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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is

from the i-think-the-courts-are-on-to-prenda... dept

Remember Brett Gibbs? The California-based lawyer, who is handling a bunch of Prenda Law cases, has been trying to avoid the inevitable in some cases in California. As you may recall, Prenda Law was formed, in part, by copyright troll John Steele. Recently, Prenda has been involved in a number of very fishy cases, including representing firms "AF Holdings" and "Ingenuity 13", which some have accused of being mere shells for Prenda or associated lawyers. Things got strange when a guy named Alan Cooper, who works as a caretaker for some John Steele properties in Minnesota, sought to intervene in some AF Holdings cases, after he realized that "Alan Cooper" was the name listed as CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and he feared that Steele had misused his identity.

A lawyer in California, Morgan Pietz, representing some of the defendants sued by Gibbs/Prenda, had brought Alan Cooper's claims to the attention of the judge in California, and sought to have Gibbs explain if the Alan Cooper listed as CEO of Ingenuity 13 was the same house caretaker complaining that he thought his name was being used without his permission. If, in fact, it was a different Alan Cooper, the simple response would be to show that there's another Alan Cooper and that person really is in charge of these companies. Instead, Gibbs threw something of a hissy fit, refusing to answer such a basic question.

Pietz then asked the court to compel Gibbs to answer some specific questions about the "Alan Cooper" named as CEO, as well as about Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings. The court agreed and gave Gibbs a short deadline. Rather than doing his homework, Gibbs threw another temper tantrum and made a motion to get rid of the judge, Otis Wright, making a bizarre and silly argument that the judge somehow hated copyright holders.

The court has reviewed Gibbs' request... and rejected it soundly, pointing out that there is no good reason to remove Judge Wright from the case, and that contrary to Gibbs' claims, there appeared to be no bias against him, his clients or copyright law.

Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it.

Plaintiff's argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright's discovery orders. This is not a cognizable basis for disqualification.

Furthermore, the court notes that it would appear that a much more logical explanation for Judge Wright's orders is not bias against copyright or porn copyright holders, as Gibbs had claimed, but rather "the potential for discovery abuse." In other words, not only does Judge Wright understand what Gibbs appears to be up to, but others at the court have quickly seen through his attack as well. So, the remaining question is what will Gibbs do next: will he actually answer the questions, or find another reason to throw a temper tantrum?

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

Prenda Law Tries The 'I Know You Are, But What Am I' Legal Strategy

from the legal-childishness-at-work dept

Ah, Prenda Law. As you may recall, there's been an ongoing fight over some Prenda cases in California, with the key players being Prenda lawayer Brett Gibbs, lawyer for some John Doe defendants Morgan Pietz, and judge Otis Wright. Oh yeah, and the possibly mysterious Alan Cooper, who may or may not be Prenda mastermind John Steele's property caretaker. As you may recall, the caretaker Cooper had a lawyer file some documents in some Prenda cases involving shell companies AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, suggesting that he was worried that Steele had faked his identity and claimed that Cooper was the CEO of those two companies, when they were really controlled by Steele.

While Cooper's claims were not made by him in the California cases, Pietz brought them up in those cases, leading to a series of hissy fits from Gibbs. At first he refused to answer a simple question about who Alan Cooper really is, and then when ordered to do so by Judge Wright, asked that Wright be removed from the case for bias. If you thought that was the end of things, you don't know Prenda Law, apparently. The latest filing from Gibbs takes legal childishness to altogether new levels, more or less trying to flip things around and claim that it's really Pietz who is making up people who he represents. I'm not joking.

Thus far, Attorney Morgan Pietz has submitted filings in approximately twenty cases in the Central District on the basis of the fact that he represents the putative John Doe in this case. However, Mr. Pietz has not offered a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. As it stands, Mr. Pietz could very well be intervening in all of these cases for his own ends, with no real client that he is defending. If Mr. Pietz wishes to contest the plain, unambiguous evidence of bias that Plaintiff has demonstrated in its Motion for Disqualification, then Mr. Pietz should have to submit evidence that he is, in fact, representing the actual individual he claims to represent, and not merely inserting himself into cases on the pretense of representing that individual.

Every time we see another story about Prenda law, it seems to involve someone associated with the firm doing something incredibly unprofessional and childish, in a manner suggesting they think they're a hell of a lot smarter than everyone else and are actually pulling something over on the world -- when the reality is that all of their moves seem ridiculously transparent.

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

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

from the discovery dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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