Judge To Everyone In Georgia Prenda Case: Would You All Just Please Shut Up Already

from the stop-filing-motions dept

We've been covering the various antics of Prenda's local counsel in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire, who has been representing Prenda shell company AF Holdings in the AF Holdings v. Rajesh Patel. There have been an awful lot of motions flying back and forth, as Patel's Lawyer seeks sanctions against Nazaire. Nazaire's strategy has been to more or less make himself a laughingstock, arguing that the California ruling against Team Prenda is meaningless in Georgia because of gay marriage and hackers. He's also been trying to file things under seal because commenters on this site might be mean.

Either way, every few days there's a flurry of filings back and forth, and it appears that the judge is sick of it all, angrily telling both sides to knock it off because he's actually busy with stuff that matters:

Subsequent motions repeat variants on the same allegations, whether they are titled “Motion for Sanctions” or “Response in Opposition to Motion.” (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 21, 25, 26, 30, 32, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80.)

At this time, the court is otherwise engaged and is unable to immediately schedule a hearing on the motions. The court believes that the current motions on the table are sufficient to articulate both sides’ alleged grievances. Moreover, the court does not believe that further motions or responses would serve to meaningfully advance the litigation at hand. Therefore, plaintiff and defendant are hereby ENJOINED from filing a motion of any kind without this court’s prior approval. The court will set a hearing on all pending motions in the near future.

Basically the judge recognizes that this case has turned into a bit of an angry pissing match and wants that to stop. Probably makes sense. As amusing as Nazaire's attempts at playing lawyer have been, it would better if things actually moved forward.

Filed Under: blair chintella, jacques nazaire, mark lutz, rajesh patel, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Prenda's Mark Lutz Doesn't Show Up In Two Key Cases, Has A Reason But Won't Share Because People Might Discuss It

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

So we had already mentioned in our coverage of the hearing in the Prenda/AF Holdings v. Navasca case that Prenda's Mark Lutz (who, depending on who you talk to is one or more of the following: a lowly paralegal, the mastermind behind AF Holdings, a total patsy, a clueless "corporate representative or more) didn't bother to show up, even though Prenda's Paul Duffy told the court he knew Lutz was in San Francisco and planned to attend. It took an entire week but Duffy has now filed a request with the court to explain why Lutz couldn't show up, but wishing to do so under seal, for fear that people might actually comment on the story.

Mr. Lutz attempted to travel to San Francisco, California from Miami Beach, Florida in order to testify as a witness at the August 28 hearing. HE has informed counsel for Plaintiff that, for reasons beyond Mr. Lutz’ control, he was unable to board his plane from Miami Beach to San Francisco.

Mr. Lutz thus indicates that he attempted in good faith to be present as a witness at the August 28 evidentiary, and that he wishes to explain to the Court the reasons for his absence, but the reasons are of a very sensitive nature and would expose Mr. Lutz to undue scrutiny, particularly in this case, where counsel for Defendant has artificially publicized its importance throughout the country.

You know, that's the nature of court cases. You do stuff, and the information is made public so that people can appreciate the law. Furthermore, the fact that it took an entire week for Duffy to ask the court to seal this reason seems pretty questionable as well. From the statements made by others in the courtroom, it sure sounds like Duffy lied to the court in saying he knew Lutz was in town. Lutz clearly knew long before the hearing that he wouldn't have been able to attend. A flight from Miami to San Francisco is over five hours long, and somewhere during those hours when Lutz was not on the flight, you'd think perhaps he would have called Duffy and told him he wouldn't be able to attend. Furthermore, after the hearing was over, wouldn't it be normal to expect such an explanation (or even the request to seal it) to come very soon after (as in that day or the next day) rather than wait an entire week?

Of course, this wasn't the only major Prenda lawsuit where Lutz was completely MIA. In the Patel case in Georgia, which we've written about a bunch as well, Lutz had been served by Patel's lawyer Blair Chintella and ordered to show up for a deposition in Georgia on August 21st. He didn't show. Nor did he (or AF Holdings' lawyer, Jacques Nazaire) tell Chintella that Lutz wouldn't make it. Nor did he file with the court for reasons why he shouldn't have to give a deposition. He just didn't show. Chintella has now filed for sanctions over Lutz's failure to show, which is the proper response. Suddenly Nazaire woke up and opposed the motion claiming that Lutz shouldn't have to be deposed, because people would make fun of him.

Additionally, Mr. Lutz has every reason not to appear for a deposition. The deposition is sought out, not for seeking discoverable evidence, but rather to ridicule him. Please see the attached Exhibit A which shows that all the private legal matters in this action are being displayed on a twitter account or feed for fodder.

The attached exhibit demonstrates that any new deposition of Mr. Lutz or any interrogatories or any production responses will be sought solely for the purpose of providing a good laugh for the websites such as “Popehat”, “dietrolldie” and “fightcopyrighttroll”. (See twitter feed attached as Exhibit A).

While I'm only marginally annoyed that Techdirt got left off that list (in Nazaire's last filing, Techdirt was on the list, but FightCopyrightTrolls was not...), the reasoning here is laughable on so many levels. First off, you don't file an opposition after the date of the deposition (actually many weeks later) after not showing up. You do so before. Second, this is not a "private legal matter," it's a public legal matter taking place in the federal court system, and impacting copyright law across the country. Third, Prenda seems to be admitting in this case that it's seeking to not be deposed because there might be public discussion about the case -- which is a pretty big no-no right at the time they're facing an anti-SLAPP claim in another case, arguing that they've been trying to silence public discussion of their legal actions. To have one of their own lawyers basically admit that in another court... yeah, probably not the wisest strategic move.

