Latest Team Prenda Shenanigans: Arguing Nevis Law Applies In California; Also Mark Lutz Makes An Appearance... Sorta

from the good-luck-with-that-argument dept

John Steele and Paul Hansmeier (who various courts have made clear, make up the core of "Team Prenda") are engaged in so many different lawsuits in which they're getting hit with so many different orders to pay up for their questionable behavior that it may be difficult to keep up. However, in Northern California last month, Judge Edward Chen ruled that Steele and Hansmeier are liable for sanctions and attorneys' fees awarded against "AF Holdings," the semi-mysterious shell company set up in Nevis, which many people (including courts) have recognized was almost certainly set up by Steele and Hansmeier themselves as some sort of way to (a) hide the fact that they were representing themselves and (b) to hide where the money goes. Of course, as court after court has seen through this charade, things aren't looking good for Steele and Hansmeier who should be fearing the eventual law enforcement response to all of this, which is almost certainly approaching.

However, they just can't resist fighting the fight, because that's what they do. When backed into a complete corner, Steele and Hansmeier tend to go into attack mode, trying any and every argument they can possibly think of, no matter how insane. But, and here's the key, they make those arguments with extreme confidence, as if only a moron would think they were wrong. The reality, of course, is that almost all of their claims are laughable. Take for example, the latest one in response to Judge Chen's ruling. Steele and Hansmeier have filed very, very similar filings that (among a few other arguments) try to argue that they cannot be found to be considered the "alter ego" of AF Holdings because Nevis law says that can only be done with the permission of the people being claimed to be the alter ego.

Under Nevis law, accordingly, a person may become an alter ego of a limited liability company only with his or her express consent.

Yes, AF Holdings was registered in Nevis, but if Steele and Hansmeier automatically think that means they can avoid liability in California, their legal skills are even worse than previously expected. Remember AF Holdings was the one who sued first... in California. The issue here is who is responsible for the absolutely bogus lawsuit. And the Court has very good reason, and significant evidence to support, that it's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Pretending that registering the company in Nevis somehow gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card is laughable.

Meanwhile, across the country, in the one case where Prenda actually seemed to be having some success, in front of former RIAA lobbyist Beryl Howell, John Steele has withdrawn as counsel and substituted Prenda buddy Paul Duffy. That, alone, isn't particular noteworthy -- these three guys seem to pass around cases like a group of high school kids under the bleachers passing around a joint. However, what is noteworthy is that in filing this, Steele notes that the "Plaintiff consents to Attorney Steele's withdrawal in this matter, as noted by his signature below." Who's the plaintiff? Why, it's the very same AF Holdings. And whose "signature" is it? Why, it's "Mark Lutz." And the date of the signature is... November 5th.

That's interesting. Because back at the end of September, Mark Lutz continued his magic disappearing act by not appearing in a Minnesota court, despite being ordered to be there. Hansmeier was given until the next day to explain the disappearance, and filed a substance-free brief that basically said, "I'm sure Lutz has a good reason, which he'll tell you about when he can." Specifically, Hansmeier told the court:

Based on my prior experience with Mr. Lutz, including Mr. Lutz's in-person attendance before this Court on August 5, 2012, I believe that Mr. Lutz will be able to provide a good-faith reason for failing to make his flight to Minnesota.

While there has been plenty of activity in the docket for this case (including Hansmeier's weak attempt to get magistrate judge Franklin Noel kicked off the case), there has been nothing from Lutz since Hansmeier's promise on October 1st that Lutz would explain what happened. In fact, he hasn't appeared anywhere.

But... suddenly his signature appears on November 5th in a different circuit? Hmm. It would appear he's fairly tardy in getting in his explanation. Of course, there's been some chatter on Twitter wondering if this is really Lutz's signature. We have examples of his actual signature on previous filings, so you can compare. Here's the latest one, supposedly from November 5th: And here's his notarized signature from May 2nd: My gut reaction is that those were not written by the same person, but I'm not a handwriting expert, so we'll give Lutz the benefit of the doubt. I found another Lutz signature that looks more like the first, but it's not notarized -- and I've got a lot more confidence in the notarized version.

