My opinion: a pro se defendant needs a pro bono attorney

Posted: May 13, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5
There is a case lingering in the ILND, Ingenuity 13 v Bradley Hellyer (12-cv-06131). The defendant represents himself, and he answered the complaint, even included some counterclaims. I believe that Prenda would be happy to get rid of this lawsuit, but it can’t do it easily since the complaint has been answered. Just last week the plaintiff managed to get the counterclaims dismissed; dismissing the entire lawsuit is much easier now.

After the March 11 hearing in Judge Wright’s chambers, Prenda filed many “notices of allegations” in AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases. Duffy explained that the reason for these filings was his wide known candor and honesty. Nonetheless, note that no notice was filed in this case. In my opinion, the judge on this case, Judge Joan Lefkof, is lenient to trolls, but I can be wrong, just a gut feeling. The dismissal of counterclaims has nothing to do with this, though: those counterclaims were indeed weak: the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was well written (if one wouldn’t know the circumstances).

Therefore, in light of the damning Judge Wright’s Order, the likelihood of winning legal fees is rather high, so I believe this is a great opportunity for an Illinois-licensed attorney to chime in and represent Bradley pro bono. Even if collecting potential fee awards is arguably problematic, there is a certain value in having a favorable judgment in a lawyer’s portfolio. This is not only my opinion, an attorney thinks the same way:

 

To be clear, defendant never contacted me or anyone I know, it was not his initiative.

Ethically handicapped Prenda’s “boss” Paul Duffy signs a new batch of extortion letters

Posted: May 12, 2013 by SJD in Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
52
Many remember that less than 3 years ago an infamous scumbag Steve “Lightspeed” Jones, a pornographer who specializes in “barely legal” genre (i.e. he recruits and films very young girls), articulated the “troll credo” that would become a modus operandi of the sleaziest porno extortionists:

People aren’t embarrassed when their neighbors find out they downloaded a few songs, but illegally trading midget, tranny, facials, and teen porn content? There is some news worth keeping from the wife, kids, parents, and neighbors.

Please feel free to continue to compare this to the RIAA…

Steve Lightspeed

(He said this in the context of hiring John Steele.)

I heard stories about troll harassers/collectors (not only Prenda’s, but Lipscomb’s, for example) threatening to tell relatives, neighbors, and colleagues that the victim is being sued in connection to an illegal download of pornography. Along these lines, Lipscomb’s collectors inflicted more harm upon citizenry than anyone else — see Fantalis’s story.


Paul Duffy: “Pleaded Fifth? So what?!”
(Click to enlarge)

Yet I never saw these threats explicitly written in a demand letter — until yesterday. No one else but Prenda came up with a new sleaze at the time when the entire gang, including the ethically handicapped attorney who signed it (Paul Duffy), pleaded the Fifth and was referred to the authorities for criminal investigation (as a matter of fact, Duffy pleaded the Fifth twice). Last week people started receiving new letters, this time not from involuntarily dissolved Duffy Law Group (like in April), not from fake/shell corporations, but from the “Anti-Piracy Law Group,” the latest Prenda reincarnation. An explicit threat to call one’s neighbors was added to this masterpiece of douchebaggery (emphasis is mine):

[...] The purpose of this step is to gather evidence about who used your Internet account to steal from our client [sjd: never mind that this case is about hacking, not copyright infringement]. The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house. In the coming days we will contact these individuals to investigate whether they have any knowledge of the acts described in my client’s prior letter. [...]

Anything goes if it helps to scare an uninformed extortion target:

[...] Internet is full of stories of people being brought to court by our firm, incurring significant legal fees and suffering large judgments [...]

I don’t know what part of their bodies these guys use for thinking: to see what kind of stories people will find, try to google “Anti-Piracy Law Group,” or visit antipiracylawgroup.com (copy and paste to make sure that this is real).

 

If I was not a relatively modest kind, I would tell you what to do with such letter. But you know it without me if you spend an hour surfing the “Internet full of stories.”

By the way: the lopsided second page is not a result of faulty scanning. This is exactly how the original printed letter looks like. Also, we probably have a new definition of “Chutzpah,” since the letters are dated 5/7/2013 — the very next day after Judge Wright’s smackdown.

Good news

I want to finish on a lighter note.

I hope that everyone is familiar with Friday’s surprise interview that John Steele gave to ArsTechnica. It does not make sense to discuss the things this narcissistic megalomaniac said on the record. I keep wondering if this pretentious paltry creature understands the extent of the damage he inflicts upon himself and his buddies when he opens his mendacious mouth in public. Funny enough, Jason Sweet used Steele’s words from this interview to argue against Prenda in the evening of the exact same Friday!

