Many problems of a miserable troll Joseph Perea

Posted: August 3, 2012 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Joseph Perea
Joseph Perea

There is no need to introduce this rookie arrogant lawyer, Joseph Perea of Prenda Law. If you read his motions, you can easily envision an angry junior with a serious face and inflated cheeks. The only problem is that except himself, no one really thinks that he is anything but a… well, a rookie arrogant lawyer.

Florida Bar investigation

I almost feel pity for Joseph Perea, though: he has been having so many problems recently that even being far away from him, I feel that he is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Just read his letter (embedded below) to the Florida Bar to see the state of his nerves. The Bar currently investigates his obviously unethical behavior based on several complains. The complaint that triggered this response alleges that while Perea recently officially “divorced” Steele and his gang Prenda Law to pursue a solo troll career, he has been sending interstate extortion letters using Prenda’s letterhead without Florida address and with no indication that he is licensed to practice Law only in Florida. The letter directed victims to send money to Chicago. Or did he really leave Prenda? Who knows, I don’t have a PhD in douchebaggery to understand the details of every game these crooks play.

Unbelievable slipperiness.

Mark Twain once famously said:

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

Obviously, Perea has to remember many things. For example, I can remind him that his “departure” from Prenda was not a secret as early as on June 1st, and “six weeks” would be a bit more truthful assertion than “two weeks”. There are more documents directly contradicting Perea’s explanations, but the time to publish them has not come yet. Borrowing Perea’s serious face, I proclaim in emotionless voice: “It is against our policy to comment on an ongoing investigation.”

“Plaintiff shall not use the information for any purpose”

As if it is not enough trouble, a judge recently ordered Perea to destroy the personal information he got from ISPs. Why? Because, like many crooks before him, he did something that judge specifically ordered not to do. District Judge Particia A. Seitz ordered to severe all Does but one from Bubble Gum Productions v. Does 1-80 (12-cv-20367) case on July 19th. Keeping the middle finger extended in his pocket, Perea nonetheless contacted at least one severed Doe, stating that the claim against him is not dismissed. Too bad for Perea, this Doe hired Kubs Lalchandani. Kubs notified the Court and understandably angry judge issued the following order:

It will be fun to read what kind of excuses Perea will come up with on Augus 9th. I’m afraid that Perea the Bubble will not be able to hold the pressure anymore and burst with some irrational, unpredictable actions. Avoid being nearby.

Who is Prenda’s Chief Extortionist in Florida now?

Since Perea was the only Prenda’s lawyer with a Florida license (and I’m not 100% sure that he will be able to keep it for long), his departure, real or fictional, has created a hole in Prenda. They quickly found a local attorney and he filed a couple of cases, but once he learned what kind of manure he stepped in, he ran away to the nearest shower. I don’t want to mention his name: this blog is highly searchable and he does not deserve to be associated with Prenda.

Yesterday Steele crawled from under the bridge to puke out a new doze of FUD. He bragged that Prenda has representatives in 35 states. It’s a shame he has a hard time funding a scumbag immune to any reputational loss in his own backyard.

Pissed off Does wanted

Last but not least. Many think that complaining to Bars, Attorney Generals, etc. is a good idea, but most don’t do it for various reasons. While I can understand the desire to lay low to avoid being targeted for retaliation, people don’t file complaints mostly because they don’t believe filing a complaint works. Well, as you see, it does work. The person who filed the Bar complaint featured above is not a lawyer, but just a pissed off Doe who did not like the idea of being extorted over obscene materials by con artists pretending to be attorneys.

Strength is in numbers. Stand up for your dignity and you will be surprised to find out that these dogs bark but don’t bite unless you are scared; once you confront them, they run away whining. Just think about it: a couple of dozen con artists managed to terrorize hundreds of thousands! Does it make any sense, seriously?

Update

08/10/2012
Perea reacts to Judge Seitz’s order. What can I say? “Dog ate my homework” sounds much more plausible. Sad. Poor fella…

About these ads
Comments
  1. Raul says:

    Shakespeare would have fun with this scenario as it would appear Perea is sacrificing his reputation and maybe his career for The Architect who does not give a shit about Perea. Being of obvious Italian descent I can only hope that the troll is current with his Niccolò Machiavelli.