Of course, here's the issue. If we give Steele and Lutz the benefit of the doubt here that the signature is legitimate -- and I'm willing to do exactly that -- it would appear that they've got a different problem to deal with: the fact that Lutz never explained his absence in Minnesota. I'm trying to think if there's any other option. Either Lutz has flat out ignored a court order in Minnesota, or someone forged his name in DC. If anyone can come up with any other option, I'm all ears. I guess there's the possibility, also, that both things are true -- that he both ignored a court order and had his signature forged -- but that doesn't make the situation any better...

Filed Under: edward chen, franklin noel, john steele, jurisdiction, mark lutz, nevis, paul hansmeier, signatures
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Judge Isn't Buying Team Prenda's Excuses

from the of-course-not dept

Team Prenda keeps trying... and failing. In the AF Holdings v. Joe Navasca case in northern California, Judge Edward Chen has accepted the findings of Magistrate Judge Nador Vadas, who had found that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier were clearly the forces behind AF Holdings and Prenda. Judge Chen completely rejects Hansmeier and Steele's protests about all of this, arguing that there is plenty of compelling evidence that Prenda was really managed by the two of them, and they failed to present any evidence to the contrary. Rather, Judge Chen notes, it appears that the protests from Steele and Hansmeier were almost always attempts to kick up dust to distract from the basic facts, rather than attempts to dispute them.

Judge Vadas took into account AF’s attempt to impugn Mr. Gibbs’s credibility but found the evidence unpersuasive: The declarations (of Mr. Gibbs and other attorneys who represented AF in other states) “do not rebut Gibbs’ testimony that Steele and Hansmeier alone communicated with the purported client, and that they directed Gibbs’ litigation strategy. The declarations actually corroborate Gibbs’ testimony: he communicated with local counsel for AF, essentially acting as a go-between for Steel and Hansmeier.”

AF has objected to the finding that Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier were directing Mr. Gibbs’s actions, but the objection is without any merit. The gist of AF’s objection is that, if Mr. Gibbs did in fact simply follow the directions of Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier without doing any investigation of his own, then he violated his duties as an attorney under, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. But just because Mr. Gibbs’s conduct may have been improper does not mean that any improper conduct on the part of Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier should therefore be immunized. All three of the individuals can be deemed to have engaged in improper conduct

Furthermore, Judge Chen also notes the non-appearance of Mark Lutz and the subsequent bizarre excuse sent in a week later. We had noted how odd it was that it would take a week for Lutz to file such information, and Judge Chen makes it clear that the entire thing raises serious questions about Lutz's credibility:

The Court acknowledges AF’s objection that no negative inference should be read from the fact that Mr. Lutz did not appear at the evidentiary hearing because he intended to appear but was not able to because of unforeseen circumstances.... But the claimed inability to appear is highly questionable. First, AF waited for about a week after the evidentiary hearing before bringing up the argument that Mr. Lutz could not appear because of “very sensitive” reasons that would “expose [him] to undue scrutiny.” Second, in spite of the professed sensitive reasons, Mr. Lutz ultimately ended up publicly filing an affidavit (without permission from Judge Vadas) explaining why he could not appear. Third, the affidavit itself strains credulity. According to Mr. Lutz, he had bought a ticket to fly to San Francisco from Miami but, when he arrived at the Miami airport at 5:30 a.m., he was detained by federal authorities and was ultimately detained up until 10:00 p.m. – i.e., for more than 16 hours. And while Mr. Lutz suggests that he had no way to contact his attorney while detained, that is a dubious claim. Moreover, even if he could not contact his attorney while detained, there is no explanation as to why he did not ask for relief the next day.

It's good to see judges seeing through such bizarre filings. Judge Chen also has little patience for Hansmeier and Steele's attempts to attack Alan Cooper, which again he finds have little credibility.

The Court is somewhat sympathetic to AF’s point that it, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Hansmeier did not have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Cooper either at the March 11 hearing or at the April 2 hearing. But that is hardly a reason for the Court to entirely discount Mr. Cooper’s testimony. This is because, even if AF, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Hansmeier did not have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Cooper, they still had the opportunity to introduce their side of the story as to what happened with Mr. Cooper at the April 2 hearing but they effectively chose to do nothing. Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier stated that they would not answer any questions. Tellingly, Mr. Steele did offer an explanation in or about May 28, 2013, in conjunction with another case involving AF in Arizona. (claiming that Mr. Cooper voluntarily expressed interest in getting into the business of fighting digital piracy, Mr. Steele put Mr. Cooper in touch with Mr. Lutz, and that Mr. Cooper thereafter participated in a limited number of transactions in 2011 with Mr. Lutz’s companies). There is no reason why Mr. Steele could not have offered this explanation during the April 2 hearing before Judge Wright.

