Prenda Law Showdown Happening Monday: Judge Orders Everyone To Show Up In Court

from the get-yourself-some-popcorn dept

Okay... so I was just putting the finishing touches on a blog post about the latest filings from Prenda's Brett Gibbs and his opponent in a series of cases, Morgan Pietz, ahead of the planned hearing on Monday concerning various Prenda Law cases. As in the past, it was full of more attempts by Gibbs/Prenda to tapdance, with more evidence presented by Pietz that Prenda is up to no good (understatement of the year).

And... just as I was getting set to post it, I discover that Judge Otis Wright has had enough of the tap dancing, and has ordered just about everyone to show up in court on Monday for the hearing. And I do mean just about everyone.

John Steele? Yes. Mark Lutz? You bet. Alan Cooper? Oh yeah -- in fact, the judge ordered both Alan Coopers (the one claiming his identity was used by Steele and the one who supposedly "ran" AF Holdings) to show up, to see if there really are two of them. Paul Duffy? Yes. Paul Hansmeier. Yup. Of all the "players" from the latest filings, the only one missing may be "Allan Mooney" or "Alan Mony" or "Alan Moony" depending on which filing you're looking at (more on that below).

Sometimes it's difficult to actually get a sense of "tone" when you see some text, and that's doubly true of a court filing from a judge. But... this time, you get the feeling that Judge Otis Wright is not happy about all of this.

I expect that there will now be a flurry of filings with excuses and attempts to get out of appearing. I don't think that's going to work.

And... because I hate to let a perfectly good post go to waste, below is what I had originally written, but which has now been pushed down by this bit of breaking news. Consider everything below some additional background info for the main event coming Monday.

---

Brett Gibbs, who both is and is not a lawyer working for Prenda Law (depending on which time you ask him), continues his tap dance routine as we get closer to the expected showdown in Judge Otis Wright's courtroom on March 11th, in which sanctions against Gibbs, including the possibility of jail time, will be considered. The latest filing from Gibbs (filed by some lawyers he has hired to help him out), basically attacks nearly every statement in the declaration filed by the opposing lawyer, Morgan Pietz. It's really quite a work of art. First, he tries to get various declarations concerning evidence that Prenda sought to have AT&T identify IP address holders after Judge Wright had already ordered that such discovery stop. Gibbs claims that these declarations are "untimely." Then, pretty much every single statement from Pietz is challenged with a rotating list of claims, including: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, improper characterization of evidence, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation and argumentative. Basically, nearly every single point that Pietz raises to show improper or questionable conduct by Gibbs and or Prenda should be ignored based on this filing. Given that Judge Wright hasn't exactly been swayed by Gibbs' arguments over the last month or so, I find it unlikely that he's going to be swayed by all of this tap dancing.

Oh, and still no indication of who Alan Cooper is.

However, in the same case, Pietz has also filed another document presenting evidence that suggests that Alan Cooper may not be the only name that was "faked" as a part of all of these lawsuits:

First, there was Alan Cooper. Mr. Gibbs has no real explanation for the Alan Cooper situation, other than to disclaim responsibility and deflect blame for the apparent fraud, etc., to his supposed “supervising” attorneys at Prenda Law, Inc. Unfortunately for Mr. Gibbs, it is his name on the pleadings and "counsel can no longer avoid the sting of Rule 11 sanctions by operating under the guise of a pure heart and empty head." Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1488 (9th Cir. 1994). Hopefully, Mr. Cooper himself can address theses issues at the March 11 hearing.

Now, there is also "Allan Mooney" a/k/a "Alan Mooney" a/k/a "Alan Mony." Newly discovered facts suggest that Alan Cooper may not be the only person who has had his identity misappropriated by Prenda in connection with its shell companies. Although some details are still hazy, suffice it to say that undersigned counsel (and many others) would very much like to question the real "Allan Mooney" on the record, under oath. Similarly, there is widespread interest in a subpoena to obtain testimony and records from the Minnesota bank that employs the notary who supposedly notarized Mr. Mooney's signature on legal pleadings filed in other jurisdictions. Then, of course, there is also Anthony "Salt Marsh" Saltmarsh. In short, "Alan Cooper" was not a mistake; there appears to be a pattern.

Furthermore, Pietz points out, the "rotating case" of characters that Prenda uses, seems to involve constantly switching roles so they can't be pinned down.