While the entire interview is good news overall, there is more to it: while John struggles with mastering a delicate art of shutting-the-fuck-up, some people are doing their job in silence. And some of them visit this site in the line of their duty:

 

I like it. I like it a lot.

Media coverage

Prenda is essentially done

Posted: May 6, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
89

We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Congratulations to everyone involved, especially Morgan and Nick.

Media coverage

Bellwether trial update: How NOT to prepare for trial

Posted: May 5, 2013 by Raul in Bellwether trial, Lipscomb
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
20
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
Abraham Lincoln

 

As you may recall, M. Keith Lipscomb’s porn extortion enterprise hit a bump in the road last October when Judge Baylson of the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, more or less, directed Lipscomb to bring some of his copyright troll lawsuits to a verdict so as to ascertain whether these lawsuits were legitimate or not. Of course this direction is contrary to the usual porn copyright business model, which is to obtain the personal identifying information of the person who pays the ISP bill, harass the shit out of said person to pay thousands to settle, and then dismiss the lawsuit once it gets either (a) uncomfortable due to heightened judicial scrutiny or (b) grows stale with the maximum settlements deemed achieved. Aside from the Fantalis matter in Colorado this is the first lawsuit in which a copyright troll’s evidence will be tested in a court of law. Accordingly, SJD and others have been reporting on this lawsuit as it progresses and SJD’s coverage is here, here, here, and here.

Question: How do you gather and refine your evidence to prepare for a trial (the first of its kind in the US) which is set to begin on June 10th? Answer: If you are M. Keith Lipscomb, in the most overreaching and last minute fashion humanly possible.

One example of this has been his sloppy, roughshod trampling of privacy concerns in the third party discovery of ISP Verizon which has been covered by others, including TechDirt, as well as the incredibly invasive demand for “Six Strikes” info.

A more recent example of this overreaching and slipshod trial preparation was disclosed last week when Lipscomb filed an Emergency Motion to allow the plaintiff entry into John Doe 16’s home for the purpose of making forensic copies of his hard drives. The basis for this motion is that the copies of the hard drives previously provided by this party are unreadable which Lipscomb just discovered on April 30th due to the illness and resulting death on April 26th of one of his two experts witnesses. Conspicuously absent from this motion is an affidavit from the surviving expert witness explaining why the copies are unreadable and when this problem was discovered.

 

Keep in mind the trial is set to begin on June 10th and discovery should have been completed some time ago.

In opposition to this motion the attorney for John Doe 16, Ronald Smith, points out with well-deserved indignation that Lipscomb’s expert witnesses had been sitting on these supposedly unreadable copies for 4 months!

It appears unequivocal that Defendant’s counsel first learned of this problem on May 1, 2013, after the scheduling of this case for Trial. How or why, with a period of over four months, could the parties not be made aware of the difficulty in discovery and now at the midnight hour request an opening of the discovery process when trial is only days away. At this late juncture, not only has Defendant’s counsel for John Doe 16 been prejudiced, but perhaps other counsel in this matter who have indicated that they have had no choice but to settle.

Furthermore defense counsel underlines what by now is obvious:

Plaintiff’s counsel has been egregious in the handling of this case and at this late date the rewarding of and opening of discovery will not only penalized John Doe 16 but the other parties as well.

 

A telephone conference is scheduled for tomorrow regarding this example of sloppy and overreaching trial preparation and let’s hope that Judge Baylson is not in a forgiving mood.

Prenda v. the rest of the world

Posted: May 4, 2013 by SJD in Not so serious, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0
If you have been following Theatre of Absurd “Prenda” for a while, you’ll smile, chuckle, giggle, and laugh out loud more than once. Enjoy.

 

 

Sunlust v. Nguyen: from comedy to absurdist play

Posted: May 3, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Sunlust fiasco
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
9

Prenda’s Sunlust Pictures LLC, v. Nguyen, (12-cv-01685) has started as a comedy, continued as a farce, and now enters the Theatre of the Absurd domain.

