Video: Brett Langdon Gibbs replies to a motion

Posted: June 10, 2012 by SJD in Not so serious, Prenda, Troll of the week
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The document that prompted this movie to be produced is embedded below. It is a response in opposition to motions filed by Nick Ranallo in the “CP Productions v. Unknown.” case. This intensity of lies is not even funny anymore. I could go point by point, but that’s most likely what Gibbs, Steele and their clique want. This is probably a new strategy the trolls have unleashed: to pack as many lies in a single court document as possible, so an honest defense lawyer would get sick of disbelief how low his colleague can fall, and subsequently either experience a writer’s block or spend months debunking each and every lie.

On the other hand, crowdsourcing can withstand this predatory tactics, and what is impossible for a single person, many can do. So I expect commenters to rip off Gibbs’ arguments piece by piece.

Update

Also, compare the following two documents on this case. Fairy v. Pinocchio: I’m sure you’ll have fun!

From now on, Brett Gibbs has a new nickname: “Pinocchio,” and he should be grateful, it could be much worse, like Paul “Anal” Lesko or Jeffrey “Blumpkin” Weaver.

Comments
  1. Raul says:

    Rather than get into the misstatements of the facts and the law how about this statement that does not even make sense:

    This, of course, is only one of many grounds for establishing the relevance of the joint tortfeasors’ identities to Plaintiff’s claims. For example, Plaintiff would have no sense of the extent of damages caused by a joint tortfeasor’s infringement unless it had an opportunity to examine digital forensic evidence that is in the sole possession of that individual.

    Since when would a tortfeaser’s digital forensic evidence have anything to do with a calculation of plaintiff’s damages? Just does not make sense.

    • Raul says:

      Also a Status Report filed by Doe defender J. Curtis Edmondson points out several of Gibbs’s mistaements such as:

      Plaintiff has stated in a pre-status conference (unusually) that the “additional parties” as identified on the subpoena are not liable for infringement. The identity of these additional defendants are, as of yet, unknown to Plaintiff. However, many of the defendants’ identities, not including the Defendant represented in this Joint Status Report, have recently been or will soon be revealed to Plaintiff by the respective defendants’ ISPs unless this Court issues an appropriate protective order.

    • Raul says:

      CASD Judge Gallo agrees with me that Troll Gibbs does not make sense:

      “But while Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application stresses the need for this information in order to assess damages, the Court is left puzzled by the obvious – an explanation regarding why the identities of the IP subscribers are necessary to assess damages when the extent of the alleged infringing activity is captured in full in Exhibit A. Plaintiff fails to
      adequately explain, or even attempt to explain, its reasoning and the Court is left to make that
      connection on its own, and is unable to do so. Exhibit A lists the IP addresses of the thousands of alleged infringers of the creative work at issue, along with the dates and times that the alleged
      infringing activity occurred. Id. at Exh. A.
      If Plaintiff’s true reason for requesting expedited discovery is to assess damages, the Court
      finds that the thousands of IP addresses, complete with dates and times of each alleged copyright infringement activity, should be sufficient to calculate such damages. The Court is at a loss to understand how names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses connected to each IP address listed in Exhibit A could possibly assist Plaintiff in a computation of damages against Defendant.”

      http://ia601207.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.casd.380514/gov.uscourts.casd.380514.5.0.pdf

      Troll Gibbs is currently pondering new lies and bullshit to toss to CA judges, stay tuned…

  2. I’ll chime in:

    In order to remedy the situation Plaintiff is forced to hire forensic investigators and lawyers in order to pursue the relentless infringement of its copyrighted work

    1. Isn’t it the other way around? If Gibbs would care about the length of his nose he would write: forensic “investigators” and lawyers shop for Plaintiffs to promise them contingency 10% cut for using their names and copyrights.

    2. Note that he should have put “investigators” in quotes, because unquoted means a licensed investigator whose methodology is transparent and certified. Not a wannabe hacker in Minnesota, who simply mutilated the open source Shareaza project.

    So, 2 lies in one statement.

  3. Next paragraph.

    After Plaintiff is finally able to begin filing lawsuits, individuals involved at even the most basic levels of the lawsuit, and their lawyers, attack the reputation of Plaintiff.

    No, Brett, there is nothing to attack. You’ve lost your reputation long time ago. Just admit it. And “reputation of a pornographer” is an oxymoron.

    Commonly the basis for their attacks is the issuance of a single letter sent by copyright holders providing infringers the opportunity to settle their claims before both sides incur unnecessary costs.

    …threatening with inapplicable statutory damages, attaching fake articles about the futility of the “wireless router defense,” citing irrelevant cases out of context, lying that you trolls are commited to proceed against a ransom letter recipient individually… You call it “providing infringers the opportunity,” scumbag?

