Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'

from the what-a-waste dept

A year ago, the DOJ subpoenaed Chelsea Manning to appear before a grand jury and provide testimony as it was building its case against Julian Assange, who was subsequently indicted on a very questionable basis. Manning refused to comply with the subpoena, and was put in jail for contempt of court. Many people -- even some supporters of Manning -- seemed split on this move, noting that complying with a lawful subpoena, especially regarding a situation where all information had been previously provided and in which the target is already indicted, is different than being asked to cough up private info. But, given the context of Manning's earlier incarceration and commutation, the whole effort seemed somewhat vindictive.

As reporter Dell Cameron pointed out, the DOJ already has all the details of Manning's conversations with Assange. It's difficult to see what more it needed to get from her. And yet, she sat in jail. And considering her history with possible suicide attempts, it seemed (tragically) that being confined again could be incredibly damaging to her. Indeed, yesterday it was reported that she attempted suicide once again.

Incredibly, just a day later, the court has ordered her released from jail, noting that her appearance "is no longer needed."

Upon consideration of the Court's May 16, 2019 Order, the Motion, and the Court's March 12, 2020 Order discharging Grand Jury 19-3, the Court finds that Ms. Manning's appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose. The Court further finds that enforcement of the accrued, conditional fines would not be punitive but rather necessary to the coercive purpose of the Court's civil contempt order.

The fact that the grand jury has been disbanded without her testimony -- and given Dell's point earlier about the DOJ already having all the details -- it makes you really question why this whole thing was necessary in the first place, because the answer sure seems to be that it wasn't. And yet, she spent months in jail, and still now faces basically a quarter of a million in fines that the court says is just dandy. What a sham.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, contempt of court, doj, julian assange, subpoena

Team Prenda Smacked Around Again, Ordered To Pay Another $94,000

from the punching-bags dept

It appears that the courts are now just piling on when it comes to Prenda Law. In the case of Lightspeed v. Anthony Smith, the court that was one of the first to call out team Prenda for "flat-out lies" and then blasted their weak attempt to plead poverty -- leading, instead, to holding Team Prenda in contempt -- has struck again. Having lost badly on appeal, the district court slammed the lawyers again, arguing that Team Prenda lied to the court and obstructed the discovery process concerning where they hid their money. It ordered sanctions of $65,263 and asked Smith's lawyers at Booth Sweet to submit their costs to be added on to the total. Those costs came out to $94,343.51 -- and Prenda lawyers John Steele and Paul Duffy complained that the number was unfair.

Not surprisingly, the court is not buying what Steele and Duffy are selling:

Steele objects to the submitted expenses.... Steele’s objections are not well taken. As is customary for Steele, his objections minimize his misconduct and distort the facts of the case. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court finds that all of the submitted expenses are reasonable and recoverable. The Court awards sanctions against Steele and Duffy in the amount of $94,343.51, apportioned equally between Steele and Duffy. The sanctions shall be paid on or before August 10, 2015.

Note that this filing came out on August 10th. So the judge, David Herndon, basically said pay up now.

This litigation has been entirely frivolous. Moreover, Lightspeed’s counsel’s falsehoods and obstructionist tactics have created significant costs for Smith. The Court agrees that the submitted expenses, costs and fees are eminently reasonable given the history of this litigation and the more than a year Smith spent defending against obstructionist tactics and engaging in extensive discovery to obtain proof of Duffy and Steele’s misconduct.

Of course, with more and more of these types of rulings piling up, it still raises questions as to how the lawyers of Team Prenda are still allowed to practice law -- with both Steele and Paul Hansmeier having moved on to a very similar scam in shaking down small businesses over seemingly trivial ADA violations.

Filed Under: anthony smith, contempt of court, david herndon, john steele, paul duffy
Companies: lightspeed, prenda, prenda law

Court Finds Aereo Competitor FilmOn In Contempt For Claiming To Be A Cable Service

from the thumbing-your-nose-not-such-a-good-idea dept

We had mentioned in passing that wacky Aereo-wannabe FilmOn, run by the eccentric and frequently ridiculous Alki David had declared itself a "cable service" following the Supreme Court's Aereo ruling -- though we pointed out that anything that FilmOn or Alki David says should be taken with a very large dose of salt. Unlike Aereo, who is trying to follow all of the procedures to make sure that it can be classified as a cable service to pay retransmission fees under Section 111, FilmOn just announced that it was a cable service and kept on streaming. And, not surprisingly, one of the courts that had already ruled against FilmOn has found the company in contempt. It probably did not help that the case was before the very same judge who ruled that ivi couldn't qualify as a cable company.