Oh, and as for the touted exhibit A, which Nazaire insists will prove why Lutz shouldn't have to be deposed, it's quite a filing. Basically a bunch of random tweets (including a few from myself) discussing this and many other issues, some of which have nothing at all to do with Prenda, Lutz, Nazaire or the case at hand. For example, there's a tweet from Andrew Norton about picking up his DragonCon badge and then a few from Kurt Opsahl and Blair Chintella discussing Ed Felten's recent amicus brief in the ACLU's lawsuit over NSA surveillance. What that has to do with Prenda, Lutz or Nazaire I have no idea. There are others as well, including a link to more Ed Snowden links, an article about Blizzard's Diablo III expansion Reaper of Souls (perhaps Nazaire thinks that's a commentary on Lutz as well?), a tweet about Bradley Manning's sentencing and much much more that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, but rather with general legal news.

But even the tweets that are about Prenda/AF Holdings/Lutz are just basic public participation and discussion about a public legal matter -- discussing the legal news, like all those other tweets. To claim that this is some sort of evidence as to why Lutz shouldn't have to show up for a deposition is just wacky. That's not how the law works.

Either way, Lutz has mostly been able to remain under the radar in many of these cases, with Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy taking much of the heat. He did show up in Judge Wright's court room, but was basically ignored. And, of course, there's still the infamous "who's on first" routine that Lutz was a part of last year in Florida, but that was just the very first crack in the facade which has since come tumbling down. Sooner or later he's going to have to come out of hiding, even if it means that the public might comment on his actions.

Update: And... just as we posted this comes the news that Magistrate Judge Vadas has denied Duffy's motion, meaning that they'll have to file an explanation for why Lutz missed the hearing publicly. From the ruling:

The second ex parte application asks for permission for Mark Lutz to file an affidavit under seal addressing the issues AF Holdings was ordered to address at the evidentiary hearing, and explaining why Lutz did not appear at the hearing. The second ex parte application is denied on the ground that the August 28, 2013 evidentiary hearing was an adversary proceeding; allowing Lutz to file an affidavit would deprive defense counsel from cross-examining, which would be unjust. In addition, if Lutz wanted to explain his absence from the hearing, and AF Holdings’ failure to address the issues the court ordered it to be prepared to address, he should have done so much earlier.

Filed Under: blair chintella, deposition, jacques nazaire, joe navasca, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Ex-Prenda Lawyer Wonders If Team Prenda Believes Their Own Lies After Laughable Hearing

from the keep-trying dept

Earlier this week, there was yet another hearing dealing with one of the many courts investigating the actions of Team Prenda. This was in the Navasca case up in San Francisco, where some sanctions have already been issued, and more may await. Judge Edward Chen handed off this stage of the case to Magistrate Judge Nador Vadas, who recently demanded some actual answers, telling "AF Holdings" (one of the many Prenda shell corporations) to show up ready to answer some very specific questions. That's not quite what happened.

The day started off with a laughable declaration from John Steele, in which he stuck with his plan of deny absolutely everything. This focused on denying every bit of Delvan Neville's expert analysis showing a high likelihood that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier were themselves seeding the files they later sued over, via The Pirate Bay. Neville's analysis is detailed, thorough and hard to argue against. Steele and Hansmeier, along with Paul Duffy (the official "named" partner of Prenda) have been insisting that there is nothing to Neville's filing, and keep insisting that he's a nobody, rather than an expert.

I note initially that Mr. Neville is a graduate student; that he has not disclosed why he prepared his declaration.... whether he will successfully complete whatever course of study he is now engaged upon as a "graduate student;" whether he meets any of the rigorous standards applicable to an expert witness in a Federal court proceeding in a Federal court proceeding. (sic)

Upon my review of Mr. Neville's declaration, I find the claims contained therein pertaining to me to be completely untrue and without any basis in fact.

Mr. Neville asserts I may have acted to "seed" a BitTorrent "swarm" involved in the digital piracy of copyrighted works. Those assertions (perhaps better described as suspicions) are categorically false. I have never acted to "seed" a BitTorrent "swarm," and would not know how to do so if for some reason I would desire to try.

It goes on like that. Of course, this is all pretty laughable, given the mountains of evidence that connect Steele to the seeding, including Comcast revealing that the IP address associated with the seeding belonged to Steele Hansmeier, and the information provided by GoDaddy involving John Steele impersonating Alan Cooper and Mark Lutz. Those both came out in a different Prenda case, but showed up in this particular hearing.

Only Paul Duffy from Team Prenda showed up to the hearing (though he showed up late) and while it was promised that Mark Lutz was "in town" and would be there, he never showed up at all. The star of the show was former Prenda team player Brett Gibbs, who, after realizing that Hansmeier and Steele had thrown him under the bus, started finally revealing the truth. Hansmeier and Steele have continued to insist they had little oversight over Gibbs, but at the hearing he produced phone records showing somewhere around 4,500 minutes of phone calls with Hansmeier. He was later asked to identify the recordings on those calls, and said they were John Steele's voice -- which Duffy weakly objected to.

After Neville testified about the inner workings of BitTorrent, it was Duffy's turn, and many people expected a full cross-examination of Neville. Given that Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele have been insisting that Neville's claims are a complete joke and wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny, you'd think they'd relish a chance to have him on the stand. But they more or less ignored him. Instead, Duffy spent a ridiculous amount of time tying himself into knots with an astoundingly weak attempt to pin the blame on Gibbs himself, focusing mainly on procedural issues. The two points he seemed to focus on: that Gibbs never actually saw the infamous "Salt Marsh" signature and that Gibbs never officially checked to see if the Steele Hansmeier law firm was dissolved or purchased after Steele and Hansmeier told Gibbs they'd be doing business as Prenda going forward.