    • Matthew says:

      I was just contacted by Joseph Perea. He is stating I must pay $3400 to avoid litigation. HOWEVER, on the form is says “Authorize PRENDA LAW Inc. to withdraw funds from the bank account….”. Motherfucker. Okay, well now what do I do? This is the First Time Videos LLC suit. Please help, thanks!

  2. Raul says:

    Not to pile on the arrogant prick but I think his shitstorm is just starting as his FL sleaze may reverberate in DCD:

    “We may not have the final word from the Florida court either. A subscriber in those proceedings (not Doe Defendant One as recently identified, but within the severed and dismissed group of Doe Defendants 2-80) received a demand letter dated July 23, 2012 from Bubble Gum counsel four days after the Florida court’s initial discovery order was vacated. (S.D. Fla. Dkt. 41). That IP address (67.77.173.88) is listed as that of Brighthouse Networks, another ISP, and using the same online lookup tool, located in Kissimmee, Florida.”

    http://ia600405.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.155317/gov.uscourts.dcd.155317.8.0.pdf

  3. [...] be sanctioned for completely ignoring the Judge’s order.  Today, another judge drops the hammer on a different lawyer, [...]

  4. Anonymous says:

    Am I the only one who noted the implications of the first sentence of Perea’s response:

    “This letter is in response to the most recent complaintants…”?

    Sounds like Perea has a fan club!

    Also love how he casually mentions his logistical problems in dealing with cases that involve thousands of Doe defendants. Like that’s just a normal thing, you know! Lawyers sue thousands of people at a time every day, why would a Bar pay any attention to that!

    This is a good time to bring up the possibility of authoring community complaint letters. Start looking at state bar rules vs. specific acts of misconduct by Trolls (i.e. contacting represented clients directly, misrepresenting a dismissed case as still pending, filing a complaint that asks for statutory damages without a copyright registration). Also, based on this complaint, it might be worth paying special attention to when Trolls are practicing law outside their jurisdictional limitations. I’ll bet looking back at the earlier cases you’ll find plenty of instances of Trolls slipping up there.

    We need to find out what works and keep on the attack. The form MTQs were great, look at how many MTQ filings have brought scrutiny to these cases that set precedents against the Trolls. We should be able to do the same with complaint letters. Once SJD had the word out about these scumbags there were cases with 10% of Does filing MTQs, imagine if the same percentage were filing complaints with state Bars, attorneys general and law enforcement.

    I would also love to learn more about Prenda and Perea’s parting of ways, but it sounds like SJD is going to be a tease for now and keep that to herself. Should be interesting, even if it’s just a ruse to try to put the hounds off the scent, its still a reactionary move and one that shows Prenda is squirming.

    Love that this comes the day after Steele emerged from a few months under the bridge to talk about new attorneys and big plans to name people. Turns out the reality is he is losing attorneys to Bar investigations.

    • SJD says:

      Well put, sign under every word.

      I’m not a tease for a sake of the game, just promised to keep some information private for the time being.

  5. Blah says:

    SUBscribe

  6. Johnny Doe says:

    I’m glad to read that people are complaining about the unethical behavior of these clowns. The only reason I haven’t is that I don’t want to stand out and give them a reason to single me out. However, I will be complaining to both the Illinois and Florida bar associations if I am named in a lawsuit.

  7. Anonymous says:

    HELP… PLEASE!!! I have a deadline of today to pay Joseph Perea on behalf of First Time Videos, LLC or a complaint will be filed against me.

    • SJD says:

      What kind of help are you hoping for? Help to pay or help not to pay? The latter is easier — doing nothing is always easier. And more appropriate too.

    • SJD says:

      Please don’t be mad at us for talking lightly about what you see is as the end of the world. There are two persons inside me. The first one is my memory: I remember how my world was about to fall apart when I received a notice from my ISP. I do remember the anxiety, fear and the feeling of utter helplessness. Therefore I never lose my patience explaining this stuff to newcomers, even if I cannot add anything to what is already said in posts and comments. I’m being very lenient to people who jump to questions without taking time to read around.

