Another Big Loss For Team Prenda, As Their Bills Keep Adding Up

from the getting-expensive dept

Last week, Team Prenda took another big loss and got smacked around by another judge ordering them to pay even more in attorneys' fees. The list is really starting to add up. This case, which involved Prenda representing porn producers Lightspeed (rather than one of their own shell operations), had been sitting out there for a while, but it was one of the cases that involved Prenda trying to route around the trouble they'd been having with copyright claims by arguing a computer hacking violation instead. And, on top of that, it involved Prenda going after AT&T and Comcast for refusing to just blindly hand over the names of people attached to the IP addresses listed. Back in April, Prenda had filed a ridiculous response to lawyers Booth Sweet asking for attorneys' fees. Given everything that's come out (and, honestly, much of which had already been public) the hubris of Prenda's Paul Duffy is impressive. In the lawsuit he attacks Booth Sweet arguing that they "routinely file baseless motions for attorneys' fees in hopes they will eventually get lucky." Of course, Booth Sweet's track record is pretty strong here, and while it took a few months, the judge in the case, Patrick Murphy, realized that it was Team Prenda who was really playing games:

The litigation smacked of bullying pretense.

Elsewhere, the judge notes that awarding attorneys' fees is appropriate "when counsel acted recklessly, raised baseless claims despite notice of the frivolous nature of these claims, or otherwise showed indifference to statutes, rules, or court orders," suggesting that he sees Team Prenda's actions as fitting into those categories.

At this point, all of these attorneys' fees wins are more or less meaningless. It's doubtful that any of them will get paid (though, there does appear to be money somewhere...). The main event, a more thorough investigation and possible criminal charges against Team Prenda still await -- but those things take time. Still, that isn't stopping Team Prenda from pulling their standard response to these kinds of rulings against them, pulling the same failed tricks out of their increasingly frayed trick bag.

In this case, it involves Paul Hansmeier claiming "what? who, me?" in response. He notes that, while he was involved in the case at some point, briefly, this was really a Paul Duffy case all along, and he, Hansmeier, along with his partner in crime John Steele, simply had no idea this case was even still going on, let alone that they might be on the hook for potential attorneys' fees. As unbelievable as that might be (and potentially a process violation -- since Hansmeier is no longer a lawyer in this matter, he shouldn't make filings in the case without first getting permission from the court), the bigger issue is that this is the first time I can recall where Hansmeier and Steele appear to pretty clearly be throwing Paul Duffy under the bus.

If you haven't been paying attention, Team Prenda has been gradually dwindling as the main players have gradually thrown the redshirts under the bus one by one. Brett Gibbs went down first, but Mark Lutz was a recent addition to the under-the-bus crew. But, from the beginning, many have argued that Duffy was the patsy for Steele and Hansmeier, and here's a case where Hansmeier appears to be leaving Duffy out to dry on yet another failed case. You'd think that Hansmeier would be more careful, because if there's anyone who likely knows all the details of how Prenda is setup, it would be Paul Duffy. As they say, never throw anyone under the bus who might take you with them. Hansmeier and Steele seemed to miss that with Brett Gibbs, and now they're repeating it with Duffy. As for Lutz, he still seems to be completely MIA, which seems increasingly suspicious... especially since Hansmeier insisted that Lutz would appear shortly to answer questions the court had asked.

Filed Under: dan booth, jason sweet, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, steve lightspeed
Companies: at&t, comcast, lightspeed, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Now Suing Companies Over Supposed ADA Violations

from the everything's-a-shakedown dept

Team Prenda's Paul Hansmeier appears to believe in a simple formula for what he does. Find some highly questionable scenarios where he can file expensive lawsuits that are more of a nuisance than anything else, while offering up ample opportunities for parties to "settle." Obviously, his involvement in the Steele/Hansmeier/Prenda operations have received the most attention, but as we've been discussed, he's also been involved in the very questionable businesses of class action objections, in which he finds class action lawsuits that are almost settled, and then objects -- but makes it clear he'll "settle" for a big chunk of cash upfront. A few different people alerted me last week that Hansmeier's latest version of this appears to be going after companies for supposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations -- including claiming that their websites violate the ADA.

Like so much of what Team Prenda gets involved in, this plan appears to be copied from others. Last year, we wrote about a dangerous ruling that suggested that Netflix could be subject to the ADA for not making its movie streaming accessible to the deaf. At the time, we noted that this could be a dream for shady lawyers, and it looks like Hansmeier felt this was a perfect role for him. Hansmeier appears to be targeting small businesses -- those who are least likely to be able to afford a full legal defense, making them a lot more willing to settle. In one case, he's sued a dentist, arguing that the website does not comply with the ADA. Another case involves a small sporting goods store, though at least the accusations there are about the physical store, rather than the website. Even then, though, the accusations seem questionable. Hansmeier claims that the store is not accessible because there's a step in the front -- but the store owner's response points out that there's a second, fully accessible entrance for wheelchairs in the back, which is open during all store hours. Hansmeier also argues that the bathroom in the store does not have grab bars and thus is not ADA compliant, but the store owner points out that the bathroom is for staff use only, and it sounds like he let the guy in the wheelchair that Hansmeier is representing, Jaime Veliz, use the staff-only bathroom as a favor. As a thanks for that, they get sued.