Last time I wrote about this eventful lawsuit less than a month ago and covered two significant events:

  • On 4/11/2013 defense attorney Graham Syfert stipulated withdrawal of his motion for sanctions against Matt Wasinger¹ and Brett Gibbs. As a part of the agreement, Gibbs filed a declaration, which unambiguously stated that the real puppeteers in this and hundreds of other lawsuits had always been John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. These two crooks continue to vigorously deny their involvement amid the overwhelming evidence and the deafening sounds of the spectators’ reflexive facepalms.
  • On 4/23/2013 Judge Mary Scriven issued a strongly worded order, granting Wasinger’s motion to withdraw and directing the plaintiff to urgently find a new counsel, who must promptly reply to Syfert’s pending motion for fees and costs. The judge was clear: if the substitution does not happen, this motion will be granted.

The actors in this comedy/farce/absurd case continue to live up to our expectations: four pleadings of various entertainment values were filed over the course of one week — since 4/29/2013.

Theatre of the absurd and alternate history

The fist and the funniest document is John Steele’s pro se motion for sanctions (he excused himself for publicly doing pro se despite being represented because “Brett Gibbs’ [sic] contradictory testimony in this matter has created an apparent conflict of interest…” — see the Footnote 1).

In a pot-calls-the-kettle-back fashion, Steele accuses Syfert of a fraud on the court. Why? Because, according to Steele’s words (and John is a paragon of candor, as you all know), the abovementioned Gibbs’s declaration is “demonstrably false.”

Wow. Let me remind you that Judge Scriven dismissed this very case (emphasis is mine)

[...] for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative [...]


Prenda’s paralegal Mark Lutz,
without a coat and a tie

Let’s get back to Gibbs’s declaration… An obvious main goal of Steele’s motions is to neutralize the devastating effect of the said declaration, to “prove” that Gibbs is essentially lying, and hence to get spared from Syfert’s motions for sanctions (and a nationwide avalanche of similar motions).

To facilitate this “proof,” Steele presents a couple of exhibits (not separate PDFs, but appended to the motion):

  • An email from Syfert to Steele’s/Gibbs’s attorney Katherine Yanes, which does not stand out as anything illegal and/or unethical — a usual lawyerly correspondence, which Syfert definitely expected to be publicized: it happens all the time.
  • Mark Lutz’s declaration that presents an alternate history (a popular science fiction genre), but does it by also using the legacy of the XX century absurdists.
    • According to this declaration, Mark knew Daniel Weber and his generous wife Sunny Leone very well and spoke to them “multiple times in the past.” In real world, he denied this knowledge under oath on 11/27/2012. By the way, in his statement Lutz misspelled Weber’s last name (“Webber”).
    • There is an interesting exhibit to Mark Lutz’s declaration — a “Letter of Engagement” — signed by Paul Duffy purportedly on 11/15/2011. This document is not only absurd, but also, according to Syfert, a fake one (read the next chapter).

      Mark has been a big businessmen (albeit without a tie), a manager of his own adult companies. He even hired Prenda to represent his companies in courts! Big client my ass! It does not matter that in real, not alternate history, during the last two years a paralegal Mark Lutz (or, sometimes his alter-DID-ego Jeff Schultz) made thousands of calls with the signature line “This is Prenda Law calling,” and who listed himself as a “Client Services Manager for Prenda Law” on his (now removed) LinkedIn page. His notarized (on 1/10/2012) affidavit (page 15) unambiguously states:

      1. I am Mark Lutz, a paralegal formally at Steele Hansmeier, PLLC, and now employed by Prenda Law, Inc.

      So, Mark Lutz employed Prenda at the same time Prenda employed Mark Lutz. Marvelous. “In order to understand recursion, you must understand recursion.”

And this is just a couple of examples of small lies, half-truths and bluffs. If you read the November 27 transcript and Steele’s motion/Lutz’s declaration side by side, you will be overwhelmed with the number of contradictory statements.

The games Steele plays are ballsy and dangerous. Gibbs, most likely, has tons of evidence to support his claims, while Steele has to resort to stories that make Ionescu plays look concise.

Naturally, by neglecting a time-consuming task to reconcile statements made at different times, these guys want to buy as much time as possible to collect an extra buck (the extortion machine is still runs full revs: people report Lutz’s harassment calls and Duffy’s illegal letters daily). The only difference is that the time these guys are buying is now packaged in very small bags.