    Also note that there is a non-typo: you call them “infringers:” not “putative infringers,” not “alleged infringers,” not “ISP subscribers whose IP address was recorded.” No, you call them infringers here, as you do in ransom letters and phone calls.

    Movant and others commonly argue that they are forced to settle even if they are innocent out of fear of being named in a lawsuit involving sexually explicit material. However, as Movant, point out: “Only a TINY fraction of those threatened are ever served in a copyright infringement action.”

    How the latter sentence correlate with the former? Putting “however” does not create a logical link. Yes, recipients of ransom letters are forced to settle. Forced by predatory pricing: settling is cheaper than fighting. Forced by the lies described above.

    While Plaintiff does not threaten just anyone with litigation,

    Yes you do, liar.

    …it does take great care to only name and serve individuals when it has a good faith basis to do so.

    Oh yes! You have carefully picked Liuxia Wong and Seth Abrahams! You are VERY careful.

    Plaintiff is not in the business of naming and serving innocent individuals.

    Yes, you are not in the business of naming and serving anyone, you are in business of threats and blackmail.

    Therefore, concerns that innocent account holders will face embarrassment if they do not settle are unfounded.

    Again, logical nonsense. “Therefore” can be used only after a proof, using it after unfounded and false statements constitutes a fallacy.

    Plaintiff simply wants the infringement to end, and this lawsuit is its means for that to happen. By focusing on serial infringers like the John Doe…

    Really? You want it to end? How will you make money then? Whom you want to deceive, Gibbs?

    …defendant in this action, Plaintiff hopes to send a message to other would-be infringers.

    The only message you send is that judicial system is unfair if it allows such blatantly frivolous lawsuits to proceed, and bottom feeders like you to unjustly enrich themselves.

    Oh boy, Gibbs’s new strategy works! He managed to drag me into this despite my resistance. Jesus Christ! I already wasted an hour, and it’s less than 5% of text! I better go do something useful.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I have to resort to the simple things like proof reading your first paragraph…

    4) that a protective order would protect would protect Movant from…

  5. Anonymous says:

    Looks like a typical legal document trying to sway the Judge over to your side, these are very common in legal battles, and yes they do pick and sort their evidence to meet their needs. However as a paralegal, I would have to say the document would have never passed even the first weeks of the Research and Writing 101 class at UND.

  6. CTVic says:

    You’re so much better a person than I. When I see these documents any more, I just see “blah … blah … blah … I’m a douchebag lawyer … blah blah blah … give me granny’s address … blah … blah … blah … threaten and harass my next pay day”

    If not that, then something more like this:
    “Legal subscribers to internet services who pay their bills and responsibly maintain service, whose complete and thorough identities are on file at the service provider’s main office, with no attempt whatsoever to obscure said identity with respectable internet service provider … are obviously a BUNCH OF FUCKING THIEVES WHO STEAL MY CLIENT’S PORN!! PAY ME, THIEF!! STOP STEALING MY PORN!! PAY ME PAY ME PAY ME PAY ME!! PORN!! YOU WATCH POOOORN!! PAY ME PAY ME PAY ME!!”

  7. […] is handed out to them. Fortunately for Does, in this case an experienced attorney was able to crush trolls’ lies into pieces in the judge’s eyes. Moreover, judge went an extra mile and barred Prenda from […]

  8. […] must proceed. He presents twisted arguments, some of which are impudent lies, lies that even Brett Gibbs is not capable of conceiving (emphasis is mine): If this Court severs all of the defendants, the […]

  9. […] is offered is a joke. Nothing is impossible for a California’s Prenda attaché, brave Brett “Pinocchio” Gibbs, though, and our restless young man posts a job ad to Craigslist. If you access this text […]

  10. […] Every time I see Nick Ranallo’s work, I want to take off my hat. John Steele, annoyed by too much truth being publicized about his shady practices, labeled Nick as “underemployed lawyer trolling for business.” We know that Steele usually tries to brush off someone’s actions publicly only when these actions seriously hurt Prenda’s shakedown “business.” Therefore, it is not an understatement to call Nick one of the most capable Prenda’s foes: indeed, Nick continues delivering very serious blows to copyright trolls with every new case he defends. Embedded below is a new must-read Motion to Post Undertaking in one of the numerous Prenda’s individual cases, AF Holdings v. David Trinh (CAND 12-cv-02393-CRB) filed by Prenda’s California agent, Brett “Pinocchio” Gibbs. […]

  11. […] is not even funny anymore that Brett (to whom we already gave an honorable nickname “Pinocchio”) is lying without even thinking about the possibility of anyone doing some basic fact checking. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s