John Steele: I'm Just A 'Business Development' Guy Who Has Nothing To Do With These Lawsuits

from the keep-digging dept

As I've said, John Steele reminds me of some folks I've met who think they're smarter than everyone else and have outsmarted the whole system. They tend to believe they can talk their way out of anything. And while he pled the Fifth (or, had his lawyer say he was going to) when he had a chance to talk in court, he sure has been talking a lot since then to the press. The latest is a long interview done with Joe Mullin at Ars Technica, where Steele, once again, seems to think he can talk his way out of anything.

There's so much ridiculousness in there. Let's hit just a few of the high points, but then go read the full interview to find your own favorite moments.

He talks about "battle-stations"? That tells you something about where this judge is coming from. In the same sentence he talks about attorneys having "moral turpitude," he uses Star Trek terms to describe it? It's really beneath the dignity of the court.

John Steele is talking about something that's "beneath the dignity of the court"? Really? Anyone who has followed his efforts would laugh at that line considering everything he's done that's way beneath the dignity of the court, which is why he's now in the position he's in with Judge Wright's ruling.

As for the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few [a Star Trek quote at the top of Judge Wright's order]—that's not [how the legal system works]. If the needs of the few didn't matter, black people wouldn't vote in most Southern states.

Yeah, that's right, Steele, align your situation with American slavery. Your situation is so analogous to slaves picking cotton in the South. Judge Wright is just trying to keep you down, huh?

The deposition that [former partner] Paul Hansmeier gave wasn't even certified. It shouldn't have even been allowed to be used. There are hundreds of problems with this order in my view.

Note that he doesn't claim that Hansmeier didn't say everything that was said, which really helped show how screwed up the whole situation was. Just that it wasn't certified... tap dance, tap dance.

I—and others involved—have been in front of hundreds of judges. This is the first judge that has ever sanctioned anybody involved with Steele Hansmeier, Prenda Law, or whatever.

Sanctioned, yes. But plenty of other judges have called out these practices as highly questionable for years. Sanctions are an extreme step, but plenty of judges have clearly questioned Steele's practices. And, other judges have claimed that he was involved in fraud on the court. It's just that they're still investigating.

I think the judge knows we're going to appeal. He wrote that the sanctions were designed to cost just less than [an effective appeal]. Look, you may hate me and the litigation that's gone on in the past, but most people have to be a little nervous when a judge puts out a number and says that.

Uh, the whole point of that was to highlight the nature of Prenda's trolling scheme. To turn that around and suggest that that's a problem is hilarious. Steele seems to think that everyone in the world is a complete moron and he's the only one with functioning brain cells.

Steele: Not until I received an order to show cause. I've spoken to some of the other people [involved], and they're in a similar situation. I didn't know about this until February of this year. Until March I hadn't read a single pleading in this case. I, quite frankly, had never been involved in any case in California.

If there was evidence I was involved and [Prenda Law lawyer] Paul Duffy was involved in more than just the somewhat supervisory role of Brett Gibbs, then that evidence would have come out.

Ars: Brett Gibbs testified at the March hearing that you and Hansmeier were "senior partners" at Prenda Law. He says you were supervising. Were you?

Steele: No. Absolutely not. Where's the evidence that we supervised Brett Gibbs? Where are the e-mails?

Ars: Gibbs testified that you were in control of these entities. You ran them. You initiated cases, you settled cases.

Steele: Where are the documents showing that I own any of these entities? I've never even heard of a couple of them.

This exchange is amazing on so many levels. Let me summarize it: "I knew nothing! There's no evidence I knew anything!" "Um, there's direct testimony from the person who knows you were involved." "Where is the evidence on something entirely different?!" Nice one, Steele.