Moreover, if Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier really felt that cross-examination of Mr. Cooper was critical, there is no reason why they could not have issued a subpoena requiring Mr. Cooper’s presence at the evidentiary hearing before Judge Vadas.

Finally, it is worth noting that Mr. Navasca submitted evidence to Judge Vadas that Mr. Cooper’s identity had been stolen independent of the assignment agreement that bore Mr. Cooper’s name and signature. As Judge Vadas recited in the report and recommendation, Mr. Navasca provided an audio recording from GoDaddy.com, in which the caller identified himself as “Alan Cooper” but who was in fact, as testified to by Mr. Gibbs (who recognized the voice of the caller), Mr. Steele. There is also documentary evidence from GoDaddy.com reflecting that the customer’s name was “Alan Cooper” but the e-mail address was “johnsteele@gmail.com.” Docket No. 93 (Pl.’s Ex. G). Furthermore, the physical address for the customer was 4532 E Villa Theresa Dr. – an address that is linked to Mr. Steele’s sister and “Anthony Saltmarsh.” Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier did not provide any evidence explaining these circumstances.

Basically: the judge isn't buying any of Steele and Hansmeier's attempts to kick up dust without actually answering any of the key questions. The judge, in fact, points out that Steele and Hansmeier did not actually answer the key question that Judge Vadas directly warned them needed to be answered at the hearing: what happened to the funds.

All this concludes with a new hearing, to be held November 21st, in which Steele and Hansmeier are going to have to show cause for why the attorneys' fees that were awarded to Navasca from "AF Holdings" should also apply to the two of them directly. The judge warns them to think twice about filing motions on this, noting that they will carry little weight, since the judge appears to want to get to the bottom of these issues at the actual hearing.

Filed Under: edward chen, joe navasca, john steele, nador vadas, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Judge Decides The Prenda Buck Should Stop With John Steele And Paul Hansmeier

from the another-shoe-drops dept

The latest ruling in the AF Holdings v. Navasca case has come out with Magistrate Judge Nador Vadas completely slamming Team Prenda, focusing mainly on John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, whom he thinks should clearly be directly liable for the attorneys' fees already ordered on AF Holdings in the case, but which haven't yet been paid (of course). This is in response to the hearing from a few weeks ago, in which Judge Vadas had made it clear that he wanted AF Holdings/Prenda to answer some very specific questions. Paul Duffy, representing AF Holdings, did not answer most of the questions, and the Judge noticed. He also noticed that AF Holdings did basically nothing to actually respond to most of the issues, other than trying to attack Brett Gibbs or Navasca's lawyer Nick Ranallo.

Even after the excoriating decision Judge Wright issued in Ingenuity 13, and the troublesome findings Judge Chen made in his order awarding attorneys' fees to Navasca, AF chose not to oppose the majority of the arguments in Navasca's motion for sanctions. Instead, AF introduced immaterial issues in its opposition, attacked its former counsel Gibbs, and attacked Navasca's counsel.... AF addressed the “Salt Marsh” issue and the working relationship between AF's former counsel Gibbs and its CEO/manager/sole employee Lutz.... However, AF failed to oppose Navasca's arguments that Steele and/or Hansmeier (1) manufactured Cooper's involvement in AF and forged his signature; (2) were in cahoots with the computer forensic experts who identified the alleged illegal downloaders that AF then sued; and (3) themselves uploaded the Video to Pirate Bay to induce others to download the Video. AF failed to offer any evidence to rebut Navasca's evidence establishing these points. AF's counsel attacked the affidavit of Delvan Neville, who explains how he determined that John Steele or someone with access to Steele's GoDaddy account uploaded the copyrighted works that form the basis of AF's lawsuits to BitTorrent swarms in order to induce infringement.... But AF did not actually rebut the evidence Neville presents. Instead of grappling with these admittedly difficult accusations, AF “respectfully request[ed] that to the extent the Court deems one or more to be relevant in any respect, that it identify those matters and allow Plaintiff opportunity to respond and present evidence to contradict them.” .... AF's counsel is apparently not familiar with the rules of federal procedure, or with basic principles of motion practice

That last sentence? Ouch. Later, the Judge restates the three straightforward questions he'd ordered Duffy and AF Holdings be prepared to answer, and then notes "AF chose not to present any witness at the evidentiary hearing, continuing its campaign of obfuscation."

