New Filing Presents Evidence That John Steele Uploaded Videos To BitTorrent Himself

from the johnny-boy's-in-trouble dept

If you thought Graham Syfert was done with taking on John Steele and Prenda law with the closing of the Sunlust case in Florida, you'd be wrong. Today he's filed an incredible filing not just hitting back at Prenda in another case, First Time Videos vs. Paul Oppold, and asking for attorney's fees, but also including an affidavit from an actual expert (i.e., not a Prenda-style "forensic" expert) named Delvan Neville, who lays out in astounding detail how it's almost certain that John Steele himself uploaded the various videos to BitTorrent that were then used to sue various defendants for either "hacking" or copyright infringement. Oh, and in doing so, Steele appears to have made some choices that are pretty damning, including suggesting that he set up the file to effectively broadcast that it was free for the taking. In other words, there's an incredibly strong argument that the release of the file on BitTorrent was very authorized.

The work builds on some earlier research that Syfert has put out exploring how many of the Prenda-related films seemed to have been initially offered on The Pirate Bay via the same user: sharkmp4. For all the mocking that people have made concerning Prenda's "forensic" investigations into those they accuse of infringement (i.e., finding an IP address and not much else), Neville shows you how an actual investigation is done. You should read the whole thing for the layers upon layers of evidence that all seem to point the finger at John Steele.

Among other things, sharkmp4 seemed to be able to post these works on The Pirate Bay before the works were even mentioned anywhere else, and in at least one case, "sharkmp4" put a video up on The Pirate Bay three days before Prenda shell company Ingenuity 13 had even filed for the copyright. On top of that, the "forensics" company that Prenda uses -- which is supposedly run by Paul Hansmeier's brother Peter, but which had its domain registered and controlled by (you guessed it) John Steele -- apparently identified "infringements" almost immediately after the videos were placed on The Pirate Bay -- meaning they were likely looking for such infringement in conjunction with the upload.

At the end, however, Neville pulls together really damning evidence, tying together a website set up to distribute Ingenuity 13 porn films with the same exact IP address that was confirmed as being used by John Steele to log into his own GoDaddy account, highlighting how Steele -- or someone with access to his logins -- clearly has full access and control over Ingenuity 13 works. As you read through all of the evidence it appears highly likely that Steele is in control of Ingenuity 13, despite all his protests to the contrary.

As the filing notes:

Prenda Law's business structure is such that it is pirate, forensic pirate hunter, and attorney. It also appears that Prenda Law also wants to/has formed/is forming a corporate structure where it is: pornography producer, copyright holder, pornography pirate, forensic investigator, attorney firm, and debt collector. Other than the omission of appearing in the pornography themselves, this would represent an entire in-house copyright trolling monopoly- not designed to promote their own works for distribution and sale, but to induce infringement of their works and reap profits seen from mass anti-piracy litigation.

It remains to be seen if the court bothers to explore this, but I would imagine that it may be of interest in other Prenda and related cases.

Filed Under: delvan neville, graham syfert, john steele, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, paul oppold
Companies: af holdings, first time videos, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Paul Duffy Does, In Fact, File A Bond To Cover Fees In Prenda Case

from the surprise,-surprise dept

Well, it took a while before it showed up in the court's electronic system, but it appears that Paul Duffy did, in fact, get a bond, for $101,650, to cover the amount that Prenda has been told to pay. As you may recall, the various lawyers associated with Team Prenda tried to file for a stay (first, erroneously by going straight to the appeals court), which Judge Wright rejected, adding $1,000 per day / per person additional fines to the total amount. While Brett Gibbs pleaded poverty, it appears that Duffy was able to get the bond. For the time being, this means that the amount owed won't keep increasing day by day. Duffy appears to have secured the bond back on the 16th of May, but only filed it with the court on the 23rd, three days after the amount was technically due. Of course, in his filing, he still takes cracks at opposing lawyer Morgan Pietz, suggesting that he and Pietz could not agree on the proper amount for the bond. Update: As some have noted, Duffy's bond covers everyone... except for Brett Gibbs. They really threw him under the bus something fierce.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, john steele, morgan pietz, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Gets Some Tiny Bit Of Good News, As It May Get Out Of Two Critical Cases

from the walking-the-tight-rope dept

It's been a busy day for Prenda news, with some trouble in Minnesota and central California. However, it may have some slightly better news in two other key cases where judges had suddenly taken a deeper interest in what exactly was going on with Prenda. First up, the Sunlust case in Florida, which was actually the first case where a judge suggested Prenda was engaged in "fraud on the court" during an Abbott & Costello-worthy hearing. That case has continued to move forward with efforts to put sanctions on the key Prenda players. The lawyer, Graham Syfert, for the defendant, Tuan Nguyen, surprised some people by dropping Brett Gibbs from the target list, after he more or less threw his bosses at Prenda under the bus. However, Syfert has surprised a few folks by filing a motion to withdraw all pending motions. Basically, they're saying "drop the case and don't seek sanctions." That has left a lot of people scratching their heads, but suggests strongly that a settlement of sorts has been reached.