Steele really likes this "where is the evidence?" line to respond to actual testimony against him. He uses it multiple times, including about Alan Cooper's signature, where again, he chooses his words carefully:

I'm well aware Mr. Cooper said he never signed those documents. He said it was a forgery—those were words the court used. I'm very comfortable with the facts, and everything in my possession leads me to believe that Mr. Cooper's involvement with AF Holdings was different than what he led the court to believe. It will ultimately come down to a "he said, they said." Nobody I'm aware of, including myself, has ever forged Alan Cooper's signature. That is a pretty outrageous claim.

And for the love of God, where is the evidence [of forgery]? If someone had found something, it would be on the front page of Ars Technica and half a dozen other sites within minutes. There's no way any of that evidence could exist. Because it's not true.

Notice that he's speaking very specifically about the forgery aspect, and not about the misrepresentation part of it. Hmm... Also, Steele doesn't seem to understand that testimony is evidence. So, yes, there is evidence. It's called the testimony in the court by Alan Cooper.

And then we find out what Steele is now claiming his real role is in all of this:

I work part-time with Livewire Holdings, one of the entities that Lutz owns. My role is on the business side. I acquire other adult content companies and deal with expanding the holding company. The main goal is to handle a lot of content and websites and to be involved in the adult space. For that, I'm paid a flat fee. I won't say how much, but it's a modest flat sum.

Right. And that's why you showed up in court in some of these cases and Gibbs said you gave him specific directions on the legal issues. Because you're in "business development."

Steele: I think they've done a few cases. I'm not involved with that litigation. I don't file anything. You know, what pirates oftentimes don't get is that this is not a huge moneymaker. I know from past experience at Steele Hansmeier that over half the clients we got never made any money off suing pirates.

Ars: Well, how much money have you made? Last year a Forbes reporter suggested you could have collected $15 million in settlements, and you responded by saying the actual figure was "more than a few million." Have you made millions of dollars suing people?

Steele: I wish I had. At the time my wife made some joke wanting to know where I hid the other $14.5 million. There are a lot of costs associated with litigation.

Again note how he tries to answer a different question. He already told Forbes the $15 million number was too high. Mullin is asking him about the "more than a few million" he already told another publication was the correct amount. And he responds by talking about the $15 million. This is not how you honestly answer questions. It's how you (very weakly) try to avoid responding to questions that you don't want to answer.

Ars: If you and Paul Hansmeier don't run AF Holdings, why would Hansmeier be the person who was sent to be deposed about AF Holdings?

Steele: I believe he went out as a favor. They needed a corporate representative, and he was authorized to provide that, for AF Holdings, for Mr. Lutz. You want to have a strong corporate representative to get up and deal with Mr. Pietz for seven hours. There's not a whole lot of people in a typical adult content company that can answer a lot of the questions that were asked.

Heh. No one goes to be a corporate representative in a big legal dispute "as a favor." And nice gratuitous attempt to attack Pietz thrown in for fun. Also, I wonder which of the questions "not a lot of people in a typical adult content company can answer" he is talking about. What about the one of who actually owns the company you represent? That one?

Ars: And so what is Paul Hansmeier up to? I called him to talk about the order, and he referred me to you.

Steele: I believe he deals with some class action type of litigation. He also helps me when I'm looking for acquisitions, he's got experience in that area. So he works essentially part-time for Livewire. It's on a project basis.

Funny stuff. Of course, Hansmeier has been called out for very questionable class action objections which appear to involve objecting at the last minute to try to upset a settlement that's about to go through and then seeking cash to go away. In fact, there's a letter where Hansmeier directly promises to go away for $30,000.

Anyway, as mentioned there's even more in there that we didn't get to. I hope Steele keeps talking though. I imagine bits and pieces of his various statements are likely to show up in various court cases going forward as well.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, livewire, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage

from the wtf? dept

So, you may recall that as a part of Judge Otis Wright's Prenda sentencing, he ordered that a copy of the ruling be submitted in every other case involving Prenda:

For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.