From there, the Judge notes that Judge Wright's initial findings against Team Prenda were compelling and adopted in this case. He finds that Gibbs' testimony concerning John Steele and Paul Hansmeier was convincing, and notes that Paul Duffy presented little evidence to counter any of it. The Judge also faults Steele and Hansmeier for claiming that they haven't had "a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues," noting that's not at all true, going back to the opportunity before Judge Wright.

The key point of all of this is to see if John Steele and Paul Hansmeier could be made personally liable to pay the attorneys' fees ordered by Judge Chen in this case, and Judge Vadas is clearly convinced. Still, he notes that he's unable to do so under some of the proposed theories. He can't use the court's inherent powers, since neither Steele nor Hansmeier technically appeared as attorneys in the case (even if Hansmeier was deposed as a corporate representative). Still, the court notes that there's tons of evidence that Steele and Hansmeier deserve sanctions, but since they're not officially part of the case, there's just no jurisdiction.

However, that doesn't let them off the hook. The court finds that it can add Steele and Hansmeier personally as debtors to the original judgment, noting that they are basically an "alter ego to the original debtor." It then goes into a fair amount of detail about why this makes sense, highlighting the evidence that Steele and Hansmeier really controlled the lawsuit, that they had a financial interest in the ruling, and, most importantly, their near total failure to refute any of the evidence against them, despite multiple opportunities.

The evidence adduced at the August 28, 2013 evidentiary hearing confirms Judge Wright's findings. AF's failure to refute that evidence with any of its own also speaks volumes. Although the undersigned ordered AF to be prepared to explain at the hearing the money trail and provide an accounting of the funds it received from copyright infringement actions or settlements, AF failed to present a witness who could do so or documents that might shed light on these issues. During the evidentiary hearing, Duffy represented to the undersigned (but did not testify) that it was his belief that the settlement or litigation proceeds were held in IOLTA trust accounts by AF's attorneys (including Prenda Law, formerly known as Steele Hansmeier). Duffy also represented as a "fact" to this court that a settlement check in another matter was written to Prenda Law.... However, no witness testified regarding whether any of the funds ever left Prenda's trust account(s). Thus, there is no evidence before the undersigned that any settlement or litigation proceeds ever reached AF.

The end result is that Vadas has sent the case back to Judge Chen with a recommendation for yet another Order to Show Cause why Steele and Hansmeier shouldn't be added as debtors to the original award for attorney's fees. In short, Hansmeier and Steele now get to argue why they shouldn't personally be liable for this debt. I'm sure their filings will be highly entertaining.

As a post script to this story, elsewhere we had noted that Mark Lutz had failed to show up at the hearing, despite Paul Duffy insisting that he knew Lutz was in town and would be present soon. A week later, Duffy finally filed with the court stating that Lutz had a good excuse, but wanted it to remain secret from the public. The court rejected two separate attempts to explain secretly why Lutz did so, and then just before Vadas' ruling filed a statement from Lutz that claims he was detained at the airport for the entire day by federal officials and unable to contact anyone, including his lawyer. He does not explain why he was detained, other than that it "was not for any actions I took at the airport and had no way of knowing that I was going to be detained on that day until it happened."

There are a number of oddities in this explanation, including the earlier claims from Duffy that he knew Lutz was apparently in town, when he wasn't, as well as the claim that he was unable to contact his lawyer during the entire 16.5 hours that Lutz claims he was detained. That's an awfully long time to be detained without access to one's lawyers. It also doesn't explain why it took Duffy a week to file anything with the court about this absence.