Perhaps the legal experts here can fill in the specifics about this one. I believe that the judge could continue to seek sanctions from Team Prenda if she feels it's appropriate, or if something improper happened, but it seems a lot less likely that this will happen now that Nguyen/Syfert have effectively bowed out of the case. Considering how deeply interested in the specifics the judge in this case had been, this is unfortunate. Yes, we already have Judge Wright's ruling on a similar matter in California, but having other courts come to the same conclusion seems like it would be useful.

Then we have the other Prenda case in Northern California, where the judge had become curious as to who exactly had signed a form on behalf of "Salt Marsh," ordering the original document to be produced. Last week, Paul Duffy claimed ignorance and tried to throw Brett Gibbs under the bus (again). Meanwhile, former Prenda paralegal/claimed boss of AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13, Mark Lutz, suggested that he had signed "on behalf of Salt Marsh" but no longer had the original. The judge could have dug deeper on that, but apparently has decided to let it go, saying that the question about Salt Marsh was "substantially complied with" and is ending the case.

Because AF's counsel has now substantially complied with the Court's order, the Court sees no basis to continue deferring a final judgment.

That means that particular case will also be closed. So, assuming the Florida case is similarly closed, that will leave the Judge Wright ruling in Central California as the only main battleground concerning the overall nature of Prenda's antics over the past few years.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, california, florida, graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda, tuan nguyen
Companies: ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law, salt marsh, sunlust

Bad Day For Prenda Continues: Judge Rejects Stay, Adds $1k Per Day For Each Day They Don't Pay Up

from the couldn't-happen-to-a-nicer-bunch-of-people dept

Prenda's not having a very good day (or month, for that matter). We noted yesterday that Paul Hansmeier had asked the appeals court to put a stay on the attorney's fees awarded by Judge Otis Wright in California. The court rejected the request, partly on procedural grounds, noting that you have to put in the request at the district court first, not jumping the gun and going straight to the appeals court. Soon after that, the lawyer representing many of Team Prenda, Heather Rosing, filed for a stay in the district court, claiming that Prenda was "deprived of due process."

Judge Wright made quick work of this, noting the filing irregularity, and the pattern of seeking "eleventh-hour pleas for relief," and then rejected the request, and added a $1,000 per day penalty for every day that they fail to put up a bond in the amount owed. Oh yeah, also he asks them to explain to the court why they didn't pay up as ordered. Might as well include the full text here:

Prenda Law, Inc., through its attorneys at Klinedinst PC, filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 157.) Oddly, to this notice of appeal, Prenda attached an ex parte application seeking a stay of enforcement of the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order Issuing Sanctions. (ECF No. 157-1.) Not only was this application improperly filed; but once again, Prenda resorted to an eleventh-hour plea for relief.

Even assuming this application was properly filed, the Court finds no basis to grant Prenda’s request. Under the Court’s order, Prenda, along with John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, Brett Gibbs, AF Holdings LLC, and Ingenuity 13 LLC, were required to pay by May 20, 2013, an attorney’s-fee award of $81,319.72. By filing this application, it appears no such payment was made.

Instead, an emergency motion was filed with the Ninth Circuit to stay enforcement of the order. That motion was promptly denied. (ECF No. 150.) Prenda now seeks to remedy a problem of their own making. By refusing to pay, or at least refusing to post a supersedeas bond, Prenda (and the other parties) cannot establish that it “is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Prenda’s application is therefore DENIED.

Further, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and Prenda are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they have contravened the Court’s order to pay the attorney’s-fee award. The Court hereby imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day, per person or entity,1 until this attorney’s-fee award is paid or a bond for the same amount is posted. This penalty shall be paid to the Clerk of Court on the same day the attorney’s-fee award is paid or the bond is posted. This penalty must be paid unless it is evident that the award was paid or the bond was posted on or before May 20, 2013. Failure to comply will result in additional sanctions.