Neither point makes much sense, nor does it really matter. On the signature front, Gibbs has already stated, repeatedly, that he'd asked about Salt Marsh and Hansmeier insisted it was legit. If there was a procedural error, it was trusting his boss (and friend and former roommate). Either way, this could only come back to bite Duffy, since it was Duffy's law firm that Gibbs supposedly worked for, and sooner or later this comes around to lawyers technically working for Duffy's law firm violating procedures. As for the status of Steele Hansmeier, that seems like a pointless tangent.

Thankfully, it appeared that Judge Vadas was pretty aware of what was going on. While not as outspoken as Judge Wright, he made it clear that he wasn't buying what Duffy was selling:

At this point, Magistrate Judge Vadas broke in to ask Duffy a question. "Counsel, where are we going with this?"

"Counsel has the obligation under federal and local rules to maintain the original signature and he [Gibbs] didn't do it!" said Duffy. "He's trying to blame other people who weren't on the case. Any liability should fall upon him, as the filer."

Duffy went on. A minute later, Vadas broke in again, with the same question, asking where the line of questioning was going. Duffy was trying to show that Gibbs had changed his story as a result of a "deal" with another defense attorney in Florida, to drop sanctions against him.

"It strikes me from what I have heard so far that there's a chain of command here, and that Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier were managing partners of the firm that became Prenda Law," said Vadas. "This counsel and other counsels were contract lawyers doing the heavy lifting in whatever states these lawsuits were being filed... Isn't that a fair analysis?"

Some have argued that from Duffy's performance, he appears like he's in way over his head. Of course, given all of the evidence piling up against him and his colleagues, I'm not sure how he could do any better.

Still, the best line of the day may have come after the hearing was over, when reporter Joe Mullin from Ars Technica chased down Gibbs in the hall and asked for an interview:

"I'm just trying to get on with my life," he said. "I'm pretty overwhelmed by this. There just needs to be some truth in this, in the whole matter, and that's why I came today. I don't know if they believe their own lies, at this point."

To be fair, Gibbs was a big part of that lying machine at some point, even if he was just taking orders from Steele and Hansmeier, but kudos to him for finally coming clean.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, delvan neville, edward chen, john steele, mark lutz, nador vadas, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

Courts Start Demanding Actual Answers From Team Prenda

from the and-on-and-on dept

The saga of Team Prenda continues, as courts in two of the Prenda cases we've been following have shown that they're getting pretty tired with Team Prenda's attempts to dance around the issues. First up, we've got the various AF Holdings cases up in Minnesota. If you don't recall, these cases had been dismissed, but after the court learned about some of Team Prenda's antics, it reopened the case with an eye towards determining if Team Prenda was guilty of fraud on the court in coaxing settlements out of people on a faulty or illegal basis. Amusingly, late last week, Paul Hansmeier, sticking to Team Prenda's ridiculous strategy of "whenever we're completely backed into a corner, charge!" filed a notice claiming that AF Holdings intended to reopen the original cases. That is, he's now claiming that because magistrate judge Franklin Noel is investigating them for fraud in the original cases, they now want to continue to "sue" people for infringement to show how "legitimate" their cases really were. The notice is worth reading, mainly for the comedic value. Hansmeier claims that Alan Cooper is mentally unstable and was trying to extort money from John Steele. Also, that there was no forgery of Cooper's signature, but rather Cooper "repudiating" his association with AF Holdings.

Of course, the main reason for making this filing isn't to reopen the cases, or to make laughable claims about Alan Cooper, but rather this:

However, Plaintiff has reached the outer-limits of what it can learn without the coercive power of formal discovery. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to issue an order scheduling a Rule 26(f) conference so it resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Basically, it's Paul Hansmeier asking the court for a fishing expedition against Cooper and his lawyer Paul Godfread. It's hard to see this as anything more than an attempt to be a nuisance.

However, it seems highly unlikely that magistrate judge Noel is buying anything that Hansmeier is selling. Instead, his latest order shows that he's getting pretty damn tired of Team Prenda's runaround. It makes no mention of Hansmeier's filing, denies the local counsel Michael Dugas' request to be dropped from the case (noting that he signed the forged papers), repeats the findings of Judge Wright in California, and then orders AF Holdings/Team Prenda to explain why Judge Wright's findings shouldn't apply equally to these cases:

The plaintiff shall file a memorandum of law on or before August 26, 2013 showing cause as to why Judge Wright's factual findings are not binding against it in these cases under the common law doctrine of issue preclusion. See, e.g., Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 1997) (issue preclusion appropriate under Minnesota law if (1) the issues are identical; (2) the prior adjudication ended with a final judgment on the merits; (3) the plaintiff was a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue).

The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect that Mr. Michael K. Dugas remains counsel of record for the plaintiff. Although he filed a notice of withdrawal and substitution, his withdrawal was not effective upon filing under Local Rule 83.7(b) because it would delay the progress of this case. He signed the complaint to which the forged documents were attached. If Mr. Dugas wishes to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff, he must proceed in accordance with Local Rule 83.7(c) and establish good cause to do so.

In other words, Team Prenda's can't just ignore Judge Wright's ruling here, and it certainly sounds like Judge Noel has no time for Hansmeier's plans to play discovery games.