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, edward chen, joe navasca, john steele, liability, mark lutz, nador vadas, nick ranallo, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, sanctions
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law

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

from the keep-trying dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Sanctions Issued Against Team Prenda

from the get-those-appeals-warmed-up dept

Late last week we noted that Judge Edward Chen was becoming as suspicious of Team Prenda as Judge Wright, and so it didn't take long for Judge Chen to add to the pile of sanctions against the key players, this time ordering another $22,531.93 in legal fees to Joe Navasca. Judge Chen's order is short and to the point, making the case that the lawsuit itself was "frivolous and objectively unreasonable" on a variety of fronts:

• The forged signature of Alan Cooper: "the signature by Alan Cooper appears to have been a forgery, as Judge Wright concluded in his recent sanctions order." Chen notes that Prenda/AF Holdings denies this, but points out that their only argument against all of this is "sheer speculation.'
• The claim against Navasca "was not based on an adequate factual investigation." Chen points out how ridiculous it is that Prenda claimed Navasca was the likely culprit because he worked in tech support, noting "one does not need to be tech savvy in order to download information from a computer."
• "AF filed an emergency motion to compel... even though, at the time it filed the motion, Mr. Navasca's discovery responses were not even due yet."
• Judge Chen notes that Prenda/AF Holdings argued that the reason it tried to dismiss the case and get out of it was because of the Court's "undertaking ruling" against it, but if that were true, you'd think they would have asked the court to reconsider. Yet, as Chen notes: "AF filed an emergency motion to compel, see Docket No. 38 (motion), even though, at the time it filed the motion, Mr. Navasca's discovery responses were not even due yet."
• The whole argument about how Navasca spoliated evidence using CCleaner was a complete joke. Noting that Prenda "has offered no real support for this claim." And, worse, even though Prenda lawyers had been told by a judge to investigate "the purpose and effective of CCleaner" they, of course, did "not appear to have done anything" along those lines.
• The real kicker. Judge Chen notes the real reason that Prenda sought to dismiss the case: the absolutely devastating deposition of Paul Hansmeier in this Navasca case is what pushed Judge Wright over the edge in the central district of California, after Hansmeier put on a ridiculous performance and more or less cemented the clear point that Prenda was up to no good.

Given all that, it's not difficult for Judge Chen to add to the growing line of monetary sanctions against Team Prenda:

AF's motivation to bring suit is problematic given its apparent lack of standing. Furthermore, even if AF did have standing, the fact that someone may have illegally downloaded the copyrighted work does not justify AF's decision to sue Mr. Navasca specifically. As discussed above, the factual investigation done by AF prior to identifying Mr. Navasca as the alleged infringer was inadequate. Furthermore, as indicated by the findings made by Judge Wright in his case, AF does not appear to have been motivated to file suit in order to protect the copyrighted work at issue. Rather, AF's business model was to sue people for downloading pornography in order to coerce settlements.

For the above reasons alone, the "motivation" factor weighs strongly in favor of Mr. Navasca, and against AF. However, one final consideration has been offered by Mr. Navasca, which raises even more concern on the part of the Court with respect to AF's motivation. More specifically, Mr. Navasca has offered evidence – the Neville declarations – which indicate that persons affiliated with AF used the alias "sharkmp4" to post links on the Pirate Bay website to many of the copyrighted works in order to induce users to download the works so that they could then be sued for copyright infringement. This evidence corroborates Judge Wright's finding that the motivation for this and similar suits is to sue and coerce settlement.

As for Prenda swearing up and down that the Neville declaration is wrong, Judge Chen isn't buying it. If Neville is wrong, he points out, you'd think that Prenda would present some counter-evidence. But they don't, other than to try to attack Neville's reputation.

The Court acknowledges that AF has in its brief attacked the Neville declarations as unreliable on various grounds – for example, because the opinions contained therein are offered by an individual who has not been qualified as an expert; because the original declaration was secured by an attorney of purportedly questionable ethics; because the methodology employed is problematic; and because the opinions are qualified (e.g., finding it probable or likely that persons affiliated with AF were responsible). But notably, what AF has not done is offer any counterevidence such as a declaration from Mr. Steele in which he denies that he is "sharkmp4" or other evidence that AF did not take steps to induce users to download the subject works. This evidence could easily have been offered by AF as a part of its opposition brief. AF's failure to submit any factual denial under oath is telling.

The end result:

the Court grants Mr. Navasca's motion for fees and costs and awards fees in the amount of $19,420.38 and costs in the amount of $3,111.55. The total award is $22,531.93.