      The other me is a today’s me. Witnessing people being scared by shadows makes me sad. I’m absolutely sure that after you sleep on the facts and read about the scam, you will laugh at your yesterday’s fears. Just don’t let your fears make decisions for you, you’ll regret it (this is true for many other things, not just related to trolls).

  8. SJD says:

    I don’t have a picture of J. Perea… Neither we saw the Lutz’s appearance.

  9. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    If Mr. Perea departed Prenda around June 1, then why did I get a letter from him the other day dated July 25 with Prenda ? He is admitted in Florida correct? If so, why is his name on a Prenda letterhead coming from Chicago???? Even his signature is blue and looks like it was printed. I hope the Florida Bar does something about this guy. He deserves sanctions and whatever else he richly deserves. Hell, dis-bar him. They know what he and his friends are doing. He does not deserve to “practice” law anymore.

    • Anonymous says:

      Prenda is completely disorganized, or they think they’re smarter than everyone else. If my memory serves me right, back in February, Perea sent me a pair of letters on Prenda letterhead, signed by a stamp (of his signature) from Prenda HQ in Miami. The demand letters informed me that my deadline had been extended and asked me to settle. Problem with that is Duffy dismissed the case a month prior. Extend what deadline? Since then, they’ve been “Lutzing” me and robocalling me since then, trying to get me to incriminate myself. Perea himself even called me once. I’ve got that one recorded…”uh this is uh Joe uh uh uh uh….”

      Letters go straight to a file with a very vulgar label and voicemails go straight to my digital voice recorder.

  10. Anonymous says:

    is that why the florida lightspeed case has been sitting with nothing going on, prenda can’t find another Lawyer to take over the case? isn’t there a length of time before they have to dismiss a case if the plaintiff loses their representation??

  11. doecumb says:

    I don;t know the reason for the delay.

    120 days is the time from filing to dismissal.

    http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/the-course-of-a-civil-lawsuit/commencement-of-a-civil-lawsuit/

    “If summons is not served on a defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

  12. Cardzz says:

    I am new to this and received my second demand for payment from Perea. I’m scared and don’t know what to do. Should I pay this clown and sunlust or not?? HELP Please!

    • SJD says:

      Of course not. Perea is basically done.

      Is this letter typed on Prenda’s letterhead? What is the date? If yes, and recent, probably the Florida Bar is eager to receive a copy. You can send a scan it to me, I’ll take care of the rest. Make sure to redact your name and Ref#. Or you can trust me to do the redaction.

      • Anonymous says:

        How does this all apply to the Lightspeed case down in Miami-Dade? Perea is listed as the attorney and his address lists Prenda Law as his firm. There hasn’t been any activity there for a long time and all the hearings keep getting cancelled.

  13. Cardzz says:

    It is on his letterhead and dated 8/1/12. How do I send it to you?

  14. Anonymous says:

    I just read Steele’s post.on Cashman’s site, what a fucking joke but this line really stuck out: “This week alone two arrest warrants were issued for pirates who refused to show up for court, and we are starting to get verdicts against people.” Federal arrest warrant for failure to appear in a civil case? I call flat-out BULLSHIT. You CANNOT be arrested for failing to comply with a summons in a civil case. Hell, you can’t even be arrested if you don’t pay them a dime for a judgment in a civil case. Even if you could be arrested, federal law enforcement has better shit to do than go hunt down people who failed to comply with a summons for a copyright infringement case.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I have no idea if he is lying or not, but I believe you can be arrested for failing to comply to a lawful summons. If nothing else, it is contempt of court, and judges are given a lot of discretion (too much in my mind) in these matters.

      • Ron Mexico says:

        if you don’t show up to court, I thought it’s very simply default judgement against you

        • Johnny Doe says:

          Please take this with a huge grain of salt as I’m definitely not sure. I believe if you don’t respond to a complaint, a default judgment may be issued against you. However, in cases where the lawsuit is against “John Doe” instead of you as a named defendant and you are subpoenaed to appear as a witness– which seems to be one of the trolls’ strategies– you can be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the subpoena. A bench warrant can then be issued, which allows the police to arrest you and bring you to the judge. Any lawyers out there please correct me if I am wrong.