Meanwhile, back in the Navasca case in Northern California, it appears that the recent sanctions against Team Prenda that Judge Edward Chen awarded have been ignored by Team Prenda, and a magistrate judge in that court, Nador Vadas, would like to know why. Oh, that's not all Judge Vadas would like to know. It appears that Judge Vadas is now taking a special interest in the now-infamous Paul Hansmeier deposition from this case, which was one of the key documents that convinced Judge Wright that Prenda was up to no good. Judge Vadas has some questions he'd like AF Holdings to answer, and they are the kinds of questions that Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, John Steele and Mark Lutz probably don't want to answer about who actually is behind AF Holdings and the various "trusts" such as Salt Marsh:

Hansmeier testified that AF Holdings was owned by a trust, but he could not testify about the name of the trust.... In a May 2, 2013 filing, Mark Lutz, who identifies himself as someone who “manage[s] various adult content related companies, including AF Holdings LLC,” declared that “Salt Marsh is the name of the trust that owns AF Holdings”.... At the hearing, AF Holdings should be prepared to identify the name of its owner and any entity or person having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, beyond Salt Marsh.

AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why it represented that there were “no known persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities (other than the parties themselves) that may have personal or affiliated financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding other than the parties.” Doc. No. 2 (Certificate of Interested Entities).

AF Holdings should be prepared to explain why Paul Hansmeier was designated as its 30(b)(6) deponent instead of Mark Lutz.

Paul Hansmeier was unable to testify about “the exact mechanisms by which the money goes from” to AF Holdings from the law firms that represent it.... AF Holdings should be prepared to explain these “exact mechanisms” at the hearing, and also should be prepared to provide an accounting of the funds it has received from persons it has sued or threatened to sue for copyright violation based on allegedly illegal downloading of its adult titles.

Those all seem like important questions. Questions that would be easy to answer if there were nothing nefarious going on, but which Team Prenda has avoided answering in any meaningful way for months. The hearing at which they need to have such answers ready will be on August 28th. I imagine it will be quite interesting.

Filed Under: alan cooper, franklin noel, joe navasca, john steele, mark lutz, michael dugas, nador vadas, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Comcast Confirms That Steele-Hansmeier Controlled IP Address Used To Seed Content

from the but-of-course dept

We already covered the filing from Blair Chintella highlighting the audio evidence that John Steele had impersonated both Alan Cooper and Mark Lutz, but there was a second bit of evidence in there that's just as damning. It appears that a subpoena sent to Comcast has more or less totally confirmed that it was John Steele or an associate who uploaded the films. Delvan Neville's evidence on this point was pretty convincing, with the one piece lacking being who actually had control over the key IP address that was involved in the activities.

Even though there was clear evidence that John Steele controlled that IP, one of the exhibits is Comcast confirming that 75.72.88.156 was in fact assigned to Steele Hansmeier PLLC, the former law firm of John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Now, the few remaining defenders of Steele and Hansmeier may try to claim that we have noted that an IP address alone proves little, but this is not the IP address alone. There is so much more evidence around that, and the concerns about an "IP address alone" tend to be with it identifying the wrong random person. The chance that someone uploaded these films before anyone else had and somehow magically known to spoof the very IP address of the law firm that would then begin the copyright trolling process around those films is so close to zero that it's zero. The evidence at this point is indisputable: John Steele or someone working with him uploaded the films. And, now there's evidence that he flat out pretended to be Alan Cooper and Mark Lutz. People who know John Steele's voice have confirmed that it is him. Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy's angry denials about all of this keep looking worse and worse.

Meanwhile, Nazaire has wasted little time in responding to all of this by... well... ignoring nearly all of the evidence above. At least this time he, or someone else, figured out how to change the metadata on the PDF to actually say "Jacques Nazaire" instead of "Paul Duffy" (which suggested the filings were actually written by Duffy, who is not admitted on this particular case -- and whom Nazaire has pretended to distance himself from). However, they haven't quite figured out the metadata stuff completely. Andrew Norton points out that the metadata still points to the same weird Chinese language PDF producer that Duffy has used, rather than the iT3XT that Nazaire had been using. Oops.

The rest of Nazaire's response is pretty funny as well. The crux of Chintella's argument against Nazaire was that he violated the rules with his request to stop the discovery by failing to have the required "meet and confer." Nazaire argues that his brief emails with demands should suffice because an actual phone call would be taped and played on the internet, where he might be further embarrassed:

It has been alleged that a good faith effort has not been made to meet and confer. The facts however demonstrate that, on August 3 and August 4, a good faith effort was made to have the excess discovery demands in this case withdrawn. Because of the unnecessary publicity garnished by press releases in this case (See Exhibit A), it is difficult for plaintiff's attorney to call to discuss confidential and privileged matters regarding this case. The telephone and live conversations will more than likely be taped and played on the internet. The confidential matters discussed via email will more than likely be posted as a publicity campaign on the internet. Given the environment that has been created, the plaintiff has made the best effort possible to confer regarding discovery. Plaintiff has not issued any press releases or tweets regarding this matter

I'll leave it to the lawyers out there to discuss what an absolutely, stupendously ridiculous claim that is to make. Either way, we'll see what the judge makes of all of this, but the evidence is piling up against Team Prenda, and the hilarious attempts to tap dance out of it keep getting more and more ridiculous.