This is slightly lower than Navasca asked for. The court cut 5% off the amount requested, because of the possibility of some slight overlap with the work done by Navasca's lawyers, Nick Ranallo and Morgan Pietz, on other similar Prenda cases. Still, the bill for Team Prenda keeps rising.

Filed Under: edward chen, joe navasca, john steele, morgan pietz, nick ranallo, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Bad News Is Contagious For Prenda

from the for-the-weekend dept

Well, might as well leave some folks for the weekend with some more bad news for Prenda as covered by Joe Mullin at Ars Technica. Yesterday there was another hearing in the case in Northern California, in the case where Judge Edward Chen appears to be a few steps behind Judge Otis Wright in understanding what Prenda is up to, but is catching up fast. This is the Navasca case, and Paul Duffy is so busy dealing with the collapse (and potential further problems) with Prenda that he apparently forgot the hearing was on at all. When the court reached him by phone, he was apparently confused, saying he thought the hearing had been cancelled. But the key point was that the Judge clearly is realizing that Prenda/Duffy are making claims that don't make much sense.

"Frankly I don't see why fees should not be awarded here, given the findings obtained in this court as well as other courts, including Judge Wright's," he said. "This case proceeded without proof of standing. There were also questions about identifying Mr. Navasca as an infringer without sufficient investigation. Other assertions, like improper spoliation, were never proven or supported. Then there's the whole question of motivation. There's a serious question raised about the whole business model here... [about whether] this is a business model to generate income through coerced settlements. If there's a case that warrants fee shifting, this certainly seems to be one of them."

Duffy tried to talk his way out of all of this, insisting (yet again) that Navasca "engaged in spoliation of evidence" -- a claim that's been tried by Team Prenda multiple times and failed -- in large part because it's silly. Navasca had a registry cleaner, CCleaner, installed on his computer, since well before the whole Prenda thing, and the app serves to keep a computer running efficiently and keep it from getting bogged down. Beyond having the app, there's no evidence that it was used to delete any form of evidence. The court has already rejected it, but Duffy couldn't let it go. But that's a pretty weak thread to hang from.

When asked about a variety of other things, Duffy did the usual "deny, deny, deny" move. In particular, Chen pointed out the whole lack of standing given the likelihood of Alan Cooper's signature being forged:

"Here AF [Holdings] didn't even prove standing," said Chen. The judge was referring to the disputed copyright assignment at the root of the case. It was signed by Alan Cooper, a former property caretaker for John Steele, the man pointed to as a key Prenda player. Cooper later denied having signed the papers.

"That's very much in dispute," said Duffy. "It's a 'he said, he said' about the individual who signed AF Holdings' [assignment]. The individual did not challenge the signature until Mr. Steele ejected him from his property, then all of a sudden repudiated his signature. There is a factual issue about whether the person who signed it actually signed it. We believe he did."

"I've not seen a case yet where AF Holdings has been able to prove to any court's satisfaction that this was not a case of either identity theft or forgery or something of that nature," said Chen. "I know you dispute this on behalf of your client. Is there a case where you have prevailed on this issue?"

"There's not a case where we have not prevailed," insisted Duffy,

When in doubt, go for the double negatives, I guess... Anyway, there's a lot more at that link. Duffy also tried to attack the credibility of Delvan Neville, the computer expert who presented incredibly compelling testimony that John Steele or someone closely associated with him was uploading the files Prenda was suing over themselves. As the judge pointed out, however, Duffy failed to actually file anything in any case that factually disputes Neville's statements. All he did was whine about Neville as a person and his credentials. The judge appears to find the lack of any such factual filings noteworthy.

"You take on his declaration... you argue about it. You say his opinions are worthless, et cetera, et cetera, purely conjectural, they don't make logical or economic sense. [But] I don't see any factual matter submitted. You had a full two weeks to respond.

We eagerly await Judge Chen's ruling.

Of course, there was also another Prenda hearing today down in Arizona, where Judge G. Murray Snow has also been expressing quite a bit of skepticism. There, Prenda red shirt Steve Goodhue filed "answers" to some of the questions Snow asked, which we've embedded below, but as of this writing no other details of the hearing have come about. I'm sure we'll find something out in the next week or so...