        • Anonymous says:

          I’m not a lawyer, but you are correct regarding a witness subpoena…any court-issued subpoena (summons, the words are interchangeable) actually. Failure to comply, sans refusal to comply by filing a request for a court hearing, will result in contempt of court but it’s up to the judge as far as what happens after that. Could be a contempt citation, jail for an indefinite amount of time, a combination of the two, the judge ripping you a new one, or nothing at all (which probably NEVER happens).

          Speaking of depositions and testimony, I’d love to see what Prenda does if one of their victims invokes the Fifth when testifying, answering any interrogatory, and/or (and I’m not sure if this is right at all) producing evidence since invoking the Fifth Amendment is allowed in a civil case that could result in criminal proceedings…criminal copyright infringement. That’s just what I gathered after reading some case law but I’m not a lawyer please take the above with a grain of salt. I bet that Duffy, Gibbs, or whichever Prenda lacky doing the deposition would blow a gasket if a Doe invoked the Fifth during the depo…if it’s even permissible, of course.

        • doecumb says:

          http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_plead_5th_amendment_in_civil_law_suit_deposition

          Can you plead 5th amendment in civil law suit deposition?
          The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to a civil proceeding. The U.S. Supreme Court stated the following:
          
”The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.” 

See McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, *40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17 (U.S. 1924).

          Use of the Fifth Amendment in a civil case reportedly is challenging for the plaintiffs lawyers.

          http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html

          Many troll plaintiff lawyers have struggled with less tricky issues.

        • Johnny Doe says:

          Yes, you can and should plead the fifth amendment if they ask you about downloading things if you have done it. You don’t want to admit it because that testimony could be used in a criminal proceeding against you. And you don’t want to lie because a forensic examination of your computer might reveal that you have downloaded things, and they could press charges against you for lying under oath (the government often gets people not for the crime itself but for the lying or the coverup).

          What is unique about this litigation is that the trolls are going after individual downloaders (the RIAA was going after people who shared music) and not the people who created the torrents or even the seeders. So the odds that you will be charged criminally are almost zero, but you don’t want to give the trolls any additional ammunition.

        • Anonymous says:

          Duffy, Gibbs, Perea, Steele, whomever from Prenda is deposing the “witness” (Doe, defendant, victim, but not a witness) would blow a fucking gasket if that person invoked the Fifth during a deposition. Just keep spitting out the words “Based on the advice of counsel, I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and respectfully decline to answer the question” That would make Steele flip shit. I’d love to see the docket, “Deponent refuses to answer any questions regarding blah blah and has invoked his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wah wah wah Judge!”

          I’m not quite sure if invoking the Fifth and getting a stay of discovery or protective order would bar the plaintiff from actually deposing a defendant and conducting a forensic examination of their computer or whether it would just allow the deponent/defendant to take the Fifth during the depo, allow Prenda to take possession of the computer but not touch it. Actually, I wonder if they’d actually spend the extra money getting a judge to compel the testimony, dump an protective order, or dump a stay of discovery. It doesn’t even need to be shown that a criminal proceeding is pending or that an investigation has begun. It’s just a question of cost and it’d cost A LOT of money for Prenda to get what they want (incriminating testimony and evidence) so I bet they’d just kick the suit, but it might piss Steele off so much that he’d try to make an example out of the defendant. Here’s to hoping for fraudulent copyright registration.

          The defendant could file a motion under Rule 26(c) for an entire stay of discovery for everything (but they better have a damn good reason) until the statute of limitations has passed for the criminal offense or the defendant may file a motion for a Rule 26(c) protective order sealing the testimony and protecting the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights but appellate courts have found that protective orders can and are overturned and that the testimony is subject to possible disclosure or leakage, so “the protections of a Rule 26(c) order simply not as ‘certain’ as the protections of either the fifth amendment or a statutory grant of use of immunity” While the defendant (or other party) raising the privilege must “provide sufficient information on which the court may find that a real danger of incrimination exists.” The presiding trial judge needs to make damn sure that the person asserting privilege is not mistaken otherwise it’s fair game for appeal. On the other hand, witnesses who are in the same situation as the defendant (may face criminal charges) may be granted immunity.