Graham Syfert’s third motion for sanctions: accusations of faking a document

I will not comment on Syfert’s third motion for sanctions that was filed on 5/1/203, soon after Steeles’ pro se short story in the alternate history genre. Unlike that story, the document embedded below can be read without rolling your eyes and shaking your head. In short,

  • Syfert adds a new “non-party” to the list of those who should be sanctioned, namely Paul Hansmeier, which is expected and natural.
  • In addition, Syfert shows the results of his homework: he went through hundreds of filings in order to solidly debunk new Steele/Lutz’s horseshit. Specifically, based on the genesis of Prenda’s letterheads, Syfert shows that the “Letter of engagement” could not possibly be signed at the alleged time: in 2011 all the letters contained Prenda’s Miami address, while the exhibit to Steele’s delirious motion shows the Chicago address only — a change that did not happen until around 2/29/2012.
White collar crime defenders look to withdraw from this mess. Judge Scriven strikes Steele’s motion

Steele’s motion discussed above was stricken on 5/2/2013 by the judge: according to the M.D. Fla. Local Rule 2.03(d),

Any party for whom a general appearance of counsel has been made shall not thereafter take any step or be heard in the case in proper person, absent prior leave of Court…

In other words, while a party (or a non-party) is represented, it cannot file pleadings pro se. Although Steele’s “white collar crime defending” attorneys indicated their intention to withdraw from the case (yet asking for an extension citing Brett Gibb’s out-of-the country honeymoon), they still formally represent Steele.

If you re-read Steele’s motion, you will find another yummy irony: by arguing that Syfert broke one of the M.D. Fla. Local Rules and filed his second motion for sanction without leave of court, Steele demonstrated once again his ability to read the rules selectively: as I just mentioned, the basis for striking his motion can be found in the same set of rules.

There is one unanswered question: what are the implications of Steele’s motion being stricken from the docket? I’m mostly concerned about the exhibits, one of which is claimed to be fake (“Letter of Engagement”) and the other may lead to perjury charges (Lutz’s affidavit). If the entire document is stricken, can the exhibits be admitted as evidence for any purpose? So far I couldn’t find the answer.

Mark Twain to Prenda

Once upon a time, in an alternate history, Mark Twain was addressing Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs and Lutz. One of his wise phrases from that speech is particularly worth reminding:

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

 

¹ Reminder: Wasinger is one of the tree short-term attorneys for Sunlust on this case: all of them, after learning the extent of Prenda’s infamous douchebaggery, ran from this case as from plague.

LW Systems v. Hubbard: from Adam Urbanczyk’s signed agreed order to the new breed of demand letters

Posted: April 23, 2013 by SJD in Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
75
Adam Urbanczyk and his involvement in a “Titanic of shakedown cases”

Adam Urbanczyk

As one defense attorney nicely put it, while we have been covering copyright trolling cases involving a couple of dozens John Does, those cases are like canoes compared to a huge vessel, which is LW Systems LLC v. Christopher Hubbard (St Clair County, IL: 13-L-15) — a Titanic that have been covered by mist since January, and was not really noticed by the public. Indeed, the “agreed order” (embedded below) allows subpoenaing virtually any ISP for any IP address. This type of a carte blanche discovery would be most definitely not allowed in a federal court — one of the reasons why Prenda goes to great lengths to keep its farcical lawsuits in county courts, in particular, in cronyism-plagued St. Clair county court.

Attorney Morgan Pietz has blogged about this lawsuit, DieTrollDie has blogged about it, I featured it in my “double-barrel” post (1, 2), yet the abuse of the legal system is so grave here that we must continue shedding light and attracting public attention.

Formally, the plaintiff is “LW Holdings,” a UPS-mailbox-based multi-national conglomerate, but due to recent happenings in Judge Write’s courtroom and other revelations, everyone refers to Duffy, Steele, Hansmeier, Lutz, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, Guava, LW Systems/Holdings collectively as “Prenda,” and so will I.

This case is strongly suspected to be a collusive one, i.e. a mockery of justice where plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys are not adversaries: they simply play their parts in accordance with the scenario that was predetermined from the very beginning. Match fixing in organized sports is a good analogy. The actual goal of such lawsuit has nothing to do with delivering justice: this process it is only a background for the procurement of a discovery order, which allows subpoenaing ISPs for subscriber information, and subsequently sending nasty letters (like the one embedded below), as well as making harassing calls to wrestle purported “infringers” and “hackers” into paying a couple of grands to make this nuisance (which for some people is more — a nightmare) go away.