Meanwhile, back in St. Clair County, Illinois, where Prenda had focused a bunch of their state court actions, Charter Communications is now asking the judge to award it $5,000 from Team Prenda to pay for the costs of having to deal with Prenda's invalid subpoenas in one of the LW Systems (another shell) cases.

Charter attorney Robert Sprague of Belleville wrote in a motion July 11 that the company has asked for reimbursement from plaintiff attorney Paul Duffy of Chicago after Gleeson ruled June 6 that the subpoena was invalid, but that its requests have been ignored.

Sprague’s motion also claims that Duffy has not provided notice that customer information Charter inadvertently provided due to the invalid Jan. 31 subpoena has been destroyed.

“Charter customer information, including name and address information, is ordinarily confidential and subject to the protection under the Cable Act,” the motion states. “Customer information cannot be produced absent a valid court order requiring Charter to provide it.

It may be slow, but it seems like the world may finally start to be closing in on Prenda...

Filed Under: edward chen, g. murray snow, john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, steve goodhue
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, lw systems, prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Keeps Trying To Convince Judges That The Lawyers Who Exposed Them Are The Real Scammers

from the nice-try,-guys dept

We've discussed in the past how Team Prenda loves to use the "I know you are, but what am I" defense, in which they accuse opposing counsel of doing all sorts of nefarious things to game the legal system -- something that they themselves have been accused of by multiple judges. In the past few days, two more examples popped up. The same day that John Steele was getting reamed by Judge Otis Wright, Steele submitted his latest "reply" to opposing attorneys Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo, arguing in vehement language that those two need to be sanctioned. Not surprisingly, Judge Wright didn't bother with that one at all, because it's ludicrous. The focus of the hearing made it clear that Steele's attempts to pretend that Pietz and Ranallo are concocting some sort of fraud is not convincing anyone. Still, it's hilarious:

The extent of the fraud that has been committed on this Court by Respondents [Pietz and Ranallo] is slowly, but steadily, emerging. The first category of fraud--failing to serve any of the pro se persons with any of the papers they have submitted over the course of this entire proceeding--has been definitively established by the papers before the Court; Pietz and Ranallo do not dispute they engaged in this fraud.

It goes on and on. Of course, it's almost all entirely bogus. Pietz and Ranallo do dispute that they engaged in fraud, because they didn't. They explained, quite clearly, that Steele clearly had knowledge of what was going on, and then proceeded to do a variety of things -- including deleting his email account -- to claim that he was not being served and was somehow unaware of the proceedings.

Meanwhile, in the Navasca case in Northern California -- where a similar set of events appears to be playing out for Team Prenda, as judge Edward Chen seems to be recognizing what Team Prenda is trying to pull -- Paul Duffy has filed a similar attack on Pietz and Ranallo, once again trying to argue that it's those pesky lawyers who should be sanctioned. This is the case where, as we'd mentioned, Brett Gibbs filed a deposition to show that Mark Lutz was lying about the claim that Gibbs sent him documents, which Lutz signed as "Salt Marsh" (if you don't know what this is about, click the link to dig into the details).

Duffy is arguing that this is all some scam by Pietz and Ranallo to pay off Gibbs to lie to get Team Prenda in trouble.

There are however, two aspects of Defendant’s Motion that are highly troubling and suggest that if any sanctions are appropriate they should be imposed upon Defendant’s counsel [Pietz and Ranallo]. First, counsel has produced a declaration of former Plaintiff attorney Brett Gibbs (the “Gibbs Affidavit”) that Defendant’s counsel appears to have procured through a quid pro quo, in which Defendant’s co-counsel would assist Gibbs financially in the matter under appeal from the Central District of California before Judge Wright in exchange for Gibbs’ agreement to provide the Declaration. Leaving aside for now the many ethical infirmities arising from an attorney who offers a declaration against his own client, disclosing privileged communications and confidences, for his own personal gain, Defendant’s counsel knows, or should know, that statements in the Gibbs Declaration are, at a minimum, directly contrary to Gibbs’ sworn statements in other proceedings. Defendant’s counsel fails to notify the Court of that fact. Defendant’s counsel has also failed to inform the Court that, the Monday after Gibbs dated his Declaration, he and his co-counsel in the Central District filed in the Central District of California a motion seeking to relieve Gibbs of the obligation for a sanction in the amount of approximately $101,650 for which he was jointly and severally liable. (A true and correct copy of that as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof). The only purpose of counsels’ otherwise-inexplicable stipulation in the Central District is that they agreed to file it with that Court in exchange for a declaration that suits their interests in this matter. Indirect payment for testimony, and counsel’s failure to point out that Gibbs’ current declaration directly contradicts his prior statements, is conduct that the Court should sanction, at minimum, by denying the Motion in its entirety.