Once again, all of these lawsuits that Hansmeier gets involved in seem to show a fairly similar pattern, looking for scenarios where it will almost always be less of a hassle to just pay off Hansmeier to go away than to challenge the (often questionable) legal claims in court. It's unclear how many of these ADA lawsuits Hansmeier has filed. There are only two in federal court, where they're easy to find, but the latest one was actually filed in Minnesota state court, and was then removed to federal court. For all we know there could be more in Minnesota state court, which are harder to find out about. Either way, Hansmeier really seems like the kind of person who gives lawyers such a bad reputation.

Filed Under: ada, paul hansmeier
Companies: class action justice, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Wants Another Judge Who Ruled Against Them Disqualified Because He Gave A Speech

from the same-old-bag-of-tricks dept

One of the many (weak) tricks in the big ol' Prenda "bag of tricks" is to accuse judges who rule against them of bias, and try to get them thrown off the case. It hasn't worked so far, but the Prenda spirit seems to be to never, ever, ever give up trying the same old bogus crap. So here we are with Paul Hansmeier trying to get magistrate judge Franklin Noel disqualified from the case in Minnesota where he's been a giant pain in the ass for Team Prenda, because he's been digging into their actions to determine if a bunch of Minnesota lawsuits were actually fraud on the court. Noel's been pretty careful and methodical, even as Team Prenda has done their usual tapdance. Remember, Judge Noel was the one who ordered them to show up in court with someone who could answer questions -- and Prenda failed to produce Mark Lutz (who, as far as I can tell, is still missing).

So what was Noel's big crime that should get him thrown off the case? Apparently it was giving a talk about copyright trolls and some of the details of Prenda to the Student Federal Bar Association at the University of Minnesota Law School (added bonus: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele are alumni of that school). They claim that the talk is a form of ex parte communication and shows that Judge Noel has "prejudged" them in part because the emailed description of the event mentioned Prenda's "bad behavior." Even as they admit that Noel probably didn't write the email, they say it's guilt by association.

They also claim that the emailed announcement contains details that Hansmeier insists were only filed under seal in the cases -- suggesting that Judge Noel may have revealed that information:

The e-mail further discloses information about the settlement demands in this case. Yet, Plaintiff’s settlement demands were filed under seal by order of the district court. The e-mail’s author appears to be in possession of non-public sealed information, which a reasonable person might conclude was furnished by the Magistrate Judge, even if it was not.

Of course, the information on settlement demands by Team Prenda can be found widely online. Hansmeier leaves that bit out, of course.

Hansmeier continues to flail wildly around, arguing that Judge Noel has clearly been reading blogs including those "created by individuals who have been caught infringing" because "many of his comments echoed criticisms" on those blogs. Of course, what Hansmeier leaves out is that those same criticisms have now been validated by multiple federal courts. It is not, in any way, out of turn for Judge Noel to make note of that. Later, Hansmeier argues that the cases have generated "notoriety" and uses the example that a letter he sent the judge "was the subject of an immediate feature story on several pirate websites." As far as I know, we here at Techdirt were actually the first to write about that letter. I know Ars Technica picked up on our story and wrote one as well. Neither of our sites are "pirate blogs." We're both media organizations that cover a variety of issues. Earlier in his filing, Hansmeier argued that these pirate blogs were all set up by people who had been accused of infringement. That's a blatantly false statement regarding us, and one hopes that Hansmeier will correct the record, though that seems unlikely.

Back to the issue at hand, it does seem a bit strange, and perhaps unwise, for a judge to give a talk about a case that is still ongoing. But whether or not it actually qualifies for being disqualified from the case seems like a stretch. But, it is the Prenda way: flail and flail and flail some more.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, disqualify, franklin noel, john steele, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Paul Hansmeier Tries To Explain Away Brett Gibbs Revealing Prenda Spreadsheets

from the might-not-be-real-and-if-they-are,-so-what? dept

So, last week, Brett Gibbs dropped quite the bombshell in one of the key Prenda cases, in which he revealed some spreadsheets that had been shared with him via a Dropbox account, showing that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier had received about 70% of Prenda's proceeds, despite insisting they had no direct relationship with the firm. As expected, lawyers in other Prenda cases have rushed to file those documents in their cases as well. In Minnesota, Paul Hansmeier has responded, seeking to block the filing of the documents to Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel, who has been overseeing an investigation into the possibility of fraud on the part of Team Prenda. The argument, summed up, is "who knows if those documents are legit, they don't show anything bad, they're not relevant and they were obtained illegally." Almost all of that is, in typical Hansmeier fashion, ridiculous:

Second, the documents Mr. Godfread proposes to file are inadmissible because they are not authenticated. Mr. Godfread claims that the exhibits "appear" to be financial records of Prenda Law, Inc. Perhaps he is right, but I have not reviewed Prenda Law's financials and neither, presumably, has he. Until he can authenticate the documents, they are inadmissible;

Seems like there's a pretty quick way to take care of that. Judge Noel can put one of the Prendaristas on the stand and ask them if the documents are accurate. Either way, claiming that they're not "authenticated" seems like pretty weak sauce at this stage of the game.