Another pattern with Prenda is that all of the persons involved constantly change hats; who is acting in what capacity seems to fluctuate to suit whatever the instant legal predicament happens to be. Inconsistencies include:

Mr. Gibbs is counsel of record for AF Holdings, LLC (e.g., C.D. Cal. No. 2:12-cv-5709, ECF No. 1) (7/2/12); Mr. Gibbs is "in house counsel" for AF Holdings (N.D. Cal. No. 3:12-cv-4221, ECF No. 22, p. 2) (1/30/13)3; Mr. Gibbs is not in house counsel to AF Holdings, and has never been anything other than AF Holdings’ "independent contract attorney" (ECF No. 49, p. 3) (2/19/13).

John Steele is "of counsel" to Prenda (Exhibit D) (4/20/12); John Steele is "not an attorney with any law firm" when questioned by Judge Scriven (Exhibit N, p. 135)(11/27/12); John Steele is back to being "of counsel" to Prenda in the St. Clair County Guava case (Supp'l. Dec. 15 (ECF No. 53)) (2/13/13).

AF Holdings copyright assignment is executed by Alan Cooper (e.g., C.D. Cal. No. 2:12-cv-5709, ECF No. 1) (12/20/2011); "Salt Marsh" is the "AF Holdings Owner" (Exhibit R) (7/20/12); AF Holdings is owned by a mystery trust, and never had any other members or employees other than its manager Mark Lutz (ECF No. 52, p. 28) (2/19/13, 11:00 a.m.); AF Holdings is owned by Livewire Holdings, LLC (ECF No. 49, fn. 1) (2/19/13, 6:00 p.m.).

Guava, LLC files a petition supposedly verified by client "Alan Mony" (ECF No. 51-1) (11/20/12); Prenda confirms "Alan Mony" is the client's name (Exhibit FF, p. 5) (2/12/13); Prenda files new verification, now spelling the purported client's name as "Alan Mooney" (Exhibit GG) (2/21/13); however, the real name of the "client" (who may or may not have agreed to lend his name to Prenda's efforts) is probably "Allan Mooney" (ECF No. 52, pp. 15–16).

Pietz has even spent the time to put together a graphic in which he tries to map out the various characters at play here. Given all of this, it seems likely that Judge Wright isn't going to simply agree that everything Pietz has to say is "irrelevant" and "lacks foundation." At some point, Gibbs, or someone else from Prenda is actually going to have to produce Alan Cooper and/or possibly Allan/Alan Mooney/Mony/Moony/etc. Watching Prenda's lawyers continue to try to tap dance their way out of this is really quite an astounding thing.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, morgan pietz, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda, prenda law
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Prenda Law Accused Of Fraud On The Court In Defending Itself Against Claims Of Fraud On The Court

from the this-is-just-getting-silly dept

Prenda Law, the copyright trolling law firm that was accused by a judge of committing "fraud on the court," has now been accused of committing more fraud on the court in its very attempt to fight the original claim of fraud on the court. Yes, they're being accused of fraud on the court to cover up their original fraud on the court. Grab some popcorn, because this one keeps getting more and more entertaining.

As a bit of background, we've been writing a number of stories lately about the copyright trolling law firm, Prenda Law, and some of its nuttier actions in a variety of cases. However, the case that still tops them all is the one from Florida that had the Abbott-and-Costello worthy hearing, involving bumbling lawyers all trying to disassociate themselves from the case, and the mysterious appearance of John Steele, one of the folks behind Prenda Law, who has been told not to practice law in Florida, in which he was clearly orchestrating things, and the judge called him on it. The lawyer for the defendant in that case, Graham Syfert made the case why Steele and Prenda Law deserved sanctions for its actions, but Prenda's actions just haven't stopped.

The firm hired a Florida-based law firm that specializes in dealing with "white collar crime" to defend itself, and then filed some declarations for some of the parties, including one Daniel Weber. Weber is the husband of Sunny Leone, and an executive at SunLust Pictures, the company that officially filed the original trolling lawsuit. As came out in the hearing, no one actually representing SunLust was in the court that day. There were lawyers hired by Prenda who wanted nothing to do with the case. There was a letter from Prenda "sole partner" Paul Duffy insisting that Prenda had nothing to do with the case, and there was John Steele -- who also denied having anything to do with the case, other than being generally interested. The "official" representative of the company was Mark Lutz, who had worked for Prenda, but who the judge eventually got to reveal was not actually a representative of SunLust in any way, shape or form. He was just hired to sit there and pretend to be a representative of the company.