Upon motion and posting of a supersedeas bond, the Court will stay execution of the attorney’s-fee award. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).

Finally, as a housekeeping matter, the Court requests Brett Gibbs to file requests for withdrawal of attorney in this and the related cases. Brett Gibbs appears to have withdrawn from these cases. (OSC Hr’g Tr. 87:1–8, Mar. 11, 2013 (“I am no longer employed by Prenda or any other corporation or LLC that is involved in these cases.”).) Given the circumstances and the relationship between Gibbs and his clients, the Court will approve his requests for withdrawal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

And so it is. Perhaps, rather than spending so much time talking to the press, John Steele should have been counting his pennies to pay up.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Angry Judge Tells Prenda To Stop Falsifying Alan Cooper's Signature; Calls It Fraud

from the another-failure dept

Looks like Prenda continues to have problems in court. In the lawsuit in Minnesota that Alan Cooper brought against Prenda and John Steele for fraudulent use of his name, it appears that Judge Ann Alton made fairly quick work of getting the whole thing off of her docket. Someone going by the twitter handle "J.P. Baggins" was in attendance, and says that the judge ordered Prenda to stop using Alan Cooper's name and brought the case to a close. There won't be any damages awarded, but it seems clear that the judge was not at all happy with Prenda. She referred to Paul Hansmeier, appearing for Prenda Law, as acting in a way that is "not appropriate for an attorney" while also claiming that what they had done was "fraud, pure and simple." She also told him that she believed him "to be in violation of a whole lot of rules" and she'll be reporting him to the lawyer's board (just one more to pile on, I guess).

Another person in the courtroom, Matthew Sparby noted that the judge was a bit confused at the beginning, apparently misreading Judge Otis Wright's infamous order to also implicate Cooper as well, and while that was eventually cleared up by Cooper's lawyer, Paul Godfread, Sparby thinks that may be why no damages were awarded.

She apparently also closed by telling Hansmeier to "never EVER send" fraudulent letters "EVER again" and noted that she was "offended this case is here" before abruptly ending the whole thing. Seems like another bad day for Prenda.

Filed Under: alan cooper, ann alton, falsified signature, john steele, minnesota, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Paul Hansmeier: Who Me? I Did Nothing... Everything You're Accusing Prenda Of Was Done By Someone Else

from the leave-me-out-of-this dept

Paul Hansmeier has now filed his response in the big Prenda showdown case, and the short version might simply be described as "You've got nothing on me, judge!" Basically, he explains that each of the things the judge has complained about has nothing to do with himself, and more or less throws Brett Gibbs under the bus, saying that Gibbs was the attorney on the case, and thus anything that went wrong was Gibbs' deal.

Respondent Hansmeier was not a party to proceedings outside of the April 2, 2013 proceeding, where no evidence was presented. There is simply no tie between Hansmeier and the issues raised within the court’s order to show case. And the court should limit the inferences that it draws about Hansmeier’s culpability for the actions of a third-party attorney, like Gibbs, who was neither employed nor supervised by Hansmeier in connection with this matter

He further tries to get out of the whole Alan Cooper issue by again noting that he, Paul Hansmeier, had nothing to do with Alan Cooper or in getting Alan Cooper to sign on as a representative of the various shell companies. This is a little bit of throwing Steele under the bus, though not as far as he throws Gibbs. Also, he tiptoes around the question of whether or not the Alan Cooper who showed up in court is "Alan Cooper" who was a corporate representative of the shells. Such tapdancing is unlikely to go over well with an angry judge who already thinks you're bullshitting him.

Basically, Hansmeier tries to present himself as just some random guy whom the court dragged into this case based on nothing. Given how much evidence has been presented suggesting that Hansmeier was deeply involved in these cases, including statements from Gibbs about how he was something of a puppet for Steele and Hansmeier, this isn't likely to go over well. Because Hansmeier insists that he had nothing to do with Gibbs, it might be helpful to go back to Gibbs' testimony from March 11th.

Q And who did you understand were the decision makers of Steele Hansmeier?

A John Steele and Paul Hansmeier.

Q When you were an of counsel to Steele Hansmeier, who supervised you?

A John Steele and Paul Hansmeier.

Q Did you have periodic meetings while at Steele Hansmeier to discuss cases?

A Yes, we did.

Q And were those weekly meetings?

A Yes. Sometimes they would be sending the schedule, but, yes, mostly weekly meetings.

Q Who participated in those meetings?

A John and Paul would call me, and they would hold a weekly meeting.