This lawsuit is strikingly similar to a bunch of other Prenda’s cases that are suspected of fixing. All of them have a single mysterious defendant and include an “agreed order” allowing unmasking hundreds and thousands of ISP subscribers — in the very beginning of the process:

  • Guava LLC v. Skylar Case: the first one of this type. Cook County court, Illinois. Paul Duffy and Adam Urbanczyk signed the agreed order on 7/30/2012. Later there was a discovery theater in front of the judge who suspected the foul play. This performance was ended in a predictable way — with voluntarily dismissing the case in early March 2013 and hoping that time will cover the apparently unethical (and maybe illegal) shakedown campaign. I wrote a post about this case while it was alive.
  • Arte de Oaxaca v. Stacey Mullen: very similar to the previous one, also Cook County court, the agreed order was signed on 8/14/2012 — two business days after the complaint was filed. Defense attorney appearance was not even filed then, and the Answer to he complaint was filed only in 3 months! This case was also voluntarily dismissed on 3/13/2013.
  • Guava LLC v. Spenser Merkel: a case in Hennepin County court, Minnesota, but boringly similar to the first two. Since Adam Urbanczyk is not licensed in Minnesota, another defense attorney was involved. This is the only case where collusion was proven. The defendant came forward and filed a damning affidavit, confirming what everyone knew but couldn’t prove. The defense attorney involved in this case, Trina Morrison, is not really culpable, as she learned about the collusion only after she started representing Merkel. Working pro bono, the young attorney thought it would be a nice court experience, but she got much more than she bargained for. While I respect her right to forget this ordeal, I hope she will tell her story herself one day. This case was dismissed, obviously, after the revelations. The transcript of the hearing in front of Judge Tanya Bransford is worth reading: Prenda lawyers’ douchebaggery have been blossomed at full throttle during that hearing.
  • AF Holdings v. Matthew Ciccone: this is the only federal case (MIED 12-cv-14442), and as such, it attracted much more attention than its state court cousins. A number of bright attorneys verbosely explained to the judge the “merits” of this case. Read the filings of John Hermann, Eric Grimm and others. AF Holdings was represented by Prenda’s local Jonathan Tappan, although I don’t believe he wrote a single pleading; according to the metadata, a freelance legal writer Nadia Wood, who have been shadow writing for Prenda for a while, authored the complaint. The “defendant” was represented by an attorney Bernard Fuhs from a big law firm Butzel Long. I don’t know much about him, but I think it would be a good idea to send a mass email linking to this post to his numerous colleagues: maybe some internal investigation will be conducted. This case was dismissed on 3/25/2013
  • And, finally,LW Systems LLC v. Christopher Hubbard: a “Titanic of shakedown cases” I started this post with. It’s time to look at the agreed order, which is so shameful/shameless that Adam Urbanczyk was shy to list it on his site. This is quite a statement: Adam is a super-accurate guy. All the other filings from this case are listed and linked. In my opinion, if any member of the Board of Bar Overseers reads this document, he/she should immediately start an investigation.
While Prenda is dead, it is still running around as a headless chicken

Paul Duffy

After Prenda pled the Fifth in front of Judge Wright, it has committed a corporate suicide, according to Ken White:

Prenda Law may still be standing. But it’s dead.

Yet, I’m afraid that the power of greed is widely underestimated. Harassing calls have been placed by Mark Lutz throughout April, and yesterday people started receiving a new batch of threatening letters, this time on the “Paul Duffy law Group” letterhead.

 

Same old bullshit that is not worth debunking, but there is a couple of points I want to make.

1

It is funny that they added the following line:

Your friends, family members and blog sites are not reliable sources of legal advice.

Blog sites? Which blog sites? Maybe it makes sense to google for some answers? Laughable. Imagine an attorney for a deceased Nigerian prince, who, after bringing you the jolly news about millions that the prince left to you in his will, kindly warns you not to search the web for “Nigerian scam.”

2

This one is, frankly, nauseous. Remember that we are dealing with hardcore pornography here (emphasis is mine):

What if I do fight your client?

Certainly, you are entitled to hire an attorney and fight the case all the way through trial. Our firm is famous for pursuing these cases and this matter will be followed closely in the national media. Your name will be forever associated with the outcome of the matter, particularly if you prevail.

3

The letter is dated 4/18/2013, while as of 4/12/2013 Duffy Law Group was involuntarily dissolved:

 

There are rumors that a lien was put on the firm due to Duffy’s large debts. It is not a secret that Paul is/was a defendant in many lawsuits (examples here, here and here) filed by his creditors. If he is not a patsy, but really a head of the “leading law firm,” which extracted settlements from tens of thousands and made millions, how is it possible at all? But it is a topic for another investigation…

In any case, claiming to represent a law firm that was dissolved involuntarily, should (and will) draw attention of disciplinary bodies.