          If an agent of Prenda such as Hansmeier (or whoever the hell their unlicensed “forensic technician” is) invoked the Fifth, like say when defendant’s counsel asks him about how he collects IPs, the case may be dismissed or the plaintiff may be sanctioned. I can say with 99% confidence (I’d say 100% but these people are idiots) that a Prenda agent would invoke the Fifth because their activities are criminal (in my opinion) and if exposed, would face a proverbial shit storm of civil suits as well as trigger investigations by multiple state and federal agencies (if one or 15 hasn’t already begun).

          From what I gather, the Fifth Amendment privilege doesn’t just apply to spoken or written word but it applies to all discovery (computers in this case). Pleading the Fifth would be a BAD idea if they do have your computer and there actually is something on it because judges/juries are allowed to draw adverse inferences when the party testifying takes the Fifth when presented with probative evidence.

      • Raul says:

        These are not summons but court ordered depositions “to ascertain the infringer” of the IP addressee which the addressee ducks and Prenda gets an order to the effect the judge will order an arrest to compel compliance. FUD and an abusive litigation tactic.

    • Anonymous says:

      I just assumed they were issuing summons. I should’ve expected that they’d be snakes about it and get court-ordered depos or anything court-ordered where non-compliance equals an arrest warrant.

      This is where it pays to get an attorney because some of these judges have no idea what Prenda is doing and its lackeys shouldn’t need to depose anyone under the guise of “identifying the infringer” if they already have “slam dunk” cases (Duffy’s words, not mine).

  15. Anonymous says:

    so my neustar letter for the miami lightspeed case says to contact o’mally in chicago. if perea is separated from prenda shouldn’t he be required to contact the subpoena’d entities so that they can let their customers know who to contact.

    • SJD says:

      Weird. O’Malley resigned from this case back in March. And he lives more than 300 miles South of Chicago. Never contact the crooks. Neustar legal department comprises people that are no better than trolls.

      • Anonymous says:

        Just noticed today that it looks like Paul Duffy is trying to take over the Lightspeed case down in Miami-Dade….

    • Raul says:

      Perea on 8-9 files “PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE “NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE,” AND TO STAY AND RECONSIDER AUGUST 2, 2012 ORDER” which contains some howlers such as:

      “Plaintiff, Bubble Gum Productions, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order striking the “Notice of Noncompliance” purportedly filed by an unidentified Internet Protocol (“IP”) address owner, because the individual has not obtained leave of court to proceed anonymously, and there is no valid basis for the statements set forth in the Notice”

      Huh? Enjoy the read and the weekend http://ia600802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.46.0.pdf

  16. Anonymous says:

    HAHAHA in his motion to strike states that the the plaintiff’s motion violates Rule 11 (“Plaintiff’s Response appears to have mistakenly omitted a portion of Rule 11. Response at 5.”) and doesn’t provide any evidence of non-compliance (Exhibit #1 is an extortion letter from Perea, dated 7/23/2012, 4 days before the non-compliance notice was even submitted).

    On 8/23 Perea filed a notice of supplemental authority citing the memorandum issued by Prenda’s one and only advocate, Judge Beryl Howell http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.49.0.pdf

    Then there’s the Sunlust case being presided over by Judge Seitz. I don’t wanna assume but Perea is probably on her shit list much like every Prenda lawyer is on Shadur’s shit list after Perea…well, everyone can read :)

    Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-120 (SDFL 1:12-cv-20920), omnibus order severing, quashing, destroying Perea’s case http://ia601204.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396031/gov.uscourts.flsd.396031.26.0.pdf

    I love footnote 11
    “If Plaintiff does not comply with this requirement, it will be subject to sanctions. See Mick Haig Prods. E.K. v. Stone, case No. l 1-10977, 2012 WL 2849378 (5th Cir. July 12, 2012)”

  17. [...] on In the newsanon on In the newsAnonymous on FAQ from TACAnonymous on Many problems of a miserable troll Joseph PereaAnonymous on In the newsRaul on In the newsAnonymous on In the news DieTrollDie: [...]