In one Prenda case (involving AF Holdings again) in the Northern District of Georgia, the defendant, Rajesh Patel, and his lawyer, Blair Chintella, submitted Judge Wright's ruling themselves to the court in the case. As pointed out by Fight Copyright Trolls, Prenda's local counsel in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire has filed one of the most ridiculous filings we've ever seen yet in all of the Prenda filings. It argues that the court should not allow Judge Wright's order to be entered into the docket because California recognizes gay marriage and Georgia does not. I'm not joking.

The defendant has filed a copy of that Order hoping that it would be viewed as a mandate by this Court. However, the defendant’s attempts to issue this mandate should fail for the following reasons.

First and foremost the undersigned respects the California decision and believes that it was rendered in the best interest of the residents of California.

Nevertheless, this instant case is pending in a Georgia District Court and it is trusted that any decision rendered, whether for or against the plaintiff, will be done so in the best interest of the residents and practitioners of Georgia.

While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

The defendant should realize that California has different laws than Georgia, a different Governor than Georgia; a different legislative body than Georgia, different business needs than Georgia and different views than Georgia and as such all of its decisions cannot serve as a mandate for Georgia.

For example the California Courts have legalized gay marriage. Perry v. Schwarzenegger 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010);Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir.); Answered 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011) Affirmed, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) Such a decision cannot serve as a mandate on Georgia Courts to legalize gay marriage as well.

It doesn't stop there. It notes that California courts have different immigration rules and (randomly) that NY has different gun rights. Basically, it throws out every hot button issue that stereotypical conservatives might disagree with stereotypical liberals on.

Of course, all of that is meaningless. While it's true that Judge Wright's ruling is in no way a precedential ruling for the Georgia court, it's still a ruling about federal law, not any specific state law. And the ruling itself is about flat out misconduct (including potential racketeering and tax evasion claims) by the plaintiff in this case, because of actions in a nearly identical case. That's not about California having a "mandate" over Georgia. It's about very relevant additional information that the court should know about.

Nazaire then goes on to list out a ridiculous parade of horribles that he claims would happen if the Georgia court "followed the aforesaid California Order" including that law firms wouldn't be able to use boilerplate text any more. This makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all, the inclusion of Judge Wright's order is not about having the Georgia court "follow" the order, but adding additional important information about the parties in this particular case. Separately, the idea that adding a California ruling into the docket suddenly means lawyers wouldn't be able to cut and paste any more... just doesn't make any sense at all.

Nazaire then tries to argue, incredibly, that there is no "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Alan Cooper's signature was forged. Earth to Nazaire: that ship sailed a long, long time ago. It also leads to this completely random attack on the EFF:

Prior to filing the document, the undersigned contacted Prenda Law to find out whether or not Mr. Cooper would be available to testify at trial but was advised that they could not locate Mr. Cooper. The undersigned was advised that Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier would be available to testify as witnesses. Had the undersigned realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was hanging with Mr. Cooper, he would have been able to track down Mr. Cooper and questioned him about the documents. It turns out that Mr. Cooper was a caretaker of one of the properties of a Prenda Law member and had left said property in August, 2012.

Therefore, even if the undersigned had placed a knife to the throats of each of Prenda’s members, none would have been able to give him Mr. Cooper’s contact information at the time on November 5, 2012 when Plaintiff commenced its law suit. It is certainly not the first time a company has lost contact with an agent (or alleged agent as stated).

Wow. Honestly, this one needs no commentary. It speaks volumes (of insanity) for itself.

And Nazaire is not done. He also argues that Patel's lawyer, Chintella, was "one of the two star witnesses in the California case" (which, um, isn't true) and then claims that this is an ethics violation in Georgia.

This whole filing really is quite remarkable, but certainly seems to fit in to the growing pile of "Prenda crazy" filings in various cases around the country.