Here’s how a business attorney describes the consequences of conducting business under the name of a dissolved LLC:

As a general principle, if the secretary of state, state attorney general proceeded, or judicial action resulted in an involuntary dissolution this has the same legal effect as a voluntary dissolution. That means that this entity cannot do business under that entity. If it does so, the members may be liable for administrative actions by the state and for possible civil claims for fraud, among others.

Adam Urbanczyk is not listed on the EFF Subpoena Defense Resources page anymore

Adam Urbanczyk was previously listed on the EFF Subpoena Defense Resources page, and that fact made my blood boil every time I browsed that page. The page is one of the first resources troll victims find after starting their online research. And many called Adam only to be pressured to settle. Multiply the insistence that “Steele will get you earlier or later” by the alleged collusion, and you will understand why I’m so glad that Urbanczyk’s name is not on that page anymore.

 

Note that many statements in this post are my opinion only: I don’t have a ”beyond the reasonable doubt” proof that Adam Urbanczyk is “in bed with Prenda” (in Judge Tailor’s words): I gave a lot of pointers, yet do your own research, analyze the facts, and make your own conclusions. In the meantime, given that nothing bad had happened to Spenser Merkel since he found the courage to come forward, I want to conclude this post with a plea:

Skylar Case, Stacey Mullen, Matthew Ciccone, Christopher Hubbard:

Do the right thing, come forward and tell your true stories. Yes, it is true that you were instrumental in sufferings of your fellow citizens, but people tend to forgive, especially in the present situation, when your testimony will inevitably help to bring the real villains to justice. Moreover, if investigators learn the facts without your cooperation, things may turn sour for you. Think about it.

Media Coverage

Is Prenda trying to simulate insanity to avoid prosecution?

Posted: April 20, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
61

When it rains, it pours

You’ll find the answer to the title question after reading the second of the two documents featured below.

To get up to speed, read Ken White’s eloquent piece about the first waves of the April 2 blast (“Georgia is on my mind” chapter). In short, one of the first fighters against copyright trolls — Georgia attorney Blair Chintella — filed a mighty motion for sanctions complemented by a very thorough history of Prenda’s shenanigans. This happened in AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel (GAND 12-cv-00262) after Chintella filed a motion to set aside his client’s default judgment, and Prenda tried to slither out by dismissing the case with prejudice.

Today, Prenda’s local counsel Jacques Nazaire purportedly himself (I’m rolling my eyes as I’m writing it) wrote an apoplectic response (and motion for sanctions!) full of insults and mind-boggling accusations. This motion is even more hysterical than the series of December 2012 tantrums attributed to Brett Gibbs.

Ken White will most likely analyze this document tomorrow [4/21/3013 Update: and he did], so I’ll just embed this masterpiece of vitriol, but, first, a couple of excerpts:

The EFF is a left wing organization which has some of the same goals as the anti-government group “Anonymous” as well as the terrorist group “Wikileaks”.

[...] it is reported on the internet that Mitch Stoltz, a staff attorney with the EFF has stated that EFF took care of Cooper’s travel arrangements to testify in a California case. As such, any statements made by Mr. Cooper should be suspect. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Cooper has worked an honest day in his life. Rather, it appears that Mr. Cooper has spent his lifetime depending on the kindness of others. Logic dictates that the more Mr. Cooper testifies against those opposed to the EFF, the longer he is allowed to travel from state to state.

What Defendant is trying to allege is not that the assignment agreement is forged, but that Plaintiff misappropriated the identity of a corporate representative who acknowledged the assignment on Plaintiff’s behalf. The problem with this allegation is that the Court could strike Plaintiff’s signature from the assignment agreement and the assignment agreement would still be effective.

[...] the defendant, Patel, has admitted in his declaration that he was negligent in failing to secure his website [SJD: palmface] as alleged in paragraphs “62-70” of plaintiff’s complaint. As such, plaintiff’s complaint is meritorious. For Chintella to assert otherwise is an outright lie.

Good old tugboat is unsinkable.

From what has been put forth, Brett Gibbs is a fairly new attorney much like Defendant’s counsel. The undersigned, on the other hand, has over 16 years experience practicing law, has settled over millions of dollars worth of cases, including state and federal cases and has also served in Afghanistan as a Foreign Claims Commissioner, settling foreign claims in a war zone.

Yeah, right. That’s why this experienced attorney advertised his services on Craigslist: $125 per court appearance.


Exhibits:

 

A side note: it seems that Prenda is diligent in checking PDF metadata now (the document’s author is “Jacques”), after too many bloopers led to discoveries that Brett Gibbs possibly did not write his pleadings, and that perhaps many Prenda’s motions were written by a freelance legal writer.

