Brett Gibbs Returns The Favor: Points Out That Steele And Hansmeier Were In Control Over Florida Prenda Farce

from the you-throw-me-under-the-bus? dept

While all of the attention on Prenda lately has been on the case being overseen by Judge Otis Wright in California, we shouldn't forget about the Sunlust case in Florida that really was probably the start of the fall of the house of Prenda. That was the case with the Abbott & Costello-worthy hearing, in which various lawyers were all trying to distance themselves from the case, with Prenda Law insisting it had nothing to do with the case, despite the attendance of the attorney (who was trying to get out of representing Sunlust), who said he'd been hired by Prenda supposedly as a representative of Sunlust, but who knew nothing at all about the company, and of course the magical appearance of John Steele, who insisted he had nothing at all to do with anything and certainly (oh, no no) was not practicing law in Florida, and was just there because of his general interest in the case. And, of course, the magical testimony of Mark Lutz, the "official representative" of Sunlust, despite not knowing anything about the company. If you haven't done so in a while, go back and check out the transcript. It's always a fun read.

The latest in that case is that Graham Syfert, the lawyer representing the defendants, has filed a notice about how they're fine with dropping the request for sanctions against Brett Gibbs and Matthew Wasinger. Wasinger wasn't in the courtroom for the crazy hearing, but had been a previous lawyer (hired by Prenda) representing Sunlust who had requested to withdraw after learning a bit about how Prenda worked. He thought he had been allowed off the case when that had not actually gone through. As we noted earlier, Wasinger had apologized profusely and revealed some of what happened with Prenda. As for Gibbs... that's where it gets more interesting.

As we've noted recently, Paul Hansmeier and John Steele have both been trying to throw Brett Gibbs under the bus in the California case, by arguing that Gibbs is the lawyer on the case, and he was in charge of everything. That's not particularly believable. They pointed to previous cases in which Gibbs made vague declarations about being in control over these cases to argue that, despite Gibbs comments to the contrary elsewhere, they weren't pulling the puppet strings. Sooner or later, you knew that Gibbs would hit back at being thrown under the bus.

Syfert sought, and got, declaration from Brett Gibbs clarifying how Hansmeier and Steele were the ones completely behind the Sunlust litigation. It's pretty damning. As Syfert notes in his filing, while this declaration slightly contradicts earlier statements from Gibbs, it seems pretty clear that this is a case of "eventual truth coming to light."

The contradictions within the statements of Gibbs are indications of an eventual truth coming to light- not a fundamental deception. He has decided to expose the actors that he was referring to in his previous affidavit, and show that the managment of the litigation in this case was handled by both John Steele and Paul Hansmeier.

The declaration itself is pretty straightforward. Basically, Steele and Hansmeier were in charge, and Gibbs was just the puppet.

For example, the decision to file the Sunlust Action was made by Messrs. Steele and Hansmeier, the settlement parameters were given to me by Messrs. Steele and Hansmeier, and it was Messrs. Steele and Hansmeier who gave me instructions concerning how to advise the Florida counsel in the Sunlust Action. Moreover, I believe it was Mr. Steele that was responsible for locating the various Florida counsel to handle the litigation in Florida on behalf of Prenda Law....

I was told by either Paul Hansmeier or John Steele that Mark Lutz would show up at the November 27, 2012 hearing in the Sunlust Action. I believe that it was either John Steele or Paul Hansmeier that made this decision. I was not part of the decision making process which led to Mark Lutz appearing at the November 27th hearing.

In other words, Gibbs is finally starting to come clean. I imagine there will be more forthcoming. At some point, you have to wonder if Paul Duffy is going to break from Steele and Hansmeier as well. So many of the stories suggest that Steele and Hansmeier really managed this aspect of Prenda's business, even as Duffy was the only official principal of Prenda. At some point, you'd think that it would make sense for Duffy to come clean on the relationship details to avoid being tarred with the same brush as Steele and Hansmeier.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, fraud on the court, john steele, mark lutz, matthew wasinger, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: prenda, prenda law, sunlust

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

from the fraud-on-the-court dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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