So... Weber files a declaration that tries to explain why he couldn't be in court that day, claiming that he and his wife were in India filming a movie (which is what Steele had suggested in court). The only problem, as uncovered by the site Fight Copyright Trolls, was that Weber's own Twitter feed showed that he was very much in the country that day. It also showed that Weber misspelled his own name on the filing, writing it Webber. A new affidavit was quickly filed after this was called out, in which he claimed to "clarify" his earlier statement, arguing that he had originally "been scheduled" to be in India on that date, but had changed plans due to an "emergency surgery" on his dog. Again, FCT showed some Twitter evidence that suggested this wasn't true, and that Weber had made earlier statements showing he had no intention of being in India until early December (and that he and his wife had other travel plans around the US during this time, which they took, suggesting the "sick dog" excuse, even if true, wouldn't explain why he was unable to attend).

Now, following all that, Syfert has filed an incredible new motion for sanctions against John Steele, going even further in suggesting dirty tricks as it relates to the Weber affidavit. In other words, Syfert is suggesting that, in defending the charges of "fraud on the court," Steele is committing another fraud on the court. In the filing, Syfert claims that Weber's affidavit was not actually from Weber at all, but was actually created by John Steele himself. The filing notes a number of issues discussed above, as well as some other questionable things, including the timing of the execution and faxing of the document based on statements and corresponding tweets.

The Declaration of Daniel Webber was an attempted fraud on the Court, explaining his absence from the hearing first by distance in India, but no mention of a city, and somehow misspelling his own name or signing without reviewing a single word. The current amended exhibit, the Affidavit of Daniel Weber ... is another fraud on the Court by claiming an emergency dog surgery during the November 27th hearing, such surgery having occurred at least three days prior to the hearing, according to public statements. Also according to those public statements, Daniel Weber was recording a new album with his rock band on November 27th, 2012 and a behind the scenes video was recorded.

Although a correction has been issued to the Declaration of Daniel Webber, such correction would have not been made, and fraud would have continued, if not for the actions of Defendant. The amended Affidavit states that Mr. Weber was "unexpectedly in Los Angeles" due to a dog surgery on the date of the hearing, but evidence from his twitter account shows that he was in Los Angeles on the 23rd of November, and so Mr. Weber had at least four days to expect that he was in Los Angeles on the date of the hearing. Defendant should not be forced to continuously be a gatekeeper of the correct spelling of the name of Plaintiff's principals or the truth of statements made in this court under penalty of perjury.

The filing is full of more examples of questionable statements or behavior from Steele with relation to the case. For example, in Steele's affidavit, he explains why he was speaking to Lutz, but Syfert notes that this argument makes absolutely no sense given the context and other statements in the filing:

Paragraph twenty of Steele's affidavit states that he drove with Mark Lutz to Tampa to observe the hearing before this court, but paragraph twenty-one states that in the middle of the court proceeding, he felt the need to reassure his existence to Mark Lutz... Although they had spent four hours in a car together, found a parking spot together, went through security together, rode up in the elevator together, and entered the courtroom together, John Steele asks this court to believe that he suddenly felt compelled to notify Mr. Lutz, "Hey, I'm here." as if Mr. Lutz was worried about John Steele suddenly abandoning him in Tampa, or turning invisible like a superhero.

The courtroom was entirely empty other than court staff, Mr. Lutz, Mr. Steele, Mr. Syfert, and the Defendant. Mr. Steele was the only person present in the gallery of this court. Mr. Steele was present when the Court took the bench, and before any proceedings. Mr. Steele did not relieve himself of the Court, and then re-enter- nor did he perform any other disappearing act until after the Court dismissed the case. Common sense states that Mr. Steele should have no desire or need to reassure Mr. Lutz of his existence within the courtroom in the middle of a proceeding. Mr. Steele, being an attorney practicing before the federal courts of the various states, should have known that it was improper for him to speak up in the middle of a proceeding. It is less likely that he was reassuring Mr. Lutz and it is much more likely that Mr. Steele was trying to explain to the struggling Lutz his role as a 1099 contractor who is available to be appointed for Prenda Law clients, or to inform him what attorney was hired.