Third, the documents undermine Mr. Godfread's narrative. I have consistently stated—often to deaf ears—that I sold my law practice to Prenda Law in late-2011 and subsequently pursued other interests. That is what these documents show. I am labeled an "old owner" throughout the documents. With one de minimus exception, the only transfers I received from Prenda Law were in consideration of the sale of my practice;

As Gibbs detailed in his filing, the use of "old owners" was clearly done to leave open exactly this excuse, but it does not seem even remotely credible given the massive amount that continued to go to both Steele and Hansmeier long after the sale. While it's certainly not unheard of for service businesses like law firms and accounting firms to include a percentage of ongoing revenue for a few years after sale, having this much go to Steele and Hansmeier suggests something else. At the very least, it's quite relevant for a deeper discussion into Hansmeier's and Steele's claims of having no relationship with Prenda.

Fourth, the documents have no relevance to the subject-matter of this case, which was filed as an action for copyright infringement. Although it has since morphed into a different matter, the day-to-day ledgers of a law firm are not relevant to either inquiry;

Really? I mean, this one doesn't even require a response, since the "subject-matter" of the case is about whether or not Prenda and related companies and individuals were engaged in fraud. It seems highly relevant.

Fifth, if these documents are authentic, then they were stolen. No business would release sensitive financial documents to its adversaries. I understand that this matter is being investigated and will be reported to law enforcement, as appropriate.

Again, as Gibbs explained, it appears these documents were placed in a shared Dropbox account, meaning they were given to him. Yes, at the time he was still part of Team Prenda, but that doesn't mean the documents were "stolen." Anyway, there's something kind of funny about Hansmeier saying that this 'theft' "will be reported to law enforcement." It seems quite likely that law enforcement already knows... and that's because there's an ongoing investigation of Hansmeier.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, franklin noel, john steele, paul hansmeier, spreadsheet
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

John Steele Tries To Get Out Of Alan Cooper's Lawsuit By Arguing That The Use Of 'Alan Cooper' Was 'Coincidental'

from the damn dept

John Steele just can't stop digging. The alleged (and confirmed by multiple courts) mastermind behind Prenda Law's copyright (and CFAA) trolling efforts is likely headed for a world of trouble after Brett Gibbs, a lawyer who used to work for him, finally coughed up incredibly compelling evidence that Steele (and partner Paul Hansmeier) were the people behind Prenda Law -- despite multiple denials of that claim. However, as that was coming out, it appears Steele was busy trying to get himself out of the lawsuit that Alan Cooper brought many months ago, concerning Steele allegedly signing Cooper's name on various legal documents. Steele has now asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.

For many months, there's been all sorts of bluster from Steele (and others on Team Prenda) suggesting that Cooper's claims were totally bogus and that "the truth will come out" at some point. In other cases, there have been attacks on Cooper's credibility, arguing that he had mental problems and was on medication, that he'd acted in unstable ways. Furthermore, in a variety of cases, Steele argued, often in conflicting ways, that Cooper either really had signed the documents or that he'd somehow given Mark Lutz permission to sign the documents for him. The contradictions made his claims not particularly credible in the first place.

So, now that he's actually filing to dismiss the lawsuit, does he argue that Cooper actually signed the documents? Or that he knew all about the documents even if someone else signed them? No. Instead, he basically argues that Alan Cooper is a very common name and maybe it's coincidental that Cooper's name was on the documents -- and thus, there has been no "invasion of privacy." Yes, it's hard to believe, after everything else claimed that this is Steele's strategy, but as we've seen before, he often seems to think he can talk his way out of everything, even if his other statements totally contradict what he now claims. The filing is really quite incredible.

First, Steele attempts to misrepresent Minnesota common law concerning invasion of privacy. First, he points out that the law is "limited" such that it doesn't apply to incidental mentions of someone:

The value of the plaintiffs name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity. No one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public, since neither is in any way a private matter and both are open to public observation. It is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant's benefit the commercial or other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is invaded.

Of course, all of that is sensible law. It's not an invasion of privacy to merely mention someone's name or to talk about their public activities. But that's not what is alleged to have happened here. The accusation is that Steele forged Cooper's signature on legal documents. To pretend that's the equivalent of a mere mentioning of Cooper is ridiculous. From there, Steele argues that the signature is just a "coincidental" signature of someone named Alan Cooper, and since it might not even be this Cooper, it doesn't rely on his "persona," but is rather "a coincidental use of the same name."

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used the name "Alan Cooper" without his express permission, but he does not allege that Defendants' use of the name leveraged Plaintiff's "reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest or other values of the plaintiff's name or likeness." Indeed, Plaintiff's own allegations express uncertainty over whether he is even the "Alan Cooper" referenced in the allegedly-offending documents. (See Compl. 91 41) ("Defendants have never identified another person by the name of Alan Cooper who could plausibly have signed the documents shown as Exhibit A or Exhibit B.") The reason why Plaintiff is uncertain whether he is the "Alan Cooper" referenced in Plaintiff's documents is the very same reason why his claim must fail: nothing in the documents containing the name "Alan Cooper" is linked to or otherwise leverages the qualities of Plaintiff's persona. Plaintiff does not allege otherwise. Plaintiff has no exclusive right to the use of the generic name "Alan Cooper." Otherwise, any person who signed a document, "Alan Cooper"--that is, even someone whose legal name was Alan Cooper--could be liable for invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Count I with prejudice.

