Is Prenda trying to simulate insanity to avoid prosecution?

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


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.

Comments
  1. testycal says:

    I am a Canadian attorney and have enjoyed the banter and expose. However, I do think that the ending comment

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

    is just not necessary or could be phrased otherwise. You all have done a magnificent job of bringing this sham to the attention of the average Joe and the courts. I respectfully suggest that you try to maintain the high road at all costs as it will only ever serve you well down the road.

    • SJD says:

      You are right, you are right…

      I’m definitely on my way to the High Road: just look at my earlier posts.

    • PleasePassThePopcorn says:

      I like Craigslist, it’s a great place to find burning barrels or wood pallets. Respectable lawyers who see the value of upholding the integrity of their profession should be doing what they can to put an end to this ugly money grab twisting of the justice system in “whatever” country.

  2. cynumber9 says:

    ^whistles a little ditty about high/low/roads

  3. OngChotwI says:

    When tempering swords, they heat the metal till it’s red or white hot.. then quench it in cold water. This Witness Tempering.. is it keeping the witness in a hottub, jacuzzi, or sauna – then making them jump into a cold pool of water/lake/river? Remote cabin, northern state, cold winter.. hmm. Do they have experience with this? Could we ask Alan? :)

    Thanks for sharing this questionable material.. Interesting to see that it doesn’t make much more sense to lawyers than it does to those without that background. :)

  4. SJD says:

    A question to public notaries: isn’t it against the rules to omit the date in a notarized document?

  5. DieTrollDie says:

    Now wait a minute. Wasn’t this a non-beneficiary trust??? If Lutz’s children are the benificary, isn’t a normal trust??? Funny that it took this long to come up with this BS information. Best you could do guys?

    It would be really funny if some woman comes forward and claims that Lutz fathered a child with her. LOL!

    DTD :)

  6. Anonymous says:

    Lol — Cooper is doing this just for the pleasure of flying around the country at the last moment.

  7. that anonymous coward says:

    Someone needs to do some records searches… adoption proceedings of adult male lawyers….

  8. PleasePassThePopcorn says:

    Do I have their story right? Alan Cooper, CEO of AFF Holdings is buying the copyrights to movies from Raymond Rogers, CEO (?) of Heartbreaker Digital on behalf of Mark Lutz’s unborn children and instructing Patrick Duffy and other outside counsel to collect when the same movies somehow get distributed on the internets? i.e.: all monies are hidden. Never mind, probably too convoluted to encapsulate. (just my satirical question/opinion of public figures)

  9. Raul says:

    Just hope the Lutz “Declaration” sees the light of day in LA.

  10. “Potential” beneficiaries? Are they potential because they don’t yet exist, or are they potential because of the legal contortions you’d have to go through in order to set up a trust which simultaneously does and does not have beneficiaries?

  11. G Thompson says:

    Well this is interesting, and with the defamatory per se comments that Jacques Nazaire Esq. has stated in this response in regards to Wikileaks and others this attorney will find it very hard now to find ANY foreign work since though he has qualified immunity under US law for his HIGHLY unethical response he doesn’t under international jurisdictions and will most likely (It’s going to be my pleasure to make sure of this) make his ability to leave the USA and practice elsewhere a litigious living hell.

    Though I have to agree with others SJD, the rate of his appearance advertised on Craigslist (a marketing ability for lawyers that is questionable but sadly legal in the USA – not elsewhere) is irrelevant. Though his antagonistic and egotistic ‘holier than thou’ attitude displayed in the response to anyone who has less (and that’s debatable) experience than himself is extremely relevant.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      OHAI G!

    • Nazaire says:

      [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

      Anyone who is dumb enough to come after me overseas should realize that I know people overseas and they don’t necessarily hack websites. Their skills are of a different nature. I will trace all paper trails to find out who is attempting to blacklist me overseas. The response will NOT be pretty. Talk about an EGO. you have NO idea where my EGO may lead. But bring it on my friend. I am anxious to see what you’ve got.

    • Nazaire says:

      [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

      You’re “pleasure” to bring me “litigious living hell”. Litigation involves a paper trail. I will find who you are. I promise. Trust me, once I do, the PLEASURE will be all mine.

  12. Another Attorney says:

    IAAL, 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.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      “How this guy ever got a license to practice law, I do not know.”

      I am guessing correspondence school with a $125 a credit hour tuition.
      But then I hurt the bad lawyers feelings often and with enough force they sued.
      On a scale of 1 to Rakofsky where does this filing fall?

      • Nazaire says:

        [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

        WOW. That’s your screen name? Not surprised. Come out of hiding my friend.

        • that anonymous coward says:

          I’m not your friend, I am your opponent and you are outmatched.
          Much better lawyers than you have faced me, you’ll note I’m still standing.

          So I’m curious, what exactly does it feel like to flush your career chasing the ‘easy’ money?

          One would think you might have actually read the case law and discovered that the copyright law has no opening for a claim of negligence. Maybe you should spend some time here reading up on the law your badly practicing… we seem to have a much better grasp of it.

    • Nazaire says:

      [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

      Are you a real Attorney? State your name. I guess you can’t. Can you?

      You know that I can find out who you are. Tread lightly my friend.

  13. Another Attorney says:

    According to Patricia Eables’ website, she was admitted to federal court in Arkansas in 1889. Maybe it’s this “attention to detail” that made Lutz think she would be a good choice to notarize is statement.

    She also mentions being named in “Who’s Who”. Has anyone ever taken that seriously?

  14. FraudHater says:

    Though I have to agree with others SJD, the rate of his appearance advertised on Craigslist (a marketing ability for lawyers that is questionable but sadly legal in the USA – not elsewhere) is irrelevant.

    I disagree. It is rebuttal. Jacques Nazarene made specious claims about how much better he is than other attorneys related to Prenda Cases. His discount rates call into question this supposed superiority.

    His claims remind me of a maxim in writing: Show me don’t tell me. Jacques Nazaire spends a lot of time *telling* the court how good he is without showing any such thing in terms of the content of his filing.

    • Nazaire says:

      [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

      Hey genius when reading the content of my filing please realize that it relates to the case at bar whereas defendant’s filing related to the content of a California case and a Florida hearing.
      You are so dumb. Send my your contact info. We can chit chat

  15. […] sure Mr. Nazaire is very highly qualified. After all, as Fight Copyright Trolls points out, only a highly-qualified lawyer would advertise on Craigslist to make court appearances at $125 a […]

  16. Flush those Trolls says:

    I am really confused here. Is Salt Marsh a person or a name of a trust? Based on others shouldn’t it be Anthony Salt Marsh Beneficiary Trust Account? I see that it when from a “person” to a “entity” since Paul H’s deposition

  17. DB says:

    Don’t rule out all of the statements about the trust being accurate, at the time.

    A Nevis ‘Defined Purpose Trust’ is rare bird. It a type of trust not allowed elsewhere, and there are probably a bunch of tricks that are only known in a small circle of people that write and use them.