Then there's this slip up by Brett Gibbs, a lawyer for Prenda in California, who we've been writing about in connection to some of the Prenda California cases. As you may recall from the original hearing, the lawyer, Jonathan Torres, who Prenda had hired to handle the case, but who was desperately trying to get out of it, told the court that his only communication had been with Gibbs. Syfert notes that despite Steele claiming to have nothing to do with the case, in Gibbs' own affidavit to the court, he includes the email he sent to Torres which also shows who he bcc'd (which Torres never would have seen). Guess who's there?

Attorney Torres testified at the hearing that his only communication had been with Brett Gibbs.... John Steele has always denied any involvement in this case other than driving with Mr. Lutz to the hearing.

In the Affidavit of Brett Gibbs, he includes e-mail communication between Gibbs and Torres regarding Prenda’s great interest in having Mr. Torres file another bar complaint against Graham Syfert for his actions in this case.... Gibbs blind carbon copies two e-mail addresses in his communication, so that Mr. Torres would not know that they were being sent to those particular individuals. He blind carbon copies jlsteele@6881forensics.com (John Steele, Illinois attorney, subject of this motion) and prhansmeier@6881forensics.com (Paul Hansmeier, Minnesota attorney (also licensed State of Illinois, Minnesota and others), former partner of John Steele))....

John Steele and Peter Hansmeier were supposed to have sold all their interest in Prenda Law, Inc. to Paul Duffy and Joseph Perea when Prenda Law, Inc. purchased Steele|Hansmeier, PLLC. Also compelling and interesting is the fact that Paul Duffy, the man who sits where the buck is supposed to stop at Prenda Law, is unquestionably absent from inclusion in the correspondence between Gibbs and Torres.....

Who Gibbs chose to include on such an e-mail should be explanatory as to where final decisions rest as well as the true management of the many faces of the current Prenda Law. Not Mr. Duffy, Illinois Principal. Not Mr. Wasinger, Florida Plaintiff's counsel. Not Mr. Lutz, a Corporate Representative"for hire." Not Mr. Weber or Ms. Leone. Now that Perea is out of Prenda Law, Paul Duffy is really the only person who should have an interest in what is going on between Torres and Gibbs. Instead, we find Mr. Steele included.... For the level of involvement claimed by Mr. Steele, the urging of Torres to file a bar complaint against Graham Syfert is unnaturally Mr. Steele's concern. The use of the bcc, or blind carbon copy, ensured that Mr. Torres would not have record of Mr. Steele's or Mr. Hansmeier's involvement in the communication.

It would appear this legal soap opera is far from over. Stay tuned...

Filed Under: copyright trolls, daniel webber, daniel weber, graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law, sunlust

Making The Case For Why John Steele And Prenda Law Deserve To Be Sanctioned

from the fraud-on-the-court dept

Last week we had the incredible story of the comedy routine that copyright troll John Steele and Prenda Law tried to pull on a courtroom in Florida, leading to the case being dismissed and the judge planning to dig deeper into the potential "fraud on the court." If you have not read that post and accompanying transcript do so now. It is one of the funniest things ever to come out of a courtroom.

And, of course, it's not over yet. The defense attorney in the case, Graham Syfert, who has been getting pretty good at exposing bad behavior by Steele and Prenda, has filed a motion asking for sanctions, and it's a good one. You can see it here or read the embedded version below. Syfert kicks it off by showing, in massive detail, that the letter from Paul Duffy -- claiming to be the sole principle of Prenda Law -- denying any involvement in the case is likely bogus on multiple levels.

Mr. Duffy’s signature is on the subpoena issued out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, relating to Civil action 1:12-CV-20920-PAS in the Southern District of Florida. (See attached Exhibit “B”) This subpoena revealed the name of the internet subscriber with the IP address of 96.254.186.43, and produced the name of the Defendant to Prenda Law, Inc., at 161 N. Clark St. Suite 3200, Chicago IL 60601, the same address listed on the letter where Paul Duffy stated that he did not represent anyone involved in this case.