The chutzpah it takes to file something like that with the court is rather stunning. He's not denying that he signed Alan Cooper's name. He's just arguing that it's not a violation of Alan Cooper's privacy because Alan Cooper is a common name. That takes balls. Of course, if it really was just some other Alan Cooper, then that's got to come back to bite Steele as well. After all, in the Navasca deposition by Paul Hansmeier, Hansmeier stated that Steele had been the one who got Alan Cooper's signature. And, when Judge Wright ordered "the real Alan Cooper" to appear in his court room, the only one who showed was the one who's now suing Steele. At no point has Steele previously indicated that there was another Alan Cooper, yet now he's trying to get out of this case by shrugging it off and saying it could be any Alan Cooper? Damn. He really does seem to think that everyone else in the world is dumb.

Steele further attacks Cooper's other claims by arguing that it couldn't be a deceptive trade practice because Cooper doesn't show what trade his name was involved in and because Cooper fails to show who was deceived. So, argument number two from Steele: signing someone else's name to a legal document in a court isn't deceptive if no one can be shown to be deceived.

Steele then attacks Cooper's claims that "Prenda Law, Inc., is a mere instrumentality of Steele." And that "Prenda Law, Inc.'s existence was a mere facade for individual dealings of Steele." Steele argues that since there is no allegation that supports those conclusions, the claims must be dismissed. I'm guessing he wrote this part prior to Brett Gibbs' filing, because I imagine that allegation supporting those conclusions rather strongly, complete with spreadsheet evidence, will show up rather quickly. Steele further argues that Cooper failed to show any documents where Steele represented that Alan Cooper was an officer of AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. Apparently, the signed copyright assignments have completely slipped his mind?

At this point, this particular legal case is more of a sideshow to the other ones (along with the rapidly increasing probability that Steele and Hansmeier may soon have to deal with criminal investigations). But it's yet another glimpse into the mind of John Steele, where his statements indicate, yet again, that if he just keeps talking, maybe he'll talk himself out of the corner he's clearly been backed into.

Filed Under: alan cooper, john steele
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Oops: Brett Gibbs Releases Spreadsheet Showing 70% Of Prenda Proceeds Went To Steele & Hansmeier

from the seems-dark-down-there-under-the-bus dept

If John Steele and Paul Hansmeier didn't realize they were in serious trouble already, things just got a lot more difficult for them. As you may recall, Steele and Hansmeier have been bending over backwards to insist that they had nothing whatsoever to do with Prenda Law, and that they got no money from any of the settlements. Courts haven't been buying this argument, and earlier this week we wrote about Judge Chen in Northern California noting that he was convinced that Steele and Hansmeier really were Prenda. But the evidence just got a lot stronger. It appears that Steele and Hansmeier's attempt to throw lawyer Brett Gibbs under the bus has just come back to haunt them. Gibbs has just made a filing in the Judge Otis Wright case in the Central District of California (the first case to directly state that Hansmeier and Steele were clearly behind Prenda) that might be Steele and Hansmeier's worst nightmare: because it reveals a spreadsheet showing how most of the Prenda settlement money went to them.

Ostensibly, the filing from Gibbs is an attempt to get out from Judge Wright's order which lumped in Gibbs with Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy and Lutz as "principles" of Prenda, making them all responsible for the attorneys' fees. Gibbs has been trying to distance himself from the Prenda crew for a while, but with this filing he reveals the real meat: it seems that there was a Dropbox account that was shared between Gibbs, Hansmeier and Steele, and in it was a spreadsheet revealing the payouts from Prenda settlements. And while Steele and Hansmeier have told courts that they are not associated with Prenda and not making any money from the cases, the documents... show otherwise.

Steele and Hansmeier have repeatedly claimed that they have no ownership interest in Prenda Law, AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13 and that all settlement proceeds are held in trust accounts for use in future litigation. For example, in the bar complaint filed in this Court, Steele stated “I have never had an ownership interest in Prenda Law Inc”; “I have never had an ownership interest in AF Holdings LLC or Ingenuity 13.” (Id. at pg. 83). In his deposition, Hansmeier testified that he had “no ownership interest [in AF Holdings] whatsoever” and that proceeds from settlements went into an attorney’s trust account and were withdrawn only to pay expenses of litigation. (ECF No. 69-1 at pgs. 9-13).

The truthfulness of these and similar statements is severely challenged by two documents which Prenda Law sent to the Dropbox account on Gibbs’ computer in early 2013: “Prenda Law Profit and Loss Detail, January through December 2012” and “Prenda Law Balance Sheet Detail.” (See Exhibits E and F). The receipt and disbursements shown in these spreadsheets directly contradict the oft-repeated statements of Steele and Hansmeier that they have no financial interest in Prenda Law or its litigation.

According to the Prenda Law Profit and Loss Detail, in 2012 alone, Prenda made “Payments to Old Owners”—Hansmeier, Steele and Under the Bridge Consulting (their jointly-owned company)—equal to almost 70% of Prenda’s total revenue. Hansmeier received $645,821.29 ($185,321.28 directly and $460,500.00 through Under the Bridge). Steele received $660,915.94 ($200,415.94 directly and $460,500.00 through Under the Bridge). This does not include tens of thousands of dollars in additional payments to or on behalf of Steele and Hansmeier for travel and entertainment, meals, credit card charges, and miscellaneous reimbursements, or payments to Steel’s wife, Kerry Eckenrode Steele. It also does not include payments totaling $37,069.56 to Duffy or Duffy Law Group, also classified as “Payments to Old Owners.” Judging from the documents it appears that neither the Profit and Loss Detail nor the Balance Sheet Detail show any payments to AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13 or other Plaintiffs represented by Prenda.