Duffy also goes on to attack the EFF, as if a court -- in Northern California, no less -- is unfamiliar with the EFF or thinks of it as some sort of "vigilante group" as Duffy claims. I realize that Duffy is from Chicago, and perhaps isn't that aware of the EFF or its reputation, but pretending they're some crazy vigilantes just makes you look silly. Even folks who disagree with the EFF, for the most part, recognize the group's reputation and legal prowess. And, I'd imagine that goes doubly for judges in Northern California, EFF's home turf.

Defendant’s Motion is a dizzying accretion of conspiracy theories, invective and inadmissible evidence that betrays a motive on the part of his counsel other than representation of the Defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff is informed that Defendant’s counsel is a panel attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), an anti-copyright vigilante group whose panel attorneys have filed dozens upon dozens of similar filings throughout the country. The EFF panel attorneys have taken to attaching mass numbers of filings and transcripts of other court proceedings as exhibits to their filings, apparently in an attempt to lend the appearance of legal and factual gravitas otherwise missing from their arguments.

The motion goes on to suggest, strongly, that Pietz and Ranallo (a) effectively "paid off" Gibbs and (b) tried to pressure Duffy/Prenda into a settlement by claiming that it would file Gibbs' deposition claiming Lutz lied if they didn't. According to Duffy, this was a form of professional misconduct in trying to "induce a settlement."

Oh yeah, in the middle of all that, he also tosses in a bit claiming that Gibbs' deposition -- which shows that Duffy's client flat out lied to the court -- is "not credible." The "proof"? Gibbs, in the deposition, claimed that he believed Salt Marsh was a person, yet in Paul Hansmeier's now infamous deposition in this same case, Gibbs represented Hansmeier, where Hansmeier denied that Salt Marsh was a person. Of course, this ignores the timing of all this. The "Salt Marsh" signature came well before that deposition. To get around this, Duffy claims that it's somehow incredible that Gibbs believed Salt Marsh was a person -- though, anyone who's been following this case knows that's not incredible at all. Hansmeier and Steele insisted to him that Salt Marsh was a person, according to Gibbs, and (as has since come out), Steele's sister's boyfriend was named Anthony Saltmarsh. So, why is it so crazy? Duffy then tries to claim that if Gibbs had (a) believed that Salt Marsh was a person back when the ADR was submitted, and then (b) heard Hansmeier claim otherwise months later, then Gibbs "had an obligation to do something" to "correct any misunderstanding." Of course, Duffy is now using pretzel logic, suggesting that Gibbs had a duty to sabotage his own side (at the time) by publicly stating that he had filed falsified documents. Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Basically, Duffy's filing shows just how obnoxious Team Prenda is. From all of the information and details from Judge Wright's order, it appears that Steele, Hansmeier and (to a lesser extent, Duffy) had Brett Gibbs handle all the dirty work, insisting that various things were legit, when it turns out they weren't. Now that it's come out that things weren't legit, Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy are effectively blaming Gibbs for taking their word on the documents it seems likely they falsified. Talk about chutzpah. "Your honor, we didn't commit fraud on the court, but if we did, the real blame should go towards the guy we used to commit the fraud, for not telling the court about the fraud he was a part of." Yes, that appears to be the basic argument.

These guys really are quite incredible.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, edward chen, john steele, morgan pietz, nicholas ranallo, otis wright, paul duffy, salt marsh
Companies: prenda, prenda law

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

from the have-fun-guys dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mark Lutz spoke to Mr. Steele and said, Well, I understand that there's an issue with this Alan Cooper and asked Mr. Steele point-blank, Is the signature a forgery. Mr. Steele said the signature is not forgery. And he asked him, Is the— is the signature authentic. Mr. Steele says, yes, the signature is authentic..." and, "...all I can say is that AF Holdings – the only person who knows who this Alan Cooper is is John Steele...". Hansmeier Dep. 122:11-18 and 126:10-127:2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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