Attorney for a fake plaintiff questions the existence of a defendant he is suing

After Prenda’s Brett Gibbs filed a palmface-inducing motion to disqualify Judge Write with an obvious goal to further delay the inevitable exposure of a fraud, the matter was referred to Judge Michael W Fitzgerald for determination.

On 1/3/2013 Morgan Pietz filed a request for leave to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for disqualification.

On 1/7/2013 Gibbs replied, further embarrassing himself. The reply was so amusing that it has prompted the articles on ArsTechnica and TechDirt today. In what amounts to be a definition of “irony,” Gibbs questioned the existence of Pietz’s client (as if the plaintiff, Ingenuity 13, is not a brazen fake):

Mr. Pietz has demonstrated repeated hostility toward Plaintiff and toward the undersigned, and, as such, would have sufficient motive to interfere with Plaintiff’s cases without the formality of actually having a client involved in the instant litigation. For the reasons contained herein, the “putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC” could be an invention of Mr. Pietz, and Mr. Pietz should thus be required to submit evidence that he actually represents the individual whom he claims to represent.


Honestly, I understand why you, Brett, are so nervous. Given that the Coopergate will not go away, I would constantly be on the verge of a nervous breakdown if I had the same plans for this year as you have. Yet you cannot delay the inevitable all the way to April. Let it go: the earlier the better — for everyone, including you. Leave Prenda, tell the truth both to the public and to the people you care about: do not underestimate the power of remorse. I do not have a slightest doubt that your masters will betray you when the real heat reaches them. Protecting these scumbags is beyond ridiculous in these circumstances.



wordpress visitor counter


23 responses to ‘Attorney for a fake plaintiff questions the existence of a defendant he is suing

  1. If there is no defendant as the Plaintiff’s lawyer claims, then who exactly is being sued for copyright infringement; a ghost?

  2. This whole website can be used to write the script for an academy award winning movie, honestly, Prenda & Co follies are an unreal story – you can’t make this up…..

  3. Prenda is so transparent. Let us not forget that Gibbs’ latest filing is grounded in Mr. Pietz successfully staying subpoena returns from ISPs which would include his client’s personal information, so now, Gibbs just wants Mr. Pietz to give it up. I have just one question for you Gibbs: Are you really going to try to extort money from a represented Doe? It is my personal experience that Prenda is indeed bold, but not to smart, no not smart at all. What they lack in cognitive intellectual thought, they make up for with legal temper tantrums.

  4. So Gibbs is obviously the Larry to Steele’s Moe. Always following orders, and trying really REALLY hard to look smart, but always failing really REALLY miserably. Never having an original idea, yet always tripping over Moe’s ideas that sounded good at the time.

    So who’s Curly? I’m thinking it has to be Lutz. The mind-addled attack dog, being forced to do the legwork of calling, mailing and standing in as corporate representative for companies he’s never heard of. The bull in the china shop who charges in, completely misses, but rebounds off of a few cabinets of glass and china on the way.

  5. Is this really happening? I mean, seriously. I take a little sabbatical and now we have this? Gibbs questions the existence of a defendant who he went after on behalf of a fake plaintiff. Just re-reading that makes it sound so far beyond asinine that it’s left the realm of entertaining and entered that of “are you fucking kidding me?” It is true, truth IS much stranger (and in trolls’ cases, MUCH MUCH more stupid) than fiction.

  6. IIRC, DTD posted an order (Docket #45?) that Gibbs had to answer questions about Coopergate, with a deadline of today. Anything happen on that? Or was that rolled into the great, grand 3/11 appearance?

  7. Since I revisited this post, I checked who was the author of this document (PDF metadata): these guys were careless about it that time. Of course: “Paul.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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