Filed Under: alan cooper, blair chintella, evidence, ip address, jacques nazaire, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

GoDaddy Support Recordings Show Same Caller Claimed To Be 'Alan Cooper,' 'Mark Lutz' & 'John Steele'

from the uh-ohs dept

Here's a post on a few of the latest events in the ongoing Team Prenda saga -- with the key one being that Blair Chintella has filed a response to Prenda local lawyer Jacques Nazaire's attempt to block a variety of discovery efforts designed to suss out more details on the Prenda scam. The response doesn't even respond to the attempt to seal all future filings because of you mean, mean Techdirt commenters, but does drop this rather incredible bombshell:

To give another example, regarding the most recent domain registered to “Alan Cooper” – dangerousxxx.com – GD produced a technical support call wherein a male voice identifies himself as “Alan Cooper.” Exhibit GD2. However, a same voice identifies himself differently in multiple other phone calls:

Exhibit	Self-Identification
GD1	"John"
GD3	"John Steele"
GD4	"John Steele"
GD5	"John"
GD6	"John Steele"
GD7	"John Steele" & "Associate on the phone Paul."
GD8	"Mark Lutz"
GD9	"Mark Lutz"

Yeah, if you haven't figured it out yet, it certainly appears that there's now yet more evidence -- and probably very very strong evidence -- suggesting that John Steele pretended to be both Alan Cooper and Mark Lutz at times. This was already shown in a variety of evidence, using addresses and email addresses, but this just adds yet another layer of proof. Remember those messages about how "this call may be monitored for customer services purposes?" Yeah, it would appear John Steele may have forgotten such things can be sought in legal filings. In case you haven't been following all of this, I won't go back over all of the details, but a key accusation against John Steele was that he's been the puppet behind many of these companies, while he's insisted that it was really "Alan Cooper" (who denies having anything to do with anything) and "Mark Lutz" (who appears to be playing along).

The filing highlights a variety of other evidence, much of which we've seen and discussed before showing John Steele pretending to be Alan Cooper. Then it gets even better. Despite Jacques Nazaire claiming to have little to no connection to "Prenda," it turns out that the metadata on his filings showed that they were "authored" by... Paul Duffy, the "sole" partner behind Prenda. While it's possible that Nazaire was using a "template" motion that he obtained from Duffy, it still highlights how it's laughable that Prenda is not associated with the case.

Meanwhile, in yet another Team Prenda case, one of their many local attorneys -- like Nazaire -- has finally realized what Brett Gibbs discovered a while back: the core of Team Prenda (John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy) appear to have no problem throwing the other "red shirt" attorneys they sign up to actually file their cases under the bus when necessary. Lawyer Daniel Ruggiero, who handled a bunch of Prenda cases in Massachusetts, has made a motion to withdraw, noting that he can't trust anything Team Prenda tells him.

There are several things that have come to light regarding Plaintiff and its related owners, officers and lawyers since counsel agreed to file and represent Plaintiff in this case.

You don't say...? He then points the court to Judge Wright's order revealing the details of the Prenda scam, and suggesting that he, too, had no idea that Mark Lutz was supposedly in charge of AF Holdings, and that given everything that's gone on, he doesn't trust Lutz at all:

Once I became aware of the "on goings" of AF Holdings and the others mentioned in his decision, I reached out to speak with someone about it. I received a phone call from someone who claimed to be Mark Lutz. It is my understanding that Mr. Lutz is the owner of Plaintiff, but to be honest, I have no idea what to believe.

He further notes that with everything that has come out, he can't act as AF Holding's lawyers because he can't trust Team Prenda to be truthful:

It is impossible for the undersigned to file pleadings on behalf of the Defendant where there is no reasonable basis to conclude that anything that Plaintiff tells counsel is truthful.

Smart move.

Finally, there was a small setback in the ongoing defamation lawsuit that Duffy has filed against Alan Cooper. The judge refused to dismiss the case under Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law, basically arguing that the filing wasn't sufficient, but Cooper and Paul Godfread can file an amended response that hopefully is accepted. The court also is moving forward with considering sending the case back to the local St. Clair County courts rather than keeping them in the federal courts. You can read the background of all of this here. This is a bit surprising and unfortunate, as Prenda's argument that the inclusion of Hansmeier's Alpha Law Firm means there's no diversity necessary to move it out of a local court is highly questionable, in part because Duffy added Alpha Law Firm in a manner that clearly violated the rules (filing the amended complaint without first asking the court to do so, and even lying to the court clerk about whether the original complaint had been served) but more importantly because the addition of Hansmeier's firm was clearly solely for the purpose of blocking the transfer to the federal courts, because none of the so-called "defamatory" statements were about Alpha Law Firm.

Much of that ruling seems more focused on procedural issues, so hopefully that gets worked out quickly.

Filed Under: blair chintella, jacques nazaire, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy
Companies: af holdings, godaddy, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Gets Even More Ridiculous: Mark Lutz Files Bar Complaint Against Brett Gibbs

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Team Prenda has a history of doing the classic troll move: accuse the other side of doing what you're actually doing. Just recently, we've seen various members of Team Prenda -- John Steele, Mark Lutz, Paul Hansmeier and Peter Hansmeier -- accuse the lawyers who helped expose their practices (Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo) of being worthy of sanctions when it was actually Team Prenda itself who is facing significant sanctions. This sort of "I know you are, but what am I" tactic appears to be a popular one with Team Prenda. When Brett Gibbs was a member of Team Prenda, he engaged in exactly that, trying to get Judge Wright thrown off the case for bias, while also claiming that Pietz deserved sanctions, and even claiming that there was no proof Pietz really represented anyone.

Of course, now that Brett Gibbs has switched sides, and has been willing to provide depositions about how Team Prenda is lying, it appears that he's now the latest target. There were some rumors yesterday that Mark Lutz had filed a bar complaint against Gibbs, but now it's been confirmed in a filing by John Steele in the case before Judge Wright (we'll have more about today's hearing in that case in a bit).

As you may recall, in a different case in Northern California, Team Prenda had been ordered to produce the actual signature of "Salt Marsh" as was signed to a court filing. Mark Lutz then claimed that Gibbs regularly sent him "certifications to sign on behalf of AF Holdings" and he signed them Salt Marsh, as that was the name of the trust that owned AF Holdings. Gibbs responded by pointing out that none of this was true, and he never even knew Lutz was even affiliated with these companies until months later. In other words, Gibbs very clearly said that Lutz was lying to the court.