  18. [...] as Jen from Texas, who succeeded in triggering a troll investigation in the Florida Bar, adds in a comment below (and I cannot agree more): I’d like to add one [...]

  19. Anonymous says:

    Cross-post. Perea fucked up two more cases and managed to piss Seitz off more by again attempting to have a subpoena from a different jurisdiction issued to a defendant in FL. She’s aggravated by the pattern of behavior.
    http://ia700703.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.401807/gov.uscourts.flsd.401807.7.0.pdf

    In another case, the judge allowed Rule 45 discovery but ordered Perea to submit a copy of the subpoena to the docket. It comes from NDIL and orders all documents produced to be sent to Paul Duffy.
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.401755/gov.uscourts.flsd.401755.8.0.pdf
    Judge Moore then flips shit and dismisses the case because Perea didn’t schedule a pre conference, not even noticing that the subpoena is from Duffy’s office.

    I recapped the subpoena from the Bubble Gum case that Seitz just kicked and Perea is now bitching about. It was issued from DC and it states the attorney is Paul Duffy. I doubt Seitz even noticed this, even though she required Hansmeier to testify via videoconference before allowing discovery. She noticed it later though :P Here ya go…
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.13.1.pdf

  20. Anonymous says:

    Wee! I found another case where Perea screwed the pooch. First Time Videos v. Does 1-76 (1:12-cv-20921-JAL) in FLSD.

    First, he had Duffy issue subpoenas out of NDIL, stating on the subpoenas that he’s the attorney of record. I can’t Recap the subpoena for some reason.

    Perea then began the harassment. Prenda called a represented Doe and sent letters on Prenda letterhead signed by Perea to that Doe. Doe’s counsel (LS Law) filed a motion for sanctions for improper contact….Perea says “I don’t know what he’s talking about!” (paraphrased)…
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032.30.0.pdf

    “The demand letter indicates it was sent by “Prenda Law” and signed by opposing counsel, Joseph Perea on July 10, 2012. However, Joseph Perea, P.A. officially substituted in for Prenda Law on June 1, 2012 for purposes of these proceedings. (See DE 21). Thus, it is unclear whether in making the improper contact with the LS Law Does, Mr. Perea was acting on behalf of Joseph Perea, P.A. or Prenda Law. See Exh. A-1″

    Exhibit A-1…
    http://ia600801.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032.30.2.pdf

    Uh oh, Joe! You’ve been busted!

    • SJD says:

      Yes, I wrote about it. Will link from this post: to be honest I myself forgot about it at the time of writing :)

      • Anonymous says:

        I forgot you writing about it too, however the subpoena issue is a relatively new thing. I found Duffy issuing subpoenas for Perea, Perea issuing subpoenas out of FLSD for one case in Virginia (for Anderson I’m guessing?)…more garbage to add to that heap of crap we know as Prenda Law.

    • Raul says:

      Internet is faster than I, hope to have a perspective piece tomorrow.

  21. [...] Bubblegum Productions v. Does 1-80 (FLSD 12-cv-20367), which resulted in Perea finding himself in a pot of hot water. This case is noteworthy as well, because it marks the first time that Judge Seitz (in footnote 9) [...]

  22. Raul says:

    In SJD’s absence I am reporting some Karma news regarding Troll Perea and the above Bubble Gum Productions lawsuit. Judge Seitz did not buy Perea’s hubristic “excuses” for continuing to harass a Doe after the lawsuit was dismissed. In fact the judge was outraged and on 9-7 found that:

    “Plaintiff s counsel’s statements inthe demand letter, (DE 41-11, whichexpressly and impliedly assert
    that the lawsuit is active against John Doe 67.77.173.881 even though the claim s against him had
    been dismissed, appear to constitute misrepresentations in violation of Rule 4-4.1(a) of the Rules
    Regulating The Florida Bar.”