The judge here... is not happy. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald totally dismisses the idea that the Supreme Court's ruling in Aereo (where it says Aereo is a cable company) actually means that any internet company qualifies for Section 111 compulsory retransmission rates. Basically, we're back to the quantum CATV where it's a cable system for some parts of the law, but not for others.

FilmOn’s second argument is also unavailing because it hinges on a mischaracterization of the holding in Aereo. Defendant is correct that, throughout the Aereo opinion, the Court likened Aereo to a cable company.... But defendant attaches far too much importance to the Court’s analogizing. A series of statements that Aereo (and, by extension, FilmOn, ...) is very similar to a cable system is not the same as a judicial finding that Aereo and its technological peers are, in fact, cable companies entitled to retransmission licenses under § 111 of the Copyright Act. Defendant may argue that the Supreme Court’s language in Aereo implies that FilmOn may be entitled to a license under § 111, but an implication is not a holding.

Once again, it seems that David's brazen and brash responses to legal setbacks are leading to bad law. It's been suggested more than a few times that David's real role here is to be the buffoonish version of Aereo, basically underminding Aereo's much more sound legal reasoning and arguments at every turn, and that may be true again here. The court slams FilmOn for basically lying to the court in claiming that it didn't mean to stream its content into NY where the injunction from this court blocked it. However, the court points to FilmOn's own press release... which "boasts that defendant's mini-antenna technology continued to make available to FilmOn subscribers across the country the local broadcasts of eighteen major American cities, including New York."

The court, at the very least, points out that Aereo seems to understand how this process works, and has temporarily shut down its operations, but FilmOn just kept streaming. Furthermore, the court points out that, as Aereo is attempting to do, to make use of Section 111, you need to first get a license from the Copyright Office.

FilmOn does not have, and has never had, a license from the Copyright Office. Indeed, defendant admits that it did not even apply for a cable license until July 10, 2014, after plaintiff submitted this order to show cause -- a fact that undermines any claim by defendant that it was truly committed to complying with the letter of the law.... Fundamentally, FilmOn cannot choose to ignore the Injunction merely because it anticipated someday being able to retransmit plaintiffs’ content legally.

The court then goes on to point out that the Copyright Office itself has said it doesn't think the Supreme Court's ruling has any impact on the ivi ruling and rejected FilmOn's (and Aereo's) request to be granted a license.

Not only is hope no defense to the violation of an injunction, but defendant’s faith that the Copyright Office would grant it a cable license was misplaced. On July 23, 2014, the Copyright Office, citing ivi, expressed its view that FilmOn, as an internet retransmission service, “falls outside the scope of the Section 111 license,” and that the Office did not “see anything in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in [Aereo] that would alter this conclusion.” ... Thus, not only was FilmOn’s expectation of a license irrelevant, but it was erroneous as well. Moreover, even if the Copyright Office had granted a license to FilmOn, this development would not have excused defendant’s decision to preemptively stream content in violation of the Injunction. The Copyright Office’s decision does, however, provide additional support for our conclusion that FilmOn’s use of the mini-antenna technology clearly falls within the ambit of the Injunction, and defendant should be held in contempt for willfully violating its terms.

The judge also calls out David himself for contempt, and in the end orders FilmOn to pay $10,000 per day for nine days. It calculated the nine days from the day Aereo shut down its service until FilmOn also shut down it's offering. Thus a total of $90,000, but it also says the networks can get attorneys' fees as well, so that could add up.

There are legitimate legal questions about whether or not the ivi ruling is still valid, and whether or not an internet streaming company can qualify for Section 111 retransmission rates. But the last company that should be in court defending that position is FilmOn.

Filed Under: alki david, cable service, contempt of court, naomi recie buchwald, section 111, supreme court
Companies: aereo, filmon, ivi

Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty

from the nice-try,-guys dept

It's been a little while since we had a Team Prenda update, but suffice it to say, judges still don't seem to be buying their brand of bullshit, even as they get more and more desperate. The latest is the followup in the Lightspeed case in which Team Prenda made the incredibly poorly thought-out move of dragging Comcast and AT&T into the proceedings. Not only did Judge Patrick Murphy find that Team Prenda flat out lied to the court, he hit them with an order to pay $261,025.11 in attorneys' fees for wasting everyone's time.