Filed Under: blair chintella, california, copyright, copyright trolls, federal law, georgia, jacques nazaire, otis wright, rajesh patel
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Why Prenda Has Been Able To Proceed For Years: The Whole Setup Was Too Brazen

from the people-didn't-believe-it dept

Nate Anderson, over at Ars Technica, has a good post discussing why Prenda has been able to continue its questionable legal practices for years, despite the fact that judges had been calling John Steele out years ago for this same activity. The real answer is in just how brazen Steele and his partners (mainly Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy) seem to have been in pursuing copyright trolling shakedowns. As we had discussed elsewhere, they had figured out ways to go after IP addresses by piling on legal loophole after legal loophole, often via state laws. Anderson has a summary that covers some of the efforts:

You could see just how devoted Steele and his partners were to their new business model, though, because even these kinds of warning shots didn't deter them. Steele's initial operation, which became Prenda Law in November 2011, continued to iterate. It filed cases in other Illinois federal districts downstate. It filed in Illinois state courts, jiggering the charges to match the venue (copyright infringement of this kind is a federal issue). It filed in Florida, attempting to use an arcane procedure called a "true bill of discovery" to obtain IP addresses. It filed in California. It tried out "reverse class actions" suits against alleged downloaders. It formed a company in Las Vegas (hiring a "CEO" named Mark Lutz) and set up trusts located offshore (in Nevis) in order to own porn copyrights. No pesky PR department or tentative CEO could hold up Prenda's litigation pain train if the law firm could simply ditch the client and go into business for itself.

Anderson further notes that they were never really stopped because these layers upon layers of tricks made it difficult to tease out what was really going on, and judges are happy to clear their dockets (something Team Prenda used to their advantage by quickly dismissing cases any time judges seemed to catch on to different elements):

How could the scheme go on for so long even as federal judges complained about fraud, as "John Doe" defendants complained repeatedly that they had no idea what the cases were about, and as critics complained about the injustice of the entire business model? The answer is that federal judges aren't generally investigators. Prenda had gone to great lengths to obscure what was really going on, who was doing what, and where the money went. Judges want to clear cases off their dockets and in rare cases will entertain sanctions motions, but to unravel something as complex as Prenda's behavior required a real investigation. Yet without more details, actual criminal investigators had very little to go on; most of the judicial complaints dealt with behavior in court, not public crimes.

So Prenda could essentially turn the entire US judiciary into a laboratory for incrementally refining its porn trolling techniques, testing venues, judges, corporate structures, collection procedures, and legal arguments, looking for perfection. And what it arrived at in the end had a certain devious logic to it. Even Otis Wright, the federal judge in Los Angeles who brought down Prenda's principals and referred them all for criminal and tax prosecution this week, had to concede the conceptual beauty of the system.

I think it actually goes even further than that. It's that most judges assume, quite reasonably, that the lawyers appearing before them are not piling upon layers of tricks to try to obscure what may just be criminal activity. Lawyers are given the benefit of the doubt that, while they may sometimes push the boundaries in advocating for a client, they are generally being honest with the court about what's happening. I think it was the sheer audacity of the overall effort by Team Prenda, that goes so incredibly far into loopholes upon loopholes, that most people -- especially judges -- wouldn't even think what was happening was possible. It's so far outside the reality they deal with. Lawyers may go a little overboard in court, but setting up a structure like this, which Judge Wright clearly believes is a direct fraud on the court, with a possible side dish of racketeering, is unbelievable.

I know that I was certainly skeptical of some of the more extreme claims about Steele and Prenda from early on -- and was even hesitant to write about some of the wilder assertions made on some anti-troll blogs. However, as more and more evidence started to come out concerning Steele and the others named in this case, it was hard to deny that something massive was going on, and various courts were finally starting to catch on to the fact that these weren't just over aggressive bad lawyers taking on dodgy cases, but rather something much bigger.