[....]

Q And were you supervised at Prenda Law?

A Yes, I was.

Q Who were you supervised by?

A Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.

Q Were you supervised by Paul Duffy?

A No.

Q And when you say supervised, could you just describe what you mean by that? How did they supervise you?

A Sure. You know, they essentially were the ones that would initiate cases. By that, I mean, they would tell me they wanted to file certain cases in California, for instance, and they would instruct me to go ahead and file those. And they would give me the authority to do so. I would be told what cases we are looking at and how many cases we are talking about, and then I would file the cases. And they would give me general guidelines on what to do and sometimes the cases would be settled by John as was pointed out earlier, and sometimes they gave me certain parameters which I could settle the case myself.

Q Did you ever talk to anybody that you understood to be the client, AF Holdings?

A No. The communications were solely through Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.

Q Did you ever talk to anybody who said they were affiliated with Ingenuity 13?

A Well, I mean, aside from Mark Lutz who is the CEO of Ingenuity 13, but aside from that, no. All my communications were straight through Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.

[....]

And whose decision was it to dismiss those cases?

A Ultimately, it was John Steele and Paul Hansmeier's decisions. We had talked about it. As counsel of record here, I just kind of broke down like a cost benefit analysis of those cases. And they said, basically, go ahead and dismiss them because -- they said go ahead and dismiss them.

Q When the cases were filed, did you have a discussion with anybody about whether notice of interested parties should be filed?

A I did. Yeah.

Q And who did you have discussions with?

A Mostly Paul Hansmeier. Yes. Mostly Paul Hansmeier but sometimes John Steele, I guess. I don't know. It was a while ago I guess.

Given that, Hansmeier's filing here is less than believable. Either way, it looks clear that Hansmeier is trying to dump all the responsibility on others, mainly Gibbs, when Gibbs has already said that Hansmeier basically was his puppet master. At some point, you'd have to expect that Gibbs is going to realize he gains nothing by protecting Hansmeier and Steele any more.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, john steele, paul hansmeier
Companies: ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Shows Up In Court, Pleads The Fifth... Angry Judge Ends Hearing In 12 Minutes

from the extinction-level-event dept

Well that happened much faster than expected. While Judge Otis Wright apparently had cleared his entire schedule today for the Prenda hearing, the actual hearing lasted all of 12 (count 'em) minutes, with Judge Wright declaring "we're done" before storming out. We'll have a more detailed writeup from Ken White, who was in the courtroom, shortly, but here's a quick summary of what happened. Unlike last time, everyone actually showed up (well, except for the imaginary Alan Cooper of AF Holdings who does not appear to exist) and promptly pleaded the fifth.

From various reports from inside the courtroom, it appears that the Judge asked various questions and was not at all pleased with the decision by Team Prenda to clam up, noting that he would "draw reasonable inferences" from the "facts as I know them." Judge Wright's attempts to find out more information to support or rebut the facts as he knows them apparently did not go well. He asked about Alan Cooper, and got not response. He asked about who made the decision to not disclose to the court Prenda's financial interests in the outcome, and was told by the lawyer representing Prenda that "there's no evidence" that this was the case, which only upset the judge more. He asked the lawyer if she had even read Hansmeier's deposition. It didn't take the judge long to decide this was a waste of time, and based on his statements, it appears he's convinced that Prenda was up to no good, and will rule accordingly.

That's the quick nuts and bolts. Ken White is busy at work on a deeper dive analysis, which we'll post when ready. His short summary on what to expect? "Holy shit" and that this is an "extinction-level event" for Prenda. Stay tuned for more...

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul hansmeier, paul duffy, peter hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, livewire holdings, prenda, prenda law

What Can Judge Wright Do To Team Prenda Tomorrow?

from the getting-ready dept

In case you'd forgotten, tomorrow is the date of the second big Prenda hearing by Judge Otis Wright, following the March 11th hearing, which clearly did not satisfy Wright's curiosity about Team Prenda. While I'm still wondering if anyone (other than Brett Gibbs) is going to show up, Ken White has a great run down of what Judge Wright has the power to do. So, in case you were hoping for something dramatic, it's not like he's going to order them dragged off and thrown in jail.

He has some power to issue sanctions or argue that they're in contempt, but all of those powers are somewhat limited. And while they can be damaging, it may not go as far as some people hoped. The bigger issue may be if Judge Wright decides to refer the matter to others -- including various state bars, the US district courts and circuit court bars, and (of course) to the US Attorneys' Office. While he notes that all of these places tend to be busy on other things, getting a referral directly from a federal court judge usually makes these folks wake up and pay some attention -- and, at the very least, begin an investigation.