Lutz brings the lulz

The funniest thing is Exhibit B: Mark Lutz’s declaration (not dated but notarized on 4/19/2013¹). I don’t remember laughing so hard for a long time:

 

Yes! A two year old multi-million extortion enterprise led by and with the help from Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy, Brett Gibbs, Peter Hansmeier, Steven Goodhue, Joseph Perea, Maurice Castellanos, Douglas McIntyre, Michael Dugas, Sirh-Ryun Stella Wi Dugas, Timothy Anderson, Daniel Ruggiero, Matthew Dumas, Rod Mastandrea, Jacques Nazaire, Curtis Hussey, Sam Trenchi, Benjamin Debney, Jonathan Tappan, Matthew Jenkins, William Webb, Michael O’Malley, Kevin Hoerner… always had a simple, noble goal: to benefit Mark Lutz’s unborn children via a trust named after John Steele sister’s boyfriend.

Featured comment

Another Attorney on 2013/04/21 at 7:55 am:

I am a lawyer, and certainly have some opinions to share. Jacques Nazaire has filed one of the worst pleadings I have ever seen – and I have seen some really bad ones. At the end of the day, the pleading misunderstands the law and burdens of proof. He jumps between theories of negligence and theories of actual copyright infringement, suggesting that he is either incompetent at making a coherent argument or can’t remember facts from paragraph to paragraph.

The comments regarding Gibbs are, even if true, stated in a completely unprofessional manner. This is just one example of many unprofessional comments.

A good litigator want to establish credibility with the judge. Nazaire seems to have no concept of this important strategy.

He should not have asked for sanctions. By doing so, he is admitting that sanctions are appropriate where there are shenanigans. Guess who is going to come out on the losing side of that equation. I also love how he suggests that sanctions should be awarded because the Defendant has merely asserted that it is “possible” that there is something fishy going on. Apparently Nazaire has no idea that this is why we have evidentiary hearings. The question (at this point) is not whether the Defendant can prove something fishy, but whether or not the Defendant has a good faith belief that something is fishy. Proving it comes through evidence at a hearing on the motion – and not now. This is not a difficult concept for all but the dimmest attorneys.

I could go on and on, but let me point the one thing that made me cringe the most. I am absolutely shocked that he filed a document with the court, adopting the tone he used, saying that “Salt Marsh” is a trust with beneficiaries that are Lutz’s non-existent children. (Didn’t Hansmeier state that there were no beneficiaries?) Under these circumstances, that is such a laughable assertion, that he has lost all credibility. Mind you, it could be true. Lutz, at some point, could have created such a trust. (I suspect he did at some point when AF Holdings began to be shown for what it was.) But even if this is true, it shows that there is something REALLY fishy going on – which is exactly the point Defendant was trying to make. Yes… Jacques Nazaire handed the Defendant their argument on a silver platter. Brilliant, Jacques. Just brilliant. How this guy ever got a license to practice law, I do not know.

Media coverage

 

¹ Lady, who notarized Lutz’s signature in Key West FL, has kindly replied to my inquiry:

It was notarized by me on April 19, 2013. I responded to another person, [...], about this same document. I did not prepare it, nor did I really even read it. Mr. Lutz just came into my building looking for a notary so he could execute the document and have it notarized.

Graham Syfert withdraws his call for sanctions against Gibbs and Wasinger; Gibbs claims that Steele and Hansmeier have been driving litigation in Florida

Posted: April 12, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Sunlust fiasco
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
20
Thanks to Judge Wright’s resolution to get to the bottom of Prenda-related controversies, the poo-throwing among the Prenda gang members has recently escalated dramatically. In this light, yesterday’s event is not surprising. We covered the Sunlust fiasco (Sunlust Pictures v. Tuan Nguyen (12-cv-01685) extensively in December. This coverage started with a hilarious hearing where a stand-up comedian Mark Lutz tried to dupe Judge Scriven into believing that he was a Sunlust representative. Later we also wrote about apparent fact-bending in the series of declarations by the plaintiff and his lawyers, which resulted in a motion for sanctions against Gibbs, Steele, Duffy and Wasinger filed by the defendant’s attorney Graham Syfert. It is also worth mentioning that Prenda’s members (for the first time, to the best of my knowledge) have lawyered up.

Although the transcript from Judge Scriven’s courtroom gained a status of celebrity among court transcripts and was exhibited in numerous motions across the country, the case itself remained dormant for months — until yesterday.