Exhibit E shows that Prenda received income from “Pirates” of $1,931,977.09 in 2012, and made “Payments to Old Owners” of $1,343,806.78 or 69.6% of its total receipts. Considering other payments to or for Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy, the total distributed to them likely exceeded 80% of receipts, even though these distributions left Prenda with a 2012 loss of $487,791.20. These figures do not include payments to Steele and Hansmeier from other Prenda accounts, or settlements that may have bypassed Prenda completely.

In an affidavit, Gibbs points out that Hansmeier had told him earlier that Steele and Hansmeier had setup "Under the Bridge Consulting" (nice troll reference guys, very subtle) and each had a 50% stake. As Gibbs points out, this very strongly supports Gibbs' earlier claims and reinforces that idea that Steele and Hansmeier are both the powers that be behind Prenda and that they directly lied in the past concerning their involvement. While the spreadsheets do say "old owners," Gibbs' filing correctly notes that (1) this suggest they at one time did own Prenda and (2) getting more than 70% of the revenue going to "old owners" certainly doesn't suggest that those two were no longer involved in the business.

Separately, in the filing, Gibbs notes that Hansmeier called him after Wright's original ruling, trying to get him to sign a document that would require him to lie, and also to indemnify both Hansmeier and Steele, in order to be included under the bond that Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele were organizing as required by Judge Wright's order. Basically, Hansmeier offered Gibbs a terrible deal: to get in on the bond that we're getting, you have to lie to the court and then basically accept any and all liability that may come down because of all this. Gibbs, quite reasonably, rejected the deal, leading to this filing now:

After receiving the May 6 Order, Hansmeier telephoned Gibbs in an attempt to persuade him to work with, not against, the Principals as they appealed the Order. Over several conversations, Hansmeier conveyed to Gibbs exactly what he would have to do to be covered by the superseadous bond which the Principals were arranging to purchase. Knowing that Gibbs would not be able to post sufficient collateral to buy a separate bond, Steele and Hansmeier made six demands which Gibbs would have to accede to before they would add him to their bond: (1) Gibbs pay $3,000 to Hansmeier and Steele to reimburse them for the entire cost of the bond; (2) Gibbs sign a unilateral Release and Settlement Agreement releasing any and all claims he might have against Duffy, Steele, Hansmeier, Prenda Law, Steele Hansmeier PLLC, and Alpha Law Firm” (See Exhibit A); (3) Gibbs agree to sign a declaration stating (falsely) that Steele had no involvement in a Florida copyright case; (4) Gibbs represent AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 in their appeal of the May 6 Order; (5) Gibbs sign an agreement that would create a fiduciary relationship between Gibbs and both Steele and Hansmeier;2 and (6) Gibbs sign an agreement indemnifying Steele and Hansmeier

against any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, losses, costs, charges, expenses, damages and liabilities whatsoever which [they] may pay, sustain, suffer or incur by reason of or in connection with the appeal of the May 6, 2013 order issued by Judge Wright in Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW (JCx) including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all costs and expenses (including legal expenses) incurred in connection with any such loss or damage. (See Exhibit B).

The unilateral release and the indemnity agreement proposed by Steele and Hansmeier would have made Gibbs solely liable for the full amount of the monetary sanctions imposed on all of the parties in the May 6 order, as well as the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in appealing the order. Steele and Hansmeier were also trying to force Gibbs to testify dishonestly or remain silent with regard to the Principals’ fraudulent activities. Gibbs rejected their offer and was not included on the bond.

It's quite incredible that Hansmeier apparently thought Gibbs was so stupid as to accept such a terrible deal. There's a bunch more in the filing worth reading, but these are the highlights -- and ones that I'd imagine are about to be refiled in a number of other Prenda-related cases around the country. My only question, however, is why Gibbs waited until now to file this...

Still, assuming that this information turns out to be legit, and there's no reason to think it isn't, Steele and Hansmeier may be in for a world of trouble. Everyone knew something like this was coming eventually, but I can't see how the two of them will tap dance around this one.

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

Judge Isn't Buying Team Prenda's Excuses

from the of-course-not dept

Team Prenda keeps trying... and failing. In the AF Holdings v. Joe Navasca case in northern California, Judge Edward Chen has accepted the findings of Magistrate Judge Nador Vadas, who had found that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier were clearly the forces behind AF Holdings and Prenda. Judge Chen completely rejects Hansmeier and Steele's protests about all of this, arguing that there is plenty of compelling evidence that Prenda was really managed by the two of them, and they failed to present any evidence to the contrary. Rather, Judge Chen notes, it appears that the protests from Steele and Hansmeier were almost always attempts to kick up dust to distract from the basic facts, rather than attempts to dispute them.

Judge Vadas took into account AF’s attempt to impugn Mr. Gibbs’s credibility but found the evidence unpersuasive: The declarations (of Mr. Gibbs and other attorneys who represented AF in other states) “do not rebut Gibbs’ testimony that Steele and Hansmeier alone communicated with the purported client, and that they directed Gibbs’ litigation strategy. The declarations actually corroborate Gibbs’ testimony: he communicated with local counsel for AF, essentially acting as a go-between for Steel and Hansmeier.”