    Accordingly Judge Seitz ordered that:

    “The Court refers Plaintiff s counsel, Joseph Perea, to The Florida Bar and the U.S.
    District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions,
    Peer Review for an investigation concerning whether the demand letter sent to John Doe
    67.77. 173.88 after the Court dismissed the claim s against that Defendant violates the Rules
    Regulating The Florida Bar.”

    Wow, it just does’nt get any better! Enjoy the read, I most certainly did http://ia600802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.50.0.pdf

    Thanks to BP for the heads up.

    • Raul says:

      Combine this news with the pending July investigation into whether Perea violated Rules 4-5.5 and 4-8.4(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and I’d say bring marshmallows because the Troll BBQ is on!

      • Anonymous says:

        “Office pool” regarding Perea’s upcoming fate:

        A) Disbarment in FL
        B) Nothing
        C) Sanctions but retains license (ie something in between A and B))
        D) Slap on wrist/verbal lashing but nothing else

        • Raul says:

          I’d like to see E) Temporary Suspension

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          He’s gonna have to face the music in front of multiple committees. The smart move (assuming that the Florida Bar is gonna fuck his world up) is to agree to a voluntary suspension or disbarment, but he’s too big of an idiot to do that. That being said, I think the Florida Bar will suspend his license temporarily. Permanent disbarment is usually reserved for attorneys who do really bad shit like threatening violence against defendants, embezzling client funds, or any felony conviction. Hell, a former SA here in Illinois only had his license suspended for two years for buying booze for underage girls who were witnesses in a trial he was prosecuting. I guarantee that the Florida Bar probably has a ton more complaints against him. They can’t just ignore this.

          Who knows what the District Court will do. They can recommend a number of things…disbarment, suspension, reprimand, sanctions (monetary or otherwise), or removal from the court. I vote for suspension, again.

      • Raul says:

        Judge Ungaro also has Perea in her sights regarding the possible misuse of demand letters http://ia701206.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.401800/gov.uscourts.flsd.401800.8.0.pdf :)

    • The Tod says:

      Is it just me or do they violate this rule all the time? Hummmmm…….

      • Raul says:

        They most certainly do but it is good to see them finally called on it.

        • Anonymous says:

          And as judges start to take official stances on the violations, it will be easier to use these as precedent for similar punishments later on…the snowball is picking up momentum.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, I wonder if it would be productive to use this as an exhibit in Bar complaints against Prenda lawyers in other states. I know this has happened in Gibbs’ CA cases dozens if not hundreds of times. If a judge in one state has referred a Prenda lawyer to the state Bar for this exact behavior, it sounds like a great opening for a Bar complain campaign in other states.

  23. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    Say it ain’t so Joe!!!!!!! HaHaHaHaHaHa

    It’s great news to see that not only have Does sent in complaints to the Bar, but now a judge as well!! The smackdown is coming down on Perea and I safely bet, he ain’t sweatin it. He should though. His job and future in law is in big jeopardy. I can already see Prenda in the works of turning their backs on him and leaving him to rot. However, the other side of me, can see the Bar allowing him to retain his license with sanctions, a verbal lashing and a slap on the wrist hard enough to leave a red spot, but not hurt him. What they should do is disbar him in Florida or revoke his license completely and never allow him to practice law in this country again, plus a big monetary sanction. As I said before, this guy doesn’t care at all whether he gets in trouble or not. Maybe it would take his license being taken away to make him think otherwise.

    This is something for all to use and build on towards other trolls. If we use this stepping stone of reporting the trolls behavior and abuse, along with the violation of demand letters to other state Bars, that may get the snowball bigger and bigger to the point of no stopping it. This may be the small pinhole of light at the end of the tunnel in ending the trolls!