So, now, we see the response: Lutz has filed a bar complaint in California against Gibbs, claiming that Gibbs is the one who's lying.

My name is Mark Lutz and I am the manager of a company, AF Holdings, LLC, ("AF") that until July 3, 2013, was represented by Mr. Gibbs. The thrust of this complaint is that AF's attorney, Mr. Gibbs, is actively assisting AF's adversaries in exchange for his own personal financial gain.

By the way, I'd suggest you compare the language Lutz used in his filing for sanctions against Pietz and Ranallo, with the bar complaint against Gibbs. It's a guess, but I find it unlikely these two were written by the same individual.

That said, the bar complaint is particularly ridiculous. The more you read, the more ridiculous it gets.

In February, 2013, Judge Wright issued an order to show cause solely against Mr. Gibbs with respect to a case where he was representing AF. (Exhibit G) Mr. Gibbs did not inform me of this hearing. I later learned that at the hearing, Mr. Gibbs repeatedly lied to the Court, making such claims as he was "essentially a secretary" and that other attorneys that I had never spoken to about that case were AF's attorneys. (Exhibit H) As a side note, I would like to inform the California bar that Mr. Gibbs has filed and supervised hundreds of cases on behalf of AF all across the country. Mr. Gibbs was the only attorney I EVER spoke with about the case before Judge Wright. After the March 11, 2013, hearing, Judge Wright issued another order to show cause and scheduled a hearing for it on April 2, 2013 (Exhibit I) Because of Mr. Gibbs' testimony at the March 11 hearing, AF was now a defendant in the new order to show cause. In other words, my own attorney transformed an OSC against him into an OSC against my company based on complete lies to the judge.

The complaint goes on and on about how Gibbs was doing all this stuff without ever contacting Lutz. Of course, given Gibbs' clear testimony that he had no idea Lutz was even associated with these companies until later, that would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? Similarly, given Lutz's close connections to John Steele, the idea that he hadn't spoken to Steele (who Gibbs has noted was directing much of the litigation effort) is particularly difficult to believe.

I'm certainly not as familiar with how the bar complaint process goes, but one hopes that the California state bar will at least take the time to read through the rulings in the various cases, including Judge Wright's ruling against Prenda, in order to understand who is credible here and who is not.

Filed Under: bar complaint, brett gibbs, california sate bar, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Plays Dumb In Central California, As Brett Gibbs Says They Lied In Northern California

from the have-fun-guys dept

It was a busy day for Team Prenda yesterday, as summarized by Joe Mullin. Down in Central California, in the case overseen by Judge Otis Wright -- who famously called out Team Prenda on their scam -- four of the members of Team Prenda all sent coordinated filings, attacking the opposing lawyers, Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo, claiming that they should be sanctioned for failing to serve the various members of Team Prenda concerning the additional filings in the case. John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Peter Hansmeier and Mark Lutz all claim that they've been blissfully unaware that anything was happening in the case. Yeah, seriously. Lutz's is the funniest of the bunch:

I am Mark Lutz and two attorneys named Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo are filing motions asking this court to issue orders without notifying me! I apologize to the Court for my anger, but I have never had a chance to fight any of their motions! The Constitution gives me the right of Due Process, which means that the courts can't take something from me without first giving me a chance to contest that decision. Just so I am as clear as I can be, I have never been served with any paperwork by either attorney Pietz or Ranallo. EVER.

People's faith in the law rests on the belief that attorneys who break the rules don't get away with it. I place my trust in this Court to make sure that these attorneys will be held accountable for their actions. Here the record is obvious that Pietz and Ranallo have been breaking the rules. I therefore ask the court to strike all pleadings filed by attorneys Pietz and Ranallo that do not have a proof of service filed with them. I also ask that any orders that were entered by this court against AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13 or me be vacated. These guys are total fraudsters

The other filings are similar, if only slightly more professional. Steele had actually filed a similar filing a week earlier, which Judge Wright rejected within an hour. It seems unlikely that he'll be any more open to these latest claims as he's made it clear that he's very much onto Team Prenda's usual tactics of denying everything, trying to talk their way out of any hole they've dug, and when caught, attacking those who caught them. This latest is straight out of their playbook. The question of whether or not these four guys are being served is an important one, but as Judge Wright made clear in his initial ruling, Steele and Paul Hansmeier are considered by the Court to be principals of Prenda, so as long as Pietz and Ranallo are serving Prenda itself, in the form of Paul Duffy (who, you'll notice, is the lone member of the "Team" as defined by Judge Wright and who did not file one of these statements), it probably covers those three. The situation may be different with Lutz and Peter Hansmeier, but even then, I'll wait on Pietz's and Ranallo's reply, since nearly every statement from Team Prenda ends up proving to be less than fully accurate later on.

On a related note, earlier in this same case, we discussed how Team Prenda had done everything to try to hide from being served during an earlier round of filings. Their efforts to avoid service may become fairly relevant should this issue get any further.

Of course, on the same day this happened, something even more interesting was happening up in Northern California, in the AF Holdings v. Navasca case. That was the case where Judge Edward Chen had ordered Team Prenda to produce a copy of the supposed "Salt Marsh" signature, which Mark Lutz insisted he could not find (as did Paul Duffy). Lutz tried to brush off everything, saying that Brett Gibbs regularly asked him to sign various things and he would do so on behalf of the mysterious Salt Marsh trust. While this argument was an odd one, Judge Chen accepted it and was ready to close the case.