AF has objected to the finding that Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier were directing Mr. Gibbs’s actions, but the objection is without any merit. The gist of AF’s objection is that, if Mr. Gibbs did in fact simply follow the directions of Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier without doing any investigation of his own, then he violated his duties as an attorney under, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. But just because Mr. Gibbs’s conduct may have been improper does not mean that any improper conduct on the part of Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier should therefore be immunized. All three of the individuals can be deemed to have engaged in improper conduct

Furthermore, Judge Chen also notes the non-appearance of Mark Lutz and the subsequent bizarre excuse sent in a week later. We had noted how odd it was that it would take a week for Lutz to file such information, and Judge Chen makes it clear that the entire thing raises serious questions about Lutz's credibility:

The Court acknowledges AF’s objection that no negative inference should be read from the fact that Mr. Lutz did not appear at the evidentiary hearing because he intended to appear but was not able to because of unforeseen circumstances.... But the claimed inability to appear is highly questionable. First, AF waited for about a week after the evidentiary hearing before bringing up the argument that Mr. Lutz could not appear because of “very sensitive” reasons that would “expose [him] to undue scrutiny.” Second, in spite of the professed sensitive reasons, Mr. Lutz ultimately ended up publicly filing an affidavit (without permission from Judge Vadas) explaining why he could not appear. Third, the affidavit itself strains credulity. According to Mr. Lutz, he had bought a ticket to fly to San Francisco from Miami but, when he arrived at the Miami airport at 5:30 a.m., he was detained by federal authorities and was ultimately detained up until 10:00 p.m. – i.e., for more than 16 hours. And while Mr. Lutz suggests that he had no way to contact his attorney while detained, that is a dubious claim. Moreover, even if he could not contact his attorney while detained, there is no explanation as to why he did not ask for relief the next day.

It's good to see judges seeing through such bizarre filings. Judge Chen also has little patience for Hansmeier and Steele's attempts to attack Alan Cooper, which again he finds have little credibility.

The Court is somewhat sympathetic to AF’s point that it, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Hansmeier did not have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Cooper either at the March 11 hearing or at the April 2 hearing. But that is hardly a reason for the Court to entirely discount Mr. Cooper’s testimony. This is because, even if AF, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Hansmeier did not have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Cooper, they still had the opportunity to introduce their side of the story as to what happened with Mr. Cooper at the April 2 hearing but they effectively chose to do nothing. Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier stated that they would not answer any questions. Tellingly, Mr. Steele did offer an explanation in or about May 28, 2013, in conjunction with another case involving AF in Arizona. (claiming that Mr. Cooper voluntarily expressed interest in getting into the business of fighting digital piracy, Mr. Steele put Mr. Cooper in touch with Mr. Lutz, and that Mr. Cooper thereafter participated in a limited number of transactions in 2011 with Mr. Lutz’s companies). There is no reason why Mr. Steele could not have offered this explanation during the April 2 hearing before Judge Wright.

Moreover, if Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier really felt that cross-examination of Mr. Cooper was critical, there is no reason why they could not have issued a subpoena requiring Mr. Cooper’s presence at the evidentiary hearing before Judge Vadas.

Finally, it is worth noting that Mr. Navasca submitted evidence to Judge Vadas that Mr. Cooper’s identity had been stolen independent of the assignment agreement that bore Mr. Cooper’s name and signature. As Judge Vadas recited in the report and recommendation, Mr. Navasca provided an audio recording from GoDaddy.com, in which the caller identified himself as “Alan Cooper” but who was in fact, as testified to by Mr. Gibbs (who recognized the voice of the caller), Mr. Steele. There is also documentary evidence from GoDaddy.com reflecting that the customer’s name was “Alan Cooper” but the e-mail address was “johnsteele@gmail.com.” Docket No. 93 (Pl.’s Ex. G). Furthermore, the physical address for the customer was 4532 E Villa Theresa Dr. – an address that is linked to Mr. Steele’s sister and “Anthony Saltmarsh.” Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier did not provide any evidence explaining these circumstances.

Basically: the judge isn't buying any of Steele and Hansmeier's attempts to kick up dust without actually answering any of the key questions. The judge, in fact, points out that Steele and Hansmeier did not actually answer the key question that Judge Vadas directly warned them needed to be answered at the hearing: what happened to the funds.

All this concludes with a new hearing, to be held November 21st, in which Steele and Hansmeier are going to have to show cause for why the attorneys' fees that were awarded to Navasca from "AF Holdings" should also apply to the two of them directly. The judge warns them to think twice about filing motions on this, noting that they will carry little weight, since the judge appears to want to get to the bottom of these issues at the actual hearing.

Filed Under: edward chen, joe navasca, john steele, nador vadas, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Loses In Default Judgment; Ruling Clearly Names Steele, Duffy And Hansmseier As Prenda Law

from the and-another-arrow-comes-in dept

Team Prenda is taking hits from pretty much every direction these days. The latest is that, in yet another AF Holdings case, this time in Massachusetts, Prenda had been told to put up a bond of $60,000, which it appears to have ignored. The court has now signed off on a default judgment ruling. Basically this just adds to the pile of money that Team Prenda owes. But a key point here is in the footnote:

As noted in the supporting memorandum, AF Holdings has been found to be an alias of Prenda Law, Inc. and its principals -- John Steele, Paul Duffy and Paul Hansmeier.

Steele and Hansmeier keep trying to claim they have absolutely nothing to do with Prenda, and Steele argues that he's got nothing to do with AF Holdings. Having more courts officially note that AF Holding is really Prenda, and Prenda really is Steele, Duffy and Hansmeier, is going to make their argument more and more difficult going forward.