Ken also doubts that Judge Wright will rule immediately, but will see how the hearing goes. Ken predicts that he then will issue "a carefully-worded order with findings of fact" and then likely make referrals to the state and federal bars. Either way, we'll cover the details...

Filed Under: brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul hansmeier, peter hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, livewire holdings, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Law Update: How Do You Serve An Alan Cooper Who Might Not Exist?

from the challenges,-challenges dept

Having taken a break from visiting the docket for the big Prenda showdown in California, I'd missed the latest interesting update in the case. As you may recall, Judge Otis Wright has ordered all of Team Prenda back to his court room on April 2nd, for what should be an entertaining hearing. Part of that order was a very explicit order to Brett Gibbs to serve everyone by the very next day, and to file proof of such service as of Monday of this week. Ken over at Popehat has the news on the proof of service explanation filed from Gibbs' lawyers, who appear to have (smartly) done everything they possibly could to serve everyone listed as carefully as possible.

Ken notes one interesting tidbit is that the lawyer, who showed up in court representing John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy, told Gibbs' lawyer, Andrew Waxler, that she was "unable to accept service" for those individuals. Ken's response:

Normally, if you were trying to avoid a federal judge's wrath, you'd be a little more cooperative than that. The refusal suggests to me that (1) they are trying to preserve their frankly specious lack-of-personal-jurisdiction argument, and/or (2) Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and the paralegal aren't cooperating with their counsel. You can stand on ceremony and insist on formal service, but all I can say is if Judge Wright were that mad at me, I'd want the proof of service to reflect that I happily accepted service to make things easier.

Another interesting question: how do you serve the "Alan Cooper of AF Holdings LLC" since most people are pretty sure that no such person exists? Well, here's how:

Service on "Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC." The only "Alan Cooper" that we are aware of appeared in Court on March 11th. I understand that he claims that he is not affiliated with AF Holdings. We further understand that Mr. Steele may contend otherwise. In any event, since we know of no other Alan Cooper than the person that appeared in Court, I reached an agreement with his attorney, Paul Godfread, that I can serve "Alan Cooper" via email only care of Mr. Godfread's email address.... Pursuant to that agreement, we served Mr. Cooper c/o Mr. Godfread on March 15th. Mr. Godfread did acknowledge receipt of the email when he wrote back with the following remarks: "Please note that I do not represent Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. I only represent Alan Cooper of Isle, MN. I do not accept service on behalf of Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. I not agree to accept service on behalf of Alan Cooper of AF Holdings. Please also note that the most recent order specifically does not order my client, Alan Cooper of Isle, MN to appear."

Got that? So they serve the real Alan Cooper, who says he's not the fake Alan Cooper, and the judge has already made it clear that the real Alan Cooper need not appear. Steele may argue that these Alan Coopers are one and the same, but that's going to be quite a mountain to climb, convincing anyone that this Alan Cooper was actually a representative of AF Holdings.

As for the others? They served John Steele at his last known Florida residence (though I've heard he's moved elsewhere) as well as at a variety of different email addresses, though some of them bounced. They served Paul Hansemeir similarly, and after a number of bounced emails, did receive at least some sort of confirmation that a somewhat generic email address was "Paul's email address." As for Paul Duffy, they sent the letter to his last known address and email address -- which did not bounce. Paralegal Angela Van Den Hemel was similarly served, though somehow (it is not clear how) notified them that the email address they used is "no longer active." Mark Lutz -- whose name was remarkably absent during the first big Prenda trial (and who, unlike the others, appears to never have even replied to the original order) was also served similarly -- but they also left voice mails for him to get him to confirm his address. Lutz never returned the calls or acknowledged the emails, but not all of the emails bounced (same deal as with Peter Hansmeier).

For the companies, they just served the relevant principles: Duffy for Prenda Law and Steele Hansmeier, Lutz for Livewire, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.

At this point, it will be difficult for anyone to claim they were not properly served, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them try.

Either way, given their reactions to date, I'm curious how many people are actually going to show up in court on April 2nd.