    Down with all Trolls

  24. Raul says:

    I just did something Perea should have done a year ago, I looked up Judge Seitz’s father, Lt. Gen. Richard J. Seitz, in Wikipedia. The guy was a genuine WWII hero who played an instrumental role in the Battle of the Bulge. Can you imagine being raised by a hero with the qualities of honesty, fair dealing, bravery and honor being paramount? Of course these are the very qualities that Prenda and Perea routinely piss upon on an hourly rotation. No wonder Perea’s hubristic and cavalier justifications and excuses did not fly.

    • Raul says:

      Most law firms have what they call a “mentoring program” where they form their young associates and instill in them the core values of their law firm. With Perea, Prenda succeeded!

  25. Jeff says:

    I have a demand letter from Perea for First Time Videos, LLC v. John Doe, case 1:12-cv-21952 Ref #81981. It was sent 8/30 and today is the deadline for the settlement. Would a copy sent to you be helpful? Also, I have been trying to find this case listed to see if it had been dropped like some of the others I’ve read about here but cannot seem to locate it. How may I go about that?
    thank you

    • Anonymous says:

      Hello! I believe I am also involved in this particular “case”.

    • That Anonymous Dude says:

      Uh well now they know who you are since you posted your ref #. A copy of the demand letter isn’t needed.

      The case was closed last Monday (9/10) and consolidated with 1:12-cv-20921-JAL. Oh, I see the same Perea bullshittery going on that got him sent to the Florida Bar and the FLSD Peer Review Committee. Subpoenas issued out of DCD by Duffy, signed by Duffy, stating he’s attorney of record *cough*UNETHICAL*cough*. Oh, THIS case. Perea’s second worst next to the Bubble Gum Productions that landed him two bar complaints. My advice, keep your head down…seriously. This case is ugly as shit. Tamaroff filed a motion which includes a D&B query (D&B is basically a list of all corporations and LLCs, etc.) showing that Prenda’s forensics expert’s company does not exist), LS Law filed for sanctions against Perea for improper contact (Perea sent letters to a represented Doe and called her as well…big big no no). He’s got a pattern of doing this…he did this in the Bubble Gum Productions case and it got him a complaint to the Florida Bar from a Doe and a referral from a federal judge.

      You wanna know about this case? Here’s the summary: Perea is in DEEP SHIT and this case is going down IMO. If it doesn’t go down, legal filings will persist until the case is either chucked by the judge or Prenda just kicks it because it’s a money pit. The judge still has to rule on the motion for sanctions and, while I may not be an attorney, I can’t see the judge not sanctioning Perea. He’s already facing the FL Bar complaints. Judge Seitz referred him for basically telling her to fuck off. See below for a good laugh….

      http://ia600802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.50.0.pdf

      Combine this with other judges in FLSD going from mildly irritated to veins bulging out of their neck pissed off at Perea, this is just bad for him.

      Here’s the docket from your case before it was consolidated…
      http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.400840/gov.uscourts.flsd.400840.docket.html

      and here’s the docket for the consolidated case…
      http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032/gov.uscourts.flsd.396032.docket.html

  26. [...] attorney. And, of course, complain, complain, complain: to the media, FBI, Attorneys General, Bar associations. One voice can be ignored, ten voices can be ignored, but hundreds and thousands? I do not think [...]

  27. [...] Perea: was an integral part of Prenda, officially left it, although continues trolling, investigated by the Florida Bar (initiated by multiple [...]

  28. [...] of which involved having Mark Lutz pose as a representative of the production company, having their own local counsel shift titles to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues (e.g., in Florida), and then having local counsel such as Brett Gibbs end up as “of [...]

  29. [...] of which involved having Mark Lutz pose as a representative of the production company, having their own local counsel shift titles to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues (e.g., in Florida), and then having local counsel such as Brett Gibbs end up as “of [...]

  30. [...] of which involved having Mark Lutz pose as a representative of the production company, having their own local counsel shift titles to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues (e.g., in Florida), and then having local counsel such as Brett Gibbs end up as “of [...]

  31. [...] Mark Lutz pose as a representative for a production company.  I noticed when Prenda had their own local counsel (Joseph Perea) shift titles to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues (e.g., in Florida), and I noticed when local counsel Brett Gibbs ended up as “of [...]

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