Further, Mr. Duffy has made appearances in Sunlust v. Does 1-75, 12-CV-1546 (N.D. Ill.), Sunlust v. Sadiq Majid, 12-CV-07868 (N.D. Ill.), and Sunlust v. Norbert Weitendorf, 12-CV-07826 (N.D. Ill.) and possibly other Sunlust matters.

The website www.wefightpiracy.com is the website of Prenda Law, Inc., lists Paul Duffy as the principal, and lists the work product that is the complaint in this matter as their own, stating “Below is a sample of individuals who chose to litigate the matter and are currently in court over their alleged infringment” and then listing the name of the Defendant, along with a link to the complaint in this matter. The complaint is held on Prenda Law’s website at http://www.wefightpiracy.com/userfiles/Nguyen%20(FL).pdf and the website reports an address of 161 N. Clark Ste. 3200.

Yeah. That last one is pretty damning. And, as of the moment I'm writing this, that link is still on Prenda's list of cases. A quick screenshot: When you claim that you aren't associated with a case, you probably shouldn't put the case up on your website listing "recent cases" that your firm has been involved in.

Of course, Syfert then turns his attention to John Steele, noting that Duffy's claims of not being involved might actually be true if John Steele -- who is not licensed to practice law in Florida and has already been warned by the Florida Bar about this issue -- is actually running the show, potentially even to the point of writing the "letter" that Duffy supposedly sent:

There is only one possible way that the letter is true, and filled with candor, and that would be if John Steele was using Paul Duffy as a “face attorney” using his identity to litigate, and therefore Paul Duffy doesn’t truly represent any Sunlust client. Another option is that that the letter was not even sent from Paul Duffy, and that it was created by John Steele, and was sent without with or without Paul Duffy’s permission.

A quick and dirty forensic examination of the PDF document, as sent by email by “Angela Van Hammel” of Prenda Law, reports that the PDF document was created by a computer user by the name of Kerry Eckenrode (the maiden name of John Steele’s wife) and was created by “Steele Law Firm.” Exhibit “C” attached gives the simple properties of this document and evidences that it was created on 11/20/2012 even though it is dated the 11/18/2012. It is possible that John Steele created the letter at the request of Paul Duffy, but it is unlikely that it was ever presented to Mr. Duffy for his approval, as he would know of his representation in the Sunlust matters.

It is unlikely that Paul Duffy would own or use a computer associated with John Steele’s wife, which would bear the the name of John Steele’s Illinois family law practice (a relatively new creation, post-Prenda Law and post-Steele Hansmeier). Regardless of whether it was created at the behest of Paul Duffy or John Steele was given carte blanche to create the document, it is common for John Steele to create documents and send emails with other attorney’s names to serve his own agenda, with or without their knowledge. When counsel filed his second bar complaint against John Steele, it was for the impersonation of a Florida attorney via e-mail. John Steele’s slippery and wily traits always resulted in insufficient evidence to prove this Mr. Syfert’s claims to the Florida Bar. The loyalty John Steele mysteriously engenders in those around him results in lies to protect him, and therefore insufficient evidence to show that he is violating his affidavit of no UPL attached as Exhibit D.

It goes on to note that Syfert himself, in Chicago to see a Cubs game, stopped by Prenda's offices asking to see Duffy, and the security folks had no idea who he was talking about. But when he asked about John Steele, the guards immediately knew who he was talking about. That would seem odd if Duffy is really running Prenda, as he claims. Furthermore, he notes that every time people try to contact Duffy, Steele seems to call them back. Syfert also notes how Steele's own actions in this particular case seem just a bit odd if he's really got nothing to do with the case:

John Steele wanted to make very clear that although Mark Lutz was looking to him for assistance that he had nothing to do with the case or with Prenda Law. In his Forbes interview, Mr. Steele is filing 20 lawsuits a month with hopes to increase to 300 and he is raking in millions for his efforts. Before this Court, his demeanor is that he is essentially retired, just a fan of bittorrent litigation, in town from Miami or from Chicago, because civil motion arguments as interesting as to him as a Cubs game. He projects that he is a passing acquaintance of Mr. Duffy, and has nothing to do with the case, but has the knowledge to allege that the principals of the Plaintiff were in India (even though that was also a lie). He also knew the correct pronunciation of one of the principals of Sunlust Pictures.