Team Prenda has been avoiding paying that ever since. There was an amusing hearing back in February in which they weakly sought to justify the non-payment, first quibbling with Judge David Herndon that the original order to pay up was a "money judgment" rather than an order, in the belief that this would give them more flexibility in paying. That ridiculous argument was more or less dismissed out of hand by Judge Herndon quickly. Following that, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier specifically tried to plead poverty, arguing that they simply couldn't pay the amount. Judge Herndon said, effectively, okay: prove it. And while they filed documents that attempt to prove that, Judge Herndon is not buying it at all. In a ruling earlier this week finding Paul Duffy, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier in contempt, Herndon noted that even in filing financial statements, it appeared they were trying to deceive the court:

In the case where there has been no attempt to comply with the Court's order, plaintiff's counsel must show a "complete inability to pay." ... Plaintiff's counsel, "stated differently, . . . [has] the burden of establishing clearly, plainly, and unmistakably that compliance is impossible." ....

The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel has not met its burden. They submitted incomplete, and to say the least suspicious, statements of financial condition. Attached to each statement was a letter from their certified public accountant ("CPA"). In these letters, the CPA indicates a departure from generally accepted accounting principles. He further notes that plaintiff's counsel elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles. The Court finds these statements insufficient to establish plaintiff's counsel's inability to pay.

Given all that, he notes that Team Prenda "significantly violated an unambiguous order of the Court" and has tacked on an additional 10% to the original order, giving them until March 31st to pay up... or the amount will keep going up at $500 per attorney per day (so $1,500 more per day). After another 30 days, the amount will increase to $1,000 per attorney per day. Hansmeier is already begging for a reconsideration, but given how many times these guys have been called out for attempted deceptions in court, it seems unlikely he's going to have much luck.

Filed Under: anthony smith, contempt of court, david herndon, john steele, lightspeed, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: lightspeed, lightspeed media, prenda, prenda law

Porn Copyright Trolls Argue That Verizon Should Be Held In Contempt Of Court For Trying To Protect Its Users

from the privacy-schmivacy,-we're-trolling dept

Three of the bigger porn copyright trolls out there, Patrick Collins, Malibu Media and Third Degree Films, have teamed up to make a court filing arguing that Verizon should be held in contempt of court for failing to cough up the names of account holders based on the trolls' list of IP addresses. As you're probably aware by now, hundreds of thousands of people have been "sued" by copyright trolls, but not actually taken to court. The strategy is just to file a lawsuit and force ISPs to identify account holders, then bombard those account holders with threatening letters (and calls and emails) saying that they will be sued if they don't pay up (often a few thousand dollars). Verizon, like many other ISPs, has fought back against these demands for info on a variety of grounds -- including improper joinder (i.e., that the cases improperly lump together multiple people who had nothing to do with one another in an attempt to keep costs to the trolls down). These claims of improper joinder have been somewhat effective in getting a lot of these cases thrown out -- but usually those claims are raised by the account holders themselves, rather than the ISPs.

These three trolls have teamed up to argue that Verizon should shut up and hand over the names, claiming that it has no standing to object, given that it's not a party in the case. They also claim that even if Verizon can argue misjoinder, the argument is not valid (which is laughable considering how many courts have agreed that it's perfectly valid). Then they try to chop down every other argument from Verizon -- who actually has a really strong history of protecting subscribers against copyright threats. In fact, the trolls use this history against Verizon -- claiming that their victory nearly a decade ago, against the RIAA's attempt to use subpoenas to identify users without filing a lawsuit, shows that as long as they've filed lawsuits, they should have a free pass to identify the account holders named.

The really amusing part is the trolls' response to Verizon's point that the trolls have failed to show that the discovery would be used for the "proper purpose" of litigation. That's because it won't be. Everyone knows that the information will be used to try to force people into settling, and not to file lawsuits. But the trolls claim this is just dandy:

To the contrary, and as argued above, the “purpose” of the discovery is entirely proper: to obtain information identifying unknown Doe Defendants infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights “in order to consider whether to name and serve them as defendants.”

Note the careful choice of words. They don't say that they're asking for discovery in order to actually sue, but to "consider" whether or not to sue. Meaning, of course, that they're extremely unlikely to file an actual lawsuit and are more likely to threaten account holders to demand a settlement. Hopefully the court sees through these attempts by these trolls to force discovery where it's clearly not appropriate.