Filed Under: alan cooper, andrew waxler, brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, peter hansmeier, served
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, livewire, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Lawyer Hires His Own Lawyer, Tries To Tapdance His Way Out Of A Jail Sentence By Throwing Prenda Under The Bus

from the it's-not-me,-it's-them dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that not only did Judge Otis Wright not buy Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs' ridiculous claims concerning the mysterious Alan Cooper, but that Gibbs was facing sanctions, including the possibility of jailtime for his actions in the case. Gibbs did the smart thing and found himself a lawyer of his own to respond to these allegations, though the response raises a lot more questions than it answers, and seems primarily focused on throwing Prenda itself under the bus, basically arguing that Gibbs was just a lawyer hired by Prenda, doing whatever the client asked. There's also the admission that he's never met Alan Cooper, and so cannot comment on which Alan Cooper is in charge of AF Holdings, and whether or not there really is an Alan Cooper at AF Holdings at all (which does little to explain Gibbs' silly response to being asked about Cooper earlier in the case):

I have never met Alan Cooper, and do not know what the extent of Mr. Cooper's role is in A F Holdings aside from seeing a signature from an "Alan Cooper" on the copyright assignments and pleadings. Based on the assignment agreement, A F Holdings held the valid and exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the film Popular Demand. I was not present when the assignment agreement was executed. I also never had any direct contact with either Raymond Rogers or Alan Cooper. I have never executed a document as "Alan Cooper." I did not play a role in or have knowledge of the assignment transaction at issue. Senior members of S & H provided the assignment agreement to me and informed me that the copyright assignment was a true and correct copy of the copyright assignment and to include it as an exhibit in complaints filed on behalf of A F Holdings L L C . Before filing any such complaints, I confirmed that A F Holdings L L C was in fact listed as the valid copyright holder.

But, really the key point of Gibbs' filing seems to be blame Prenda, not me:

I have never had a financial or fiduciary (i.e., ownership) interest in A F Holdings. AF Holdings was a client of S&H and then Prenda. The face-to-face and direct interactions between S&H and later Prenda with A F Holdings were handled by the senior members of the law firms and not me.

As for the fact that he "verified" that Cooper had signed stuff? He says he either saw it, or maybe someone at Prenda just told him it was signed:

I confirmed the existence of the client-executed verification either by seeing a copy of the signed verification, or at the very least, being informed by a representative of S&H or Prenda that a signed verification was in the possession of S & H or Prenda.

Oh, and he also claims that he asked Prenda for the original copy of Alan Cooper's signature... but Prenda claims that it no longer has it. Uh huh.

In Case No. 84, Mr. Pietz first asked for a copy of Mr. Cooper's verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony on or about December 2012, well after the petition had been discharged. Given the length of time since the case was discharged, I was informed and understand that S&H (and later Prenda) no longer has a copy of Mr. Cooper's verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony.

Law firms (real ones, that is) tend not to throw out things like original documents with signatures on them.

Gibbs' filing then goes on to respond to the other issues raised by the court pointing out that Prenda needed to have more proof of people's involvement beyond just an IP address, trying to explain that they really did do more research. However, as the folks at FightcopyrightTrolls have been pointing out, his explanations are highly suspect. For example, Gibbs claims that he had evidence to believe that one of the people he demanded payment from was the likely infringer by looking at Google Maps and determining that his household WiFi was unlikely to be accessible by neighbors. But, a commenter at FCT quickly did the same Google Maps search and points out that there are probably 10 to 30 households in range for a typical WiFi router.

Opposing counsel Morgan Pietz wasted little time in responding in great detail, reiterating all of the details of the game that Prenda and Brett Gibbs have been playing. It's a good read.

What seems increasingly clear though is that Prenda, and its “of counsel” here, Mr. Brett Gibbs, have crossed the Rubicon in these cases, by resorting to fraud, which includes identity theft, sham offshore shell companies, and forged documents.

Pietz also points out that Gibbs apparently directly lied to the court. The court had ordered Gibbs to stop discovery (i.e., trying to uncover details of those they were trying to track down information on, in order to send shakedown letters), but Gibbs continued to do so. When confronted on this Gibbs claimed he interpreted the order to only mean that he couldn't do "formal discovery efforts such as pressuring the ISPs to respond to the subpoenas that had been served." The problem there was twofold. First, the court's order clearly precluded much more than that and more importantly, Gibbs didn't even stop pressuring ISPs, even though he directly claims he understood the court's orders to mean he had to stop.

Yet as confirmed by at least one ISP—AT&T—notwithstanding this representation, Prenda did in fact “pressur[e] the ISPs to respond to the subpoenas” notwithstanding Mr. Gibbs’s interpretation of the stay order.

One gets the feeling this is not going to end well for Gibbs or Prenda Law.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, morgan pietz, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law