Of course, as if on cue, in a different case, Paul Duffy is now arguing strenuously that it's unfair to lump Prenda Law in with Steele and Hansmeier or to connect it with AF Holdings. Of course, sooner or later, Duffy is going to realize that if he keeps making this argument, he's actually hanging himself out to dry, almost certainly leading up to Steele and Hansmeier quickly tossing Duffy under the bus when the opportunity permits (one assumes soon after they're done doing the same to Mark Lutz).

Filed Under: default judgment, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Asked To Explain The Disappearance Of Mark Lutz, Team Prenda Says They're Sure He Has A Good Reason

from the that's-not-what-they-asked dept

So we already covered the amazing disappearing act of Mark Lutz, the claimed "mastermind" of copyright trolling operation AF Holdings, though it appears almost no one (including courts) believe that Lutz is anything more than a patsy for John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, as was made clear quite early on in the infamous Sunlust hearing last year. Lately, Lutz has been missing a lot of things. He's missed two court hearings and one deposition.

At yesterday's hearing, apparently Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel gave Paul Hansmeier until today at 5pm to "explain the absence of Mark Lutz." Hansmeier actually filed his declaration early, but it doesn't appear to actually explain the absence. Instead, it goes on at length about how Lutz planned to be there (as was stated in court), but when it gets to the point where he's supposed to actually explain where Lutz went, instead we get this:

Mr. Lutz was traveling with another witness to the Hearing. The witness indicated that Mr. Lutz was not on the flight from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I have attempted to contact Mr. Lutz but have been unable to reach him as of the time of this declaration. Based on my prior experience with Mr. Lutz, including Mr. Lutz’s prior in-person attendance before this Court on August 5, 2013, I believe that Mr. Lutz will be able to provide a good-faith reason for failing to make his flight to Minnesota.

Mr. Lutz has previously complied with orders to appear, including in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 12-cv-8333 (C.D. Cal.); AF Holdings LLC v. David Harris, No.12-cv-2144 (D.Az.); and in this case, where he appeared in person at the August 5,2013, case management conferences

This is bizarre on multiple levels. First, Hansmeier filed this pretty early in the day, well before he was required to do so. You'd think, given the requirement to explain the absence, that Hansmeier would give Lutz at least some time today to get in touch. Saying he's sure that Lutz "will be able to provide a good-faith reason for failing to make his flight" is not actually answering what the court asked.

Second, the fact that Hansmeier states that Lutz appeared at a few hearings, but then fails to mention that he has missed a more recent hearing and a deposition just seems to be purposely trying to mislead the court. It's pretty clear that the lawyer on the other side, Paul Godfread, will point out those other recent absences, so it's a bit wacky that Hansmeier seems to think that ignoring them will not reflect poorly on himself.

Finally, the declaration also gives the details of Lutz's flight info:

Mr. Lutz also purchased a plane ticket from Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Minneapolis, MN. His booked flight, US Airways Flight 1924, departed from Fort Lauderdale at 8:35 a.m. on Sunday September 29, 2013, and landed in Charlotte, North Carolina. His connecting flight, US Airways Flight 713 departed from Charlotte, North Carolina at 11:25 a.m. and landed in Minneapolis at 1:05 p.m. on Sunday September 29, 2013.

This, itself, raises some questions. First of all, if Lutz did, in fact, live in Miami, Fort Lauderdale is a little bit outside of Miami, so getting to the airport takes some time (I've done that trip a few times). In court, John Steele claimed that he drove around in the morning looking for Lutz and found some of his friends who said he'd turned in early to get ready for the flight. At what time was this? If the flight was at 8:35 am, even if they were aiming to get to the airport at ~7:30 am, Steele must have gone looking for Lutz by 6 am or so (even that's probably pretty late). So Steele went randomly driving around Miami at 6 am and magically found Lutz's friends, but not Lutz? Really?

Filed Under: franklin noel, john steele, mark lutz, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Soap Opera: Steele Contradicts His Own Previous Claims, Lutz Disappears Again... And The Mother-in-Law Surprise

from the again? dept

We already posted Nancy Sims' account of what happened in the latest Prenda hearing in Minnesota, but wanted to follow it up with some analysis, because there was a fair bit of interesting stuff in there. As you may recall, this is the case that was reopened after it had already been closed, because the Court wanted to get to the bottom of whether or not Team Prenda was engaged in fraudulent practices. To that end, Magistrate Franklin Noel started demanding actual answers to very on point questions. So far, Team Prenda has continued to dance around actually answering those questions, and the hearing was no different. The things that stood out to me from Sims' writeup:

Mark Lutz's disappearing act:

Mark Lutz has made it something of a habit to not appear where he's required to. He missed a key hearing in San Francisco, as well as a deposition in Georgia. In the California case, it took Team Prenda nearly a week to even acknowledge that Lutz had an excuse, which it then tried to keep shielded from the public. After that was rejected (repeatedly), it was finally admitted that Lutz was apparently "detained" at the airport while trying to board the flight. In this case, they produced a boarding pass, though it's unclear why John Steele would have Lutz's boarding pass, or how he magically found Lutz's friends driving around the streets of Miami early in the morning (the hearing in Minnesota was in the late morning, so it must have been an early flight). It seems unlikely that courts are going to continue to forgive Lutz for his disappearing act when ordered by courts to appear.