Filed Under: bittorrent, contempt of court, copyright trolls, joinder, porn, privacy
Companies: malibu media, patrick collins, third degree films, verizon

SurfTheChannel Founder Gets Extra Jail Time For Revealing Documents That Raised Questions About His Conviction

from the thou-dost-protest-too-much? dept

You may recall that, earlier this year, we wrote about a very troubling ruling in the UK against the founder of SurfTheChannel, Anton Vickerman. STC was a linking site, no different than others that had been found perfectly legal in the UK. After the conviction, which resulted in Vickerman being put in jail for four years, some additional info came out that was really horrifying. First, there was the fact that this criminal case, including the investigation, was driven entirely by a private anti-piracy organization, FACT, which is financed by the Hollywood studios. Yes, a criminal case that was run by private interests. Actual law enforcement had refused to proceed with the case, saying that there wasn't evidence of direct infringement. Furthermore, some "anonymous" notes from the court room suggested a judge was on a mission to put Vickerman away.

Now comes the news that Vickerman has been hit with contempt of court and given an extra month in jail all for releasing some of the documents that revealed what a farce the case was. Once again, the judge seems focused on punishing Vickerman for his attitude, rather than any real problem:

Vickerman, 38, apologised to Judge John Evans, who had previously branded him the "most arrogant" defendant he had ever come across.

Vickerman, from Gateshead, said: "I genuinely believed that this was in the public domain, so I apologise for that."

The judge jailed Vickerman for an extra month for the contempt, saying: "You were aware that there were restrictions upon what you could publish.

That whole "most arrogant" part is really troubling. If you were genuinely innocent and being railroaded in a criminal case by private money (the same money that financed a competitor to your site), I think you'd be pretty pissed off too.

Filed Under: anton vickerman, contempt of court, uk
Companies: fact, surfthechannel

Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven

from the you-knew-this-was-coming dept

This won't come as much of a surprise to anyone following the ongoing battle between Righthaven and Marc Randazza, representing Wayne Hoehn (Randazza is also representing other clients fighting Righthaven, but much of the "action" is in the Hoehn case). The latest is a filing (embedded below) for the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of the court for completely ignoring a court order from December 12th to produce certain documents to Randazza as part of the effort to collect the attorneys' fees that the court has already ordered:

Righthaven has failed to respect this Court's lawful order. On December 12, this Court entered an order granting Hoehn's motion to conduct a debtors examination in the presence of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 67). Righthaven did not oppose Hoehn's motion seeking a debtors exam, and therefore consented to this Court's entry of an order scheduling one (Docs. # 60, 64). At this time, there is no stay in place to inhibit the debtors exam from proceeding (Docs. # 56, 57).

In order to ensure his debtors exam was efficient, targeted and fruitful, Hoehn moved the Court to order Righthaven to produce certain documents in advance of the examination (Docs. # 60, 60-4). The Court granted this request by adopting Hoehn's proposed order, and instructed Righthaven in clear, unambiguous language, to produce to Hoehn all of the following at least one (1) week before the scheduled examination:

Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, vehicles, bank accounts, bank deposits, company securities, intangible intellectual property and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy this Court's judgment and writ of execution, including money owed to Judgment Debtor by others, and other information of the like;

and

Any and all information and documentation identifying purchases, transfers of funds, or other dissipation of assets from Righthaven to yourselves or any other third parties commencing on or about April 15, 2011. (Doc. # 67 at 2)

By obtaining these documents, Hoehn hoped to prepare for the debtors examination with specific, narrowly tailored questions about any unexplained or suspicious assets or transactions. Righthaven has refused to produce these documents, to discuss their production, or to even acknowledge that the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce these documents...

One week after the Court's order instructing Righthaven to produce the above-described documents, December 19, Hoehn's counsel sent a facsimile message to Righthaven's counsel inquiring about the production of those documents, as Righthaven had not contacted Hoehn about their production.... Righthaven's counsel had previously requested that all correspondence occur exclusively via U.S. Mail or facsimile, and Hoehn's counsel honored this request .... Sensing that Righthaven may not comply with the Court's order, Hoehn's counsel subpoenaed several banks doing business in Las Vegas for any financial records they may have for Righthaven LLC .... Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), Hoehn's counsel provided a notice of these subpoenas to Righthaven's counsel .... Since bank records were just a small portion of the documents the Court ordered Righthaven to produce, Hoehn's counsel specifically reminded Righthaven of its duty to produce these documents in advance of the debtors exam, despite the subpoena .... To the contrary, the subpoenas heightened the need for Righthaven's records, as they were needed were needed in order to check for discrepancies against the bank-issued financial records.