However, Ranallo has now asked Judge Chen for sanctions against a variety of the members of Team Prenda for their actions and statements in the case, and has presented a tremendous amount of evidence that Steele, Hansmeier and Lutz have been flat out lying. And, some of that evidence comes in the form of a damning deposition from former Prenda lawyer Brett Gibbs. Gibbs, it appears, has finally realized that Steele and Hansmeier were throwing him under the bus. While Gibbs had already given one deposition against Steele and Hansmeier, it was fairly tame compared to this latest one, in which he points out that Lutz's claims are clearly untrue:

I have reviewed the Affidavit of Mark Lutz filed in this case on May 13, 2013 (Doc. #80). I believe that the information provided in the fifth paragraph of that affidavit regarding my interactions with Mr. Lutz is not an accurate description of those events. I did not "from time to time" send certificates for Mr. Lutz to sign on behalf of the Salt Marsh Trust. I did not have the alleged conversations with Mr. Lutz. In fact, I did not know that Mark Lutz was directly affiliated with these companies, as an owner or otherwise, until months after filing the ADR Certification in this case.

Instead, I was specifically told by Mr. Hansmeier that Salt Marsh was the owner of AF Holdings, and that he, Salt Marsh, had read and understood the ADR handbook, and that I could go ahead and file the ADR Certification with the electronic signature of Salt Marsh. Again, I never spoke with Salt Marsh directly. Through my conversation with Mr. Hansmeier, I was under the impression that the Salt Marsh was an individual who had in fact complied with the Local Rule and that his original signature existed on a document that was being held by my then employer, Prenda Law, Inc. Given that information, I proceeded to file the ADR Certification on that basis.

After I filed this case, I learned through a separate case filed in Minnesota that the assignment agreement may have been invalid because there was a dispute whether a signature on the agreement was in fact forged. Once alerted to this, I immediately discussed this matter with John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. They assured me that it was a valid signature, that the allegations were mere "conspiracy theories," and that I should have no concern in continuing to prosecute this and other AF Holdings' cases. I believe I was diligent in my factual and legal investigation of this matter.

Of course, one could argue that Gibbs' credibility is less than perfect (though, still better that Steele/Hansmeier/Lutz). But, even without Gibbs' deposition, Ranallo has pretty strong evidence of the typical shenanigans from Steele/Hansmeier here, in that he actually shows that Steele and Hansmeier's own statements in two different cases, directly contradicts each other.

AF Holdings' first attempt to explain this assignment came on February 19th, when Paul Hansmeier appeared as AF Holdings' 30(b)(6) deponent in this action. In a clearly rehearsed explanation, Mr. Hansmeier stated that Mark Lutz, paralegal for Steele Hansmeier, Prenda Law, and the Anti-Piracy Law Group tasked his boss, John Steele, with arranging a "corporate representative" to acknowledge the assignment in this case (Hansmeier Dep. at 121:11-128:12).

We are to believe that Mr. Steele did this as a favor to his paralegal, because the paralegal was himself too busy to personally sign his own name on behalf the company he supposedly runs. It is unclear how Mr. Lutz saved any time this way, since it undoubtedly took at least as long to arrange for the "representative" as it would have to sign his own name, but nonetheless, we are told that efficiency was the motivation. See Hansmeier Dep. at 127:22- 128:8 ("...Mr. Lutz is an individual. There are a certain number hours in a day and for him to accomplish everything he's going to accomplish in a given day, or for anyone in any capacity in any business, you rely on third parties to aid you to accomplish tasks.")

According to Mr. Hansmeier, Mr. Steele then sought out his property caretaker in Minnesota, Alan Cooper, to serve as "corporate representative" to acknowledge the assignment. Hansmeier Dep. at 122:5-11. According to Mr. Hansmeier, Mr. Steele was therefore the sole individual that could shed any light on the circumstances surrounding the execution. Hansmeier Dep. at 122:11-126:21. Specifically, Mr. Hansmeier testified that

"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 the signature authentic. Mr. Steele says, yes, the signature is authentic..." and, "...all I can say is that AF Holdings – the only person who knows who this Alan Cooper is is John Steele...". Hansmeier Dep. 122:11-18 and 126:10-127:2.

Mssrs. Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy were each given a chance to forward their own explanation(s) for the Cooper assignment on April 2, 2013 at a hearing in the Central District of California. Rather than testifying under oath (and subject to cross examination), however, each invoked their Fifth Amendment right. Ingenuity 13 v. Doe, 2013 WL 1898633 at * 2 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2013).

Mr. Steele later decided to address this issue in the form of an affidavit– safe from cross-examination - in response to yet another Order to Show Cause regarding sanctions in the District of Arizona. A copy of the Arizona Order to Show Cause is annexed hereto as Exhibit K , AF Holdings response is annexed as Exhibit L, and Mr. Steele's affidavit in support is annexed hereto as Exhibit M. Mr. Steele's affidavit is wholly inconsistent with Mr. Hansmeier's version of events, and Mr. Steele cannot bring himself to even claim that Mr. Cooper actually executed the assignment. What Mr. Steele does say, however, contradicts Mr. Hansmeier's testimony and various publicly available documents. See, e.g. Exhibit M... Specifically, Mr. Steele describes the Alan Cooper circumstances as follows:

"8. ...I agreed to help him set up a company for him and help him out in getting started with his business.
9. Shortly thereafter, Alan told me that he could not put any time into the project and I believe that he never ended up following through with getting his new company off the ground. As a less time intensive alternative, I suggested that if Alan wanted to learn more about the adult industry, I could connect him to a new company that was run by Mark Lutz.
10. I informed Alan that one way to get his name established would be to serve in a corporate representative role, which would let him gain exposure to the types of deals Mr. Lutz was doing and see if that was something that appealed to him.
11. My understanding is that Alan took me up on the offer and participated in a limited number of transactions in 2011 with Mr. Lutz’s companies. I am not aware of any post-2011 transactions in which Alan participated.” Steele Aff. at 8- 11.