And while some other judges started down this path first, Judge Wright does deserve kudos for focusing in and really digging out a bunch of details pretty quickly once all of this started to become clear to him. Some joker has set up an IndieGogo campaign to erect a statute in honor of Judge Wright for this ruling. I think that goes a bit far, but the fact that he was willing to pursue this, where other judges just scolded Team Prenda and let them go, definitely deserves some recognition.

Still, all of this leaves open the fact that there is something of a bug in the legal system. These kinds of abuses are not easy to catch. It would be good if there were a better way to flag these kinds of abuses earlier in the process, before they can go as far as John Steele and Prenda appear to have been able to take these efforts.

Filed Under: copyright trolling, copyright trolls, john steele, otis wright
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Judge Wright Sentences Prenda To Poetic Justice

from the a-little-something-extra dept

Yesterday we covered Judge Wright's order against Team Prenda, noting the key points and the healthy serving of Star Trek references. However, in that post we left out one beautifully comedic bit of just desserts that Wright placed in the ruling, which H. Poteat was kind enough to point out. In the introduction, Judge Wright clearly lays out the basics of copyright trolling and why it's so nasty. In particular, he calls out the nefarious nature of the "settlement" offers:

Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense

Okay. Remember that line. Because then, at the end of his order, where he awards the attorney's fees of $40,659.86 and then doubles them "as a punitive measure" to $81,319.72, Judge Wright adds a little footnote after that amount, which reads:

This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal.

Well played, Judge Wright. Well played.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Copyright Trolls So Sloppy They Sue The Same Guy Multiple Times

from the i'm-sure-tat's-effective dept

In yet another copyright trolling case, it appears that the trolls are so sloppy that they're suing over the same IP address for sharing the same file (the animated movie, Zambezia) in multiple cases. The story focuses on one guy, who has filed a motion to quash in response, noting that the sloppiness of filing three times raises significant questions about the trolling operation. Either they're incredibly sloppy and not very careful, or they're hoping that by repeating the same IP address in multiple lawsuits, at least one judge will let the subpoena go through, leading to the inevitable demand letter. Either way, it should raise some eyebrows from the court about why anyone would file against the same IP address for the same movie in three different cases.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, errors, lawsuits, sloppy

Crazy: Judge Grants Copyright Troll Maximum Statutory Damages In Default Case

from the don't-ignore-cases dept

We've talked plenty of times about issues with "default judgments" in lawsuits. Generally speaking, if the party being sued doesn't show up, judges will usually grant the plaintiff's claim, and issue a default judgment in their favor. The thing is, courts don't have to issue default judgments, but many courts act as if they do. Even then, the courts have significant power in then determining what the awards are in those cases. So while it's not surprising that a court issued a default judgment against someone in a copyright trolling case where the person (Gerald Glover) chose not to respond to the lawsuit, it's somewhat ridiculous that the judge then granted the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for the claimed copyright infringement (plus another $1425 in fees and costs). As you probably know, statutory damages for copyright range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed (not per infringement...), but then also allow for the court to increase it up to a maximum of $150,000 in the case where a copyright holder has proven that the infringement was willful.

Given that, it's somewhat troubling that the court awarded the absolute maximum here. It's unclear how there is proof of willful infringement. The complaint against Glover just makes general allegation of using BitTorrent to download and share the copyright-covered work, but does nothing to show willful infringement. I recognize that judges will often rubber stamp motions for default judgment, but can't they at least take the minimum amount of time necessary to note if the awarded amount is proper?

While the DieTrollDie site (which alerted us to this story) notes that it's unlikely that the copyright holder CP Productions will actually see any money from Glover, what's much more worrisome is that other copyright trolls will point to this default ruling as proof that simple downloading can get you hit with a $150,000 judgment (skipping over the fact that it's a default judgment).