On 4/11/2013 Syfert decided to withdraw his motion for sanction against Gibbs. In addition, all the issues with Matt Wasinger have been resolved. According to Syfert’s motion, this young attorney was “duped” by Prenda — he became Prenda’s local counsel for a short time, but unlike many other “local representatives,” either obtuse or ethically challenged, quickly understood that his career was at serious stake and called it quits.

The reason why Gibbs was also spared can be found in his damning declaration, which was filed as an exhibit to the motion embedded above. While the new statements contradict Gibbs’s previous ones, Gibbs seems to be more truthful now. He speaks about the lawyers who de-facto drove the lawsuit in question (it is not a big stretch to assume it to be true for all the other Florida cases). Is anyone surprised that these lawyers appear to be… John Steele and Paul Hansmeier?

Although those who have been following the Prenda quest find nothing new in Gibbs’s declaration, it is notable that his confession is now written is stone — in a public court document. No matter how obvious some things are, Prenda’s lawyers were good at concealing the smoking gun, and judges don’t like hearsay and conspiracy theories. Now we have juicy evidence.

In my opinion, one particular consequence for Steele is that Gibbs’s words imply that Steele and Hansmeier have been driving the Florida lawsuits, i.e. it possible that they have been practicing Law in Florida without license. Given that Steele signed an affidavit agreeing not to do it, I expect Florida Bar to be annoyed (to put it mildly). Remember that even though the law prohibiting practicing Law without license in Florida is rarely enforced; such practice is still a third-degree felony.

Media coverage
Update

4/24/2013

On 3/23/2014 Judge Scriven issued a strongly worded order, letting Matt Wasinger go (I sincerely wish good luck to him) and instructing plaintiff to find a new counsel in 2 weeks and after that to file an opposition to Syfert’s motion for sanctions. Otherwise she promises to grant this motion and order Prenda to pay up:

Followup

Undefined beneficiary trust: what is it?

Posted: April 8, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
13
I’ve been thinking about one of the charades in Hansmeier’s deposition, and although I know little about the corporate law (especially international), I risked to do some research and share my findings.

On page 39 of the transcript we read:

Q. So in my experience most trusts name at least one beneficial owner, but I believe you testified earlier today that the trust that owns AF Holdings has no beneficial owners; is that correct?

A. The trust that owns AF Holdings is an undefined beneficiary trust. I would suggest that your experience is not complete when it comes to trusts.

Q. Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is a undefined beneficiary trust? Allow me to be more specific. Can you explain to me what is the undefined beneficiary trust that owns AF Holdings?

Hansmeier evaded answering this question. And this is not an easy question, and Morgan Pietz did not deserve an arrogant remark that his “experience is not complete when it comes to trusts.” Information about trusts without beneficiaries is sparse on the Internet, yet we managed to find one document written by a Nevis’ law firm Liburd and Dash. This essay explains what this beast — a trust without beneficiaries — is about.

Nevis

Such trusts are also called “Purpose trusts” because despite the lack of defined beneficiaries, the trust’s purpose must be clearly defined. This is common around the world if the purpose is charitable, but non-charitable trusts with no defined beneficiaries are widely considered non-kosher even in notorious tax havens, but are perfectly legal in Nevis.

A Purpose Trust established under the laws of Nevis can be a valuable tool in the fields of Estate Administration, Tax Planning and Commercial Transactions. It is a vehicle which ensures that its assets have no beneficial ownership and can achieve a level of anonymity, by removing beneficial ownership and insulating the Source of Funds. However it should have a specific defined purpose and should periodically distribute funds to fulfill that goal. Periodic distributions would prevent any allegation that the Settlor or Source of Funds had no donative intent, and that the Trust is one which was not established for genuine reasons, but is a “sham”. This would allow a Purpose Trust established under the laws of Nevis to enjoy international recognition.

The document is not an easy read for us laymen and laywomen. Yet it may draw the attention of IRS. If anyone from this organization has stumbled upon this post and finds this document interesting (especially in light of Hansmeier’s statements quoted below), do not hesitate to contact me: I’ll connect you with people who possess more information on the subject.

Q. How about tax records. Has AF Holdings ever filed a tax return?

A. I don’t not believe they have filed a tax return in Nevis. I believe there’s an exception that if you’re not recognizing revenue, to filing a tax return, so I don’t not believe they have filed a tax return in Nevis.

Q. Has AF Holdings ever filed a tax return in the United States?

A. I’d have to think about that. I’m not aware of any tax returns that AF Holdings has filed in the United States.

 

Interesting links

Recent mega-leak of offshore business records:

Older Entries