Then there's a second filing about sanctions, this time targeted at Matthew Wasinger, who really only played a bit role in the original hearing -- in that he was the lawyer who had, very briefly, represented Sunlust/Prenda in the case, but had asked to be removed from the case. He did not show up at the court that day, pissing off the judge who had not actually released him from the case. He later filed an apology, saying that he got mixed up, but the judge still considered sanctioning him. Syfert's motion there is interesting, in that he suggests that, in lieu of monetary sanctions, Wasinger should have to answer a number of questions about Prenda/Steele.

It is the hope of Defendant’s counsel and Defendant, by this motion, that a similar line of questioning to the one presented by the Court to Mr. Torres would clarify Mr. Wasinger’s position in this case. By requiring answers to these questions, Defendants counsel hopes that the responses serve as a warning to other potential “local counsel” representatives of Prenda Law to caution themselves in representing Plaintiffs in Federal Court without a reasonable disclosure of the facts surrounding the cases that they are accepting and ability to adequately protect the interest of their clients.

He then lists out fourteen questions, similar (though not identical) to the ones asked by the court of Torres in the hearing.

A few days after this was filed, Wasinger responded to the motion by again apologizing profusely and making a compelling case that his failure to appear was unintentional (since Jonathan Torres had been approved to replace him in a bunch of other cases, and there were indications he was appearing in this case as well). He also notes that his absence did not likely harm the case, seeing as his answers to the questions Torres answered would have been basically the same (i.e., he signed onto this case, not realizing what a clusterfuck it was, or what kind of confusing mess Prenda had gotten him into).

In response to Syfert's request to substitute answering questions for any monetary sanctions, Wasinger seems happy to help nail Prenda and warn others, but he wants to make sure that if he answers the questions, he won't still be on the hook for monetary sanctions.

The undersigned is willing to answer the questions set forth by Mr. Syfert in his Motion upon Order by the Court and a finding of this Court that answers to these questions would not violate any potential ethical duty to Sunlust Pictures. The undersigned would truthfully answer any questions as directed by the Court under oath. However, the undersigned is concerned about Mr. Syfert's request to leave open the possibility of a $500.00 monetary sanction if he is not satisfied with the answers. Since the answers would be provided under oath, it is respectfully requested that the Court denies this request.

And, finally, he once again asks to be removed as the attorney for Sunlust.

I expect there will still be plenty of entertainment value as this case moves forward. So far, the only thing that has happened is that the judge responded to Torres initial motion to be added as counsel and his near immediate request to be removed. Amusingly, she denied the motion to substitute as counsel, given that he's also asked to be removed, and then denies the request to be removed as moot. I'm sure the next few filings should be even more entertaining.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, florida, fraud on the court, graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, matthew wasinger, paul duffy, prenda law
Companies: prenda law, sunlust

Copyright Troll Case Tossed For 'Fraud On The Court' After Abbott & Costello-Worthy Hearing

from the who's-on-first? dept

We've written a few times lately about judges blasting copyright trolls -- and divorce lawyer-turned-copyright troll John Steele's name seems to show up quite frequently in many of those cases. However, this latest one takes the cake -- found via incredible stories on Fight Copyright Trolls and Ars Technica. The short version is that the judge has thrown out the case -- but that's not the really fun part. Here's the order throwing it out:

The case is dismissed for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative, and the Court will hear, by motion, a motion for sanctions and fees against this Sunlust entity and everyone affiliated with it, including a motion against Mr. Wasinger for his purposeful failure to appear at this hearing.

How did it reach that point? Well, this involves a bit of background... and then it requires, yes requires that you find time in your day to go read the court transcript (also embedded below) of what happened.

First, the background. If you've been following Steele, you'll remember that he got blasted by judges in his home state of Illinois. Then, he suddenly showed up in Florida (as did many copyright trolling cases). Fight Copyright Trolls did a wonderful bit of investigatory journalism concerning Steele's move to Florida and connection to "Prenda Law Firm." At issue: Steele is not licensed to practice law in Florida, but there were indications that he was doing exactly that. Steele insisted that he was "retiring" to Florida, and not working. After lawyer Graham Syfert (who has been defending many defendants in troll cases) alerted the Florida Bar to Steele's activities, the Bar got Steele to sign a cease and desist affidavit agreeing "not to engage in any activities which constitute unlicensed practice of law...." However, there appeared to be plenty of evidence that Steele was still copyright trolling as a part of Prenda.