Several things are notable about Mr. Steele's version of events. First, and most conspicuously, is his purported ignorance regarding the Alan Cooper transactions, notwithstanding Mr. Hansmeier's testimony that Mr. Steele was the only one with information. In contrast to Mr. Hansmeier's testimony, which makes it clear that Mark Lutz specifically tasked Mr. Steele with finding a corporate representative for the purpose of acknowledging AF Holdings' assignments, Mr. Steele implies that this was a favor for Mr. Cooper, wholly unrelated to any specific task. Moreover, Mr. Steele disclaims any personal knowledge regarding the "limited number of transactions" that Mr. Cooper was involved in, and disclaims any knowledge that would allow him to reassure Mr. Lutz and Mr. Hansmeier that the relevant assignments were not forgeries, as he apparently did. Indeed, Mr. Steele's affidavit seems to indicate that Mr. Lutz would himself have all the necessary information regarding the assignment, and there would be no reason for Mr. Lutz to go to Mr. Steele for confirmation regarding the validity of the assignments.

Secondly, AF Holdings response and Mr. Steele's affidavit simply do not square with documented reality. AF Holdings' response to the OTSC indicates that "At some point in early 2011, Steele and Cooper discussed how a friend of Steele's was exploring opportunities related to purchasing and marketing adult content. Cooper expressed interest in learning more about these opportunities, and Steele offered to help him learn more...Cooper ended up not moving forward with the ideas Steele proposed to him..." See Exhibit N at 6.

This explanation does not square with history. Indeed, John Steele began misappropriating Mr. Cooper's identity before "early 2011," in connection with VPR, Inc., and other entities. As previously described in ECF No. 55, 55-1, and 55-5, VPR, Inc., was formed and registered with the Nevada Secretary of State in late 2010 and identified Alan Cooper as the president, secretary, and all other relevant positions in the entity. As previously described, the corporate address identified by the Nevada Secretary of State is 4532 East Villa Theresa Drive ("the Villa Theresa Address"), an address previously shared by John Steele's sister and Anthony Saltmarsh. See ECF Nos. 55-1, 55-3 and 55-4.

VPR, Inc. cannot be the entity that never came to fruition, as described in Mr. Steele's affidavit, as it has filed copyright lawsuits against more than a thousand Does, through its counsel, Steele Hansmeier.

Believe it or not, there's much more in there, but that selection of using Steele's claims against Hansmeier's claims is really quite classic. This is, of course, what happens when you dig yourself a giant hole and then try to bullshit your way out of it. Sooner or later you're going to contradict your own claims.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, copyright, copyright trolling, edward chen, john steele, mark lutz, morgan pietz, nicholas ranallo, otis wright, paul hansmeier, peter hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Florida 'Abbott And Costello' Prenda Case Ends Not With A Bang, But A Whimper

from the that's-too-bad dept

As expected, it looks like Prenda, along with John Steele and Paul Duffy, have a tiny bit of good news as the first case which suggested they were committing fraud on the court, in the courtroom of Judge Mary Scriven, has been closed without any further action. If you don't recall, this was the case in which the transcript was something of an Abbott and Costello worthy routine, with various lawyers trying desperately to back out of representing Sunlust, a Prenda client. You really need to read the whole transcript, but among other things, Paul Duffy claimed Prenda had nothing to do with the case, while the lawyer seeking to get out of the case said he was hired by Prenda. Mark Lutz makes an appearance in which he's dressed down by the judge for dressing down in the courtroom and being a sham of a "corporate representative." And then there's the appearance of John Steele, who claims he's there on no official business other than to observe, but who repeatedly confers with Lutz, and who the judge quickly figures out likely has his hands in this whole mess.

Unfortunately, some sort of settlement was clearly reached, as the defendant Tuan Nguyen, represented by Graham Syfert (who has battled against Prenda on numerous fronts), recently withdrew all motions against Prenda, Steele and Duffy, so the court agreed to close the case without further investigation into the potential fraud on the court. Of course, in a bit of irony, the final order of business before closing the case is to... let another set of lawyers off the case, after they claimed conflict of interest among their clients (mainly because Brett Gibbs had filed a declaration implicating Steele, and they were representing both). It's a bit unfortunate that this case is closing, as it seemed like another one where a judge might suss out some clear examples of fraud on the court by Prenda (denying they were involved at all in this case is a big one, for example...). But, this case is now off the docket entirely. Hopefully Nguyen is cashing a nice settlement check from Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy.

Filed Under: graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, tuan nguyen
Companies: prenda, prenda law, sunlust

Another Court Tells Prenda To Pay Up On Attorneys Fees

from the adding-up dept

It looks like the bill for Prenda Law is going up. Yet another court has now awarded attorneys' fees, telling "AF Holdings" (one of Prenda's shell companies) to pay $9,425. Of course, since Prenda still tries to deny that it controls AF Holdings, I'm sure they'll try to avoid paying up. It would be extra amusing if they suggested Alan Cooper should pay up, since that's the name that was signed on various AF Holdings' filings, but which many people believe was really signed by John Steele. Of course, since that whole "faking the name" thing flopped, it's now been Mark Lutz -- former paralegal/lackey of John Steele -- who has been "named" as the boss of AF Holdings. So, it sounds like Lutz should pay this one... Now the question is how long does it take Lutz to realize that Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy will probably leave him hanging out to dry as well?

Filed Under: alan cooper, john steele, mark lutz, nick ranallo, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law