdings, LLC or as a manager of Ingenuity13, LLC....

This letter was sent to the court on a few different cases involving these companies. In at least one, the judge apparently didn't think this mattered. After saying that it was "reviewed by the court," the judge also said "the court will take no action on this request." In the other cases, the lawyer for AF Holdings, Michael Dugas wrote a response which does not attempt to clarify the situation, but instead basically tells the judge it's false and not to worry about it:

I write to respond to the November 29, 2012 letter filed with the Court by Attorney Paul Godfread. In his letter, Attorney Godfread accuses AF Holdings LLC of being a sham corporation and fraudulently holding his client out as its CEO. Both of these accusations are categorically false.

Attorney Paul Godfread filed an identical letter in a similar case currently pending before the Honorable Judge Joan N. Erickson. In a text entry, the Court indicated it reviewed the letter and “will take no action on [Attorney Godfread’s] request.” Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reach similar decision. By way of separate action, Plaintiff will address Attorney Godfread’s egregious behavior.

Note that the letter leaves out the important part. You know, the part where they say that the "Alan Cooper" on these documents is a different Alan Cooper. It seems like that would help settle manners, especially if the initial claims were false.

Filed Under: alan cooper, copyright trolls, identity theft, john steele
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity13, prenda law

ISPs Ask Judge To Reconsider Order Allowing Copyright Trolling To Move Forward

from the time-to-reconsider dept

There have been a bunch of rulings in a variety of district courts around the country rejecting a variety of ways in which copyright trolling operations have been seeking to use the judicial system as a part of their business model -- not to actually take anyone to court, but merely to (a) identify people they can threaten and (b) threaten them with the possibility of a lawsuit if they don't pay up. Thankfully, an increasing number of judges have been calling the trolls out on this, and saying they won't be a part of this. Usually this comes in the form of rejecting a request for expedited discovery (which would allow the trolls to subpoena subscriber info from ISPs) or arguing that lumping together so many users into a single case was improper.

However, there has been one major exception to these rejections: the case in the DC district court by Judge Beryl Howell... who just happens to have been a former RIAA lobbyist, who only recently left that job to take a seat on the bench. The Howell ruling is regularly cited by trolls as proof that there's nothing wrong with the way in which they pursue these lawsuits -- ignoring a massive number of rulings that say otherwise.

The ISPs in that original case, though, filed by AF Holdings, represented by Prenda Law (which, you may recall, is connected to John Steele), are asking Judge Howell to reconsider (especially in light of all those other rulings). On top of that, they're saying that if she won't reconsider, they'd like to take the issue up to the appeals court before proceeding with the rest of the case. That could become important, as it would be the first time an appeals court weighs in on this. Some public interest groups, including the ACLU and EFF, have filed an amicus brief as well, asking Judge Howell to change her decision concerning discovery.

The hearing on this is today, and we'll let you know what happens.

Filed Under: aclu, beryl howell, copyright troll, eff, riaa, shakedown
Companies: af holdings