Having received no reply from Righthaven with respect to the December 19 letter or December 21 notice, Hoehn's counsel sent another letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile on December 26, 2011.... Righthaven's counsel did not respond to this communication.... After the close of business on December 29, 2011, one week before the scheduled debtors examination, Hoehn's counsel again sent a letter to Righthaven's counsel via facsimile and U.S. Mail, seeking production of these documents ... To date, Righthaven's counsel has not responded to this communication

I would suggest that Righthaven's strategy of trying to completely ignore Randazza is not likely to be successful.

Filed Under: contempt of court, marc randazza, shawn mangano, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

It's Probably Not A Good Idea To Ask People To Spam The Judge Hearing Your Case With Support Emails

from the pro-tips dept

Generally speaking, if you're on trial for something, it's probably not a good idea to piss off the judge. Informercial king Kevin Trudeau has been battling the FTC concerning his pitches for a diet book, which the FTC felt were deceiving. The court case itself has had a series of twists and turns, but as the latest case moved forward, Trudeau posted the judge's email address to his website, and announced it on his radio show, and asked people to email the judge in his support. Apparently, quite a few people did so -- and the judge was not amused, sentencing him to 30 days in jail. As Consumerist notes, the types of people who buy the sorts of things Trudeau is selling might not be the most rationally-minded people, and apparently a few took it upon themselves to not just email the judge their support of Trudeau, but to send vaguely threatening messages as well.

Still, there is an open question as to whether or not this is actually illegal. Eric Robinson points out that it's common enough for those on trial to have friends contact a judge, sometimes even via email. Of course, those sorts of setups are usually more limited to a specific group of selected friends, rather than broadcast to the public at large. Either way -- whether legal or not -- it does seem like a generally smart tip to remember: don't piss off a judge in charge of dealing with your case, and urging a hoard of followers to email that judge is pretty certain to piss him off.

Filed Under: contempt of court, kevin trudeau, spam

Bogus Spyware Scan Companies Held In Contempt Of Court

from the like-they-care dept

Earlier this month, we noted that the FTC had cracked down, yet again, on a company for putting up a bogus spyware scanner. The company would get people to their site where it would supposedly "scan" their hard drive for spyware. Of course, the scan was entirely bogus, and the scan would always tell you that your computer was rife with spyware. Then the site would tell you to buy its anti-spyware product for about $40. Of course, that anti-spyware product did absolutely nothing. The FTC ordered the company to shut down, but apparently the company is ignoring the order. It's now reached a point where a court has found the company in contempt and ordered it to pay $8,000/day until it complies. The execs in the company have had their assets frozen and the judge is now threatening to have them arrested. Sure, scamming may be easy money, but you would think these guys would at least shut down this operation and move on to some other bogus scam, rather than outright ignoring the court and the FTC.

Update: Now it comes out that these sites are using URL redirectors via Microsoft and the IRS to make people think they're legit.

Filed Under: contempt of court, spyware

Singapore Fines The WSJ For Editorials It Considered Contempt Of Court

from the opinions-not-allowed dept

The Wall Street Journal is running a story about how it's been fined by Singaporean courts for two editorials the paper published over the summer. The story notes how nearly every foreign publication distributed in Singapore has been sued in court at one point or another, and the article goes through detailing the specific charges against it by Singapore. Obviously, the WSJ's story can be seen as biased since they were a party in the lawsuit, but from the description, it sounds like Singapore was upset that the WSJ accurately reported on a defamation lawsuit by a former government official against an opposition party candidate, and later a critical study by the International Bar Association on the rule of law in Singapore. It's difficult to see how those reports can be said to be "contemptuous of the judiciary," but in a country that isn't known for taking criticism well, perhaps it's not that surprising.

Still, what's most interesting is that in response to this, the Wall Street Journal has chosen not to publish this particular story about the decision in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal -- though, the story is obviously available online. Apparently the WSJ recognizes, probably accurately, that if they published the story about the decision, where they are somewhat critical of that decision, they would probably be in for yet another "contempt" charge. To some extent, this decision makes you wonder how effective suppression of the press can be going forward. Yes, countries can build filters and block out certain publications, but online content can always be filtered through eventually. The very fact that the WSJ is purposely leaving the editorial out of Asian editions of the paper seems more likely to draw more attention to the story from within Singapore as well, accomplishing exactly the opposite of what the country thinks it's doing in fining the paper.

Filed Under: contempt of court, freedom of the press, singapore, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones, news corp.