It was especially pertinent in this case, given that the whole focus of this particular hearing was on the legitimacy of the copyright assignment to AF Holdings, and the point was to get everyone together in a room to find out who actually signed the document. Lutz not showing up can't make Judge Noel happy -- and he'd already demonstrated an awareness that Team Prenda is up to no good with all of its activities.

John Steele finally takes a stand... though he may wish he hadn't.

This was a bit odd. Seeing as Steele had pleaded the Fifth in the Otis Wright case in California, it seems like a badly miscalculated move to take the stand in Minnesota, where he needed to testify about some of the same issues. His testimony can go back and be used elsewhere, including in Otis Wright's court. You don't get to plead the fifth in one court, pretend that never happened, and then testify in another court.

Furthermore, Steele made a bunch of claims that appear to contradict previous claims. For example, he talks about how he supposedly helped Cooper set up VPR Internationale. Of course, we'd already discussed how the timing on this is wrong. In a previous filing in a case in Arizona, Steele had said, via sworn deposition, that Cooper had expressed interest in setting up a company in early 2011, and then later said that "Cooper ended up not moving forward with the ideas Steele proposed to him." Yet, VPR Internationale was formed in 2010 (i.e.,. before this conversation supposedly happened). And while it had Alan Cooper's name attached to it, it was done with John Steele's email account, and the physical address was of Steele's sister. Also, while Steele had said in the earlier case that Cooper never went forward with this company, now he's claiming he did, which would explain why actual lawsuits were filed under this. It would appear that in either this case or the Arizona case, something Steele said was blatantly false.

Also, the claims about hooking up Lutz and Cooper seem far fetched and unbelievable given a variety of other statements. Cooper directly denied ever talking to Lutz on the stand. But then there's the question of who actually got the signature, and here Steele starts to throw Lutz under the bus, saying that he believed that Cooper had authorized Lutz to sign on his behalf. That's interesting, because in the now infamous deposition of Paul Hansmeier in the case in Northern California, Hansmeier (who is now acting as the lawyer in this case, if you can keep all this straight) specifically said that Lutz had asked Steele about Cooper's signature and if it's legit. From that deposition in February:

Mark Lutz spoke to Mr. Steele and said, Well, I understand that there's an issue with this Alan Cooper and asked Mr. Steele point-blank, Is the signature a forgery. Mr. Steele said the signature is not forgery. And he asked him, Is the -- is this signature authentic. Mr. Steele says, yes, the signature is authentic. Based on Mr. Steele's representation, we have no reason to believe from what Mr. Steele said, at least, that the signature is a forgery or there's some sort fraud going on with respect to the signature.

So... to get this straight: in different cases, Steele, Hansmeier and Lutz have argued that Cooper actually signed the document, that Steele got Cooper to sign the document, that Lutz asked Steele if the signature was legit... and that Steele overheard Cooper and Lutz talking, believed that Cooper gave Lutz permission to sign his name, and that it's likely Lutz who signed for Cooper (something Cooper fully denies).

Of course, if, as they're claiming now, Lutz signed for Cooper, then why would Lutz have called Steele to confirm the signature is legit, as Hansmeier himself said while being deposed? Hansmeier and Steele simply can't keep their story straight -- and telling different courts wholly conflicting answers is generally not a smart thing to do (leaving aside the move to plead the Fifth elsewhere and then testify on the same issues later). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Steele reminds me of people I've known who think they're the smartest person in the world, when they're really not. They seem to think they can talk themselves out of any situation at all. But they generally end up making things worse and worse for themselves.

Thanksgiving in the Steele household may be chilly this year

The wacky issue to come out of the hearing is the involvement of John Steele's mother-in-law, Kim Eckenrode (Steele's wife's maiden name is Kerry Eckenrode). There had been earlier reports that Alan Cooper had received "a text message" telling him to call Paul Godfread, which is how Cooper first found out about his name being used in these cases, leading to his filings claiming forgeries. Team Prenda had long implied that this magic "text" had come from the EFF, which Team Prenda has sought to paint as some crazy group of radicals. But, it turns out that the text message, now entered into evidence, came directly from Steele's own mother-in-law, telling Cooper he should call a lawyer.

Steele tried to play this off by arguing (1) his mother-in-law was religious and disapproved of Steele working with porn companies and (2) she frequented blogs like DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls. Still, it's quite a leap from those two points to recognizing that Cooper's signature may have been used on filings in various cases without his approval. The fact that the elder Eckenrode understood enough about what was going on to alert Cooper that it appeared her own son-in-law was up to no good with his name just adds an interesting element to all of this. I'm almost surprised Steele didn't claim that Eckenrode was a dues-paying member of EFF.

Either way, I can't imagine that's good for family gatherings in the near future.

Get to the damn point

As is frequently the case, Team Prenda seems to want to do everything possible to avoid actually zeroing in on what judges are asking. In this case, the hearing was solely about whether or not the copyright assignment was legit, and Hansmeier tried to put a bunch of totally irrelevant people on the stand to smear Cooper, and then tried to get Cooper to talk about totally unrelated issues as well. I'm not sure why Hansmeier, Steele and Duffy seem to think this "baffle them with bullshit" strategy will be effective, because the deeper you look, it just makes them look more and more like they're not being straight with the court -- and, while they may think they're smarter than everyone else, I have faith that more and more judges clearly understand what Team Prenda has been up to.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brent berry, forgery, franklin noel, john steele, mark lutz, paul godfread, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law