Okay, leap forward to yet another copyright trolling lawsuit, supposedly brought by a company called Sunlust. A hearing was to be held on November 27th... with federal judge Mary Scriven, and you have to read it to believe it. Officially, Sunlust's lawyer, Jonathan Torres, appears by phone with permission from the court. But, the judge is perplexed, to say the least, because Torres, who has only just been brought on, has asked to withdraw from the case, as apparently a few other lawyers have as well. Also in the court is a Mark Lutz, appearing as the "representative" of Sunlust. The hearing begins with the judge scolding Lutz for not wearing a jacket and tie to court, and then starts digging into who exactly is the lawyer representing Sunlust.

THE COURT: Well, I'm a little confused. There was a lawyer who moved to withdraw, and there was another lawyer who moved to appear, then he moved to withdraw, so who is on first, I guess?

The judge asks Torres how he came to be associated with the case and is told that he was hired by "the client, Prenda Law," and we go back to the transcript:

THE COURT: The client and Prenda Law or Prenda Law?
MR. TORRES: Prenda Law, Your Honor,
THE COURT: And what is their relation to you?
MR. TORRES: Just co-counsel arrangement, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And what is that arrangement?
MR. TORRES: For me to appear for any local hearings, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I got a letter from someone from the Prenda Law Group saying they were not representing any party in this case and were not involved in the case and had no authority to speak on anyone's behalf in this case, so is Prenda Law principal counsel in the case or not?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So what is their relationship again then to you as counsel in this case?
MR. TORRES: Well, Your Honor, I was --

The judge then puts Torres under oath and then quizzes him much more directly about Prenda law and his relationship to Prenda, as well as everyone's relationship to the supposed client, Sunlust. Torres has only spoken to Prenda and believes that Prenda represents Sunlust. He notes that it's a contingency deal... but that he, too, is asking to withdraw from the case after being made aware of "certain issues that were going on in the case" by the defense. The judge explores how much Torres knew about the case, and whether or not the previous lawyer, a Mr. Wasinger, had spoken to him (he hadn't). Wasinger was the lawyer who had asked to be removed from the case already, and wasn't in court, even though the judge had not granted him permission to leave the case (later leading him to file an apology saying he got mixed up). Finally, Torres admits that he had not looked closely at the case docket before asking to appear on Sunlust's behalf.

The judge then reads a letter from Paul Duffy, another Chicago lawyer who helped set up Prenda and claims in the letter to be the sole principal of Prenda who claims to be surprised that Prenda has been asked to appear in this case. He begs off in the letter, as read/summarized by the judge:

As an initial matter, I must respectfully inform the Court I am located in Chicago and my attendance would require air travel and he has had surgery on his eyes and this and that.

Then he says, I also respectfully question how my appearance could benefit the Court, particularly since I am not representing anyone, in italics, in this case and have no authority to speak on anyone's behalf.

It would certainly -- it would clearly be improper for me to make any statement on a pending matter in a jurisdiction in which I am not licensed and on behalf of a client I do not represent. In light of the foregoing, I pray that the Court will excuse my attendance at this hearing.

The judge then returns to Torres to see if he can explain this mess, since Torres claims to have been hired only by Prenda and Prenda claims that it has nothing to do with the case. There's an amusing back and forth in which the judge and Torres try to sort out who's who and what's what. And then the judge notices the improperly dressed Lutz doing something and turns her attention to him, leading to a surprise "reveal."

THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, who is the individual who you just spoke to in the Courtroom with you?
MR. LUTZ: Sorry?
THE COURT: Who is that behind you?
MR. STEELE: Your Honor, my name is John Steele.
THE COURT: Who are you?
MR. STEELE: I'm an attorney, but not involved in this case.
THE COURT: You're an attorney with what law firm?
MR. STEELE: I'm not an attorney with any law firm right now, but I have worked with Mr. Duffy in the past and I am certainly familiar with this litigation just because I've been involved in many different cases like this in the past.
THE COURT: But not this case?
MR. STEELE: Correct.