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, default judgment, statutory damages
Companies: cp productions

Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years

from the what-are-they-smoking? dept

This is rather incredible. We already wrote about Prenda Law's series of defamation lawsuits against commenters on two key blogs that have been instrumental in exposing their shenanigans: FightCopyrightTrolls and DieTrollDie. While John Steele has dismissed his claim, the other two suits are still moving forward as far as I know. And now it's come out that Prenda Law's Paul Duffy sent a ridiculously broad subpoena to Wordpress demanding every IP address of every visitor who has visited either site since the beginning of 2011. Basically, they're looking for everyone who has ever visited either site:

Our client is requesting all Internet Protocol addresses (including the date and time of that access in Universal Coordinated Time) that accessed the blogs located at dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com between January 1, 2011 through the present. Please provide this information in an Excel spreadsheet.

The subpoena is from Paul Duffy, so it's a bit ridiculous to claim "our client" since he is the client. This seems like a pretty clear abuse of the subpoena process, though, coming from Prenda Law, whose specialty is doing anything it possibly can to get IP addresses, perhaps it's no surprise. The subpoena was issued in association with the original claim that was filed in state court. The cases have all been removed to federal court, and hopefully the lawyers at Wordpress know better than to just cough up this info like that. Even more ridiculously, Duffy tries to claim that this is an "emergency" so they shouldn't waste any time in handing over the info:

Due to the emergency nature of the requested information, it is imperative that your organization responds to the subpoena immediately. The requested information is perishable and vital to the claims asserted in a complaint alleging widespread and systematic defamation.

What hogwash. They're looking for data going back to January of 2011. If Wordpress has logs going back that far, it's not like they're suddenly going to disappear. And, of course, the "widespread and systematic defamation" claims are already pretty questionable.

It's not difficult to look at this and see a likely attempt at creating chilling effects to try to scare people off from visiting those sites. Considering that Prenda has been collecting all sorts of IP addresses in its various copyright trolling lawsuits, can you imagine what they might do if they can cross reference IP addresses of visitors to those sites with the IP addresses they've already sued over?

Filed Under: anonymity, chilling effects, copyright trolls, dietrolldie, fightcopyrighttrolls, first amendment, free speech, john steele, paul duffy, subpoena
Companies: prenda, prenda law, wordpress

Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'

from the of-course-that's-the-plan... dept

We were just talking about how three strikes hasn't done anything to actually increase sales. Instead, as many, many people predicted, sales have continued to decline. Of course, perhaps treating your biggest fans as criminals is not a particularly wise strategy. But, then again, the big entertainment legacy players aren't exactly known for wise or thoughtful strategies.

With France, the biggest supporters of a "three strikes (accusations) and we kick you off the internet" plan facing pushback from the government, it appears that the industry folks have hit on their latest ridiculous strategy. Rather than kick people off the internet, why not take a page from copyright trolls, and force them to cough up money. Yes, indeed, it appears that the entertainment industry is looking to turn "piracy" into a "business model" by forcing people they accuse (not convict) of infringement to pay up in large masses. Except, rather than using shady dealings via questionable court procedures, they're just hoping to roll it into existing three strikes plans:

UPFI, (Union of Independent Phonographic Producers), said that it agreed with the opinion of French music rights group SACEM that a disconnection regime should be replaced with warnings along with fines of 140 euros.

PCInpact contacted Jerome Roger, Director General of UPFI, who confirmed the group is indeed in favor of such fines.

This leaning towards cash penalties is also endorsed by Warner Music President Thierry Chassagne. In recent comments Chassange suggested that not enough punishments have been handed out under Hadopi and that a deterrent is necessary.

In other words, if kicking people off the internet isn't getting them to give us more money... how about we skip that middle step and just force them to give us money. It is, clearly, taking a page straight out of the copyright trolling handbook.

According to French publication Numerama, this new direction is basically a done deal in France. And, of course, once it shows up there, expect the same sort of things to start popping up around the globe quickly. The industry doesn't spring stuff like this in just one place alone. There's a global strategy behind it.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, education, fines, france, hadopi, three strikes

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 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