There's another brief exchange with the judge and Torres and then back to Lutz. Lutz is asked about Prenda as well, and more or less tries to claim he doesn't know that much about them. At this point Syfert (the defense lawyer) jumps in to point out that Lutz was, at one point, employed by Prenda Law and worked for John Steele. You can almost sense the judge rolling her eyes, as she immediately has Lutz sworn in as well. Then there's this lovely exchange:

THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, you're under oath, you have to give truthful answers or you face penalties of perjury. Do you understand that?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: What is your position with Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I'm a representative of them.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
MR. LUTZ: Corporate representative.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
MR. LUTZ: They asked me to appear on various matters throughout the country.
THE COURT: Are you an officer of the company?
MR. LUTZ: I'm not, no.
THE COURT: Are you authorized to bind the company to any legal contracts?
MR. LUTZ: I am not.
THE COURT: Are you salaried?
MR. LUTZ: No, 1099.
THE COURT: So you are a 1099 contracted entity and you just go around and sit in a Court and represent yourself to be the corporate representative of the company?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Torres, did you know this was Mr. Lutz's position, a paid corporate representative?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, I did not.
THE COURT: Who is the president of Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I'm unaware.
THE COURT: Who is the vice president?
MR. LUTZ: I'm unaware
THE COURT: Who is the secretary?
MR. LUTZ: I have no idea.
THE COURT: Who owns Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I do not know.
THE COURT: Who signs your checks?
MR. LUTZ: I believe somebody in the accounting department.
THE COURT: What is their name?
MR. LUTZ: To be honest with you, I can't read the signature.
THE COURT: Where is the accounting department located?
MR. LUTZ: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Where is the accounting department located?
MR. LUTZ: I've received checks from California.
THE COURT: How much are you paid monthly to be the corporate representative?
MR. LUTZ: Again, it depends on my appearances, the number of appearances that I do.
THE COURT: How much were you paid last month?
MR. LUTZ: Approximately $1,000.

She then asks about what else he does or if he does this for others as well (yes) and starts asking some more questions about Prenda, and then asks both Lutz and Torres about what other copyright holding companies they're working with. And then goes back to John Steele.

THE COURT: Mr. Steele, who is the principal of Sunlust?
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry, you're asking me, ma'am?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. STEELE: I wouldn't know.
THE COURT: You don't know who owns Sunlust?
MR. STEELE: That's correct.
THE COURT: You don't know who the president is?
MR. STEELE: I -- the only person that I know that's involved with Sunlust is Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Sunny Leone?
MR. STEELE: Is one of the people involved with Sunlust. That's the only person I've ever --
THE COURT: What is the name?
MR. STEELE: Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Spell it.
MR. STEELE: S-O-N-N-Y, Leone --
THE COURT: L-E-O-N?
MR. STEELE: I believe there's an E at the end of that, I'm not certain.
THE COURT: Where's is he located.
MR. STEELE: Well, I believe it's a she, and I believe that the last time I heard, she was in India filming a major motion picture with some studio down there, but I don't keep up with that, I don't represent Sunlust or anybody anymore. I no longer actively practice law.
THE COURT: You're not practicing law?
MR. STEELE: Correct. I do appear occasionally at hearings on an ad hoc basis, but I do not have any current clients.
THE COURT: You still have a bar license in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No, I'm licensed only in the State of Illinois.
I want to make very clear to this Court I'm not purporting in any way to be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida.
THE COURT: Have you ever been licensed in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No.
THE COURT: All right.

End result? First, she tells Lutz to get out of there:

THE COURT: You can sit away from the table, you're not a corporate representative of anybody if you don't have any information about the corporation.
You're not an officer or principal of the corporation. The Court will exclude you as a proper corporate entity for this Defendant.

She then lets Torres off of the case, but also provides "a word to the wise" suggesting he do a bit more research about who he agrees to represent before showing up in court on their behalf, otherwise he runs "a strong risk" of losing his license. She notes that she hopes it's a lesson about "going forward with characters such as the ones that are presented here."

And, as noted at the beginning, she dismisses the case, suggests there was "attempted fraud on the Court" and says that "a motion will also be heard on Mr. Duffy for his lack of candor in relation to his connection with this matter."

The transcript is so wonderful that I really, really, want someone to use it as a script to create a short film out of it. It honestly feels right out of a movie.

Filed Under: copyright trolling, florida, fraud on the court, graham syfert, john steele, jonathan torres, mark lutz, paul duffy
Companies: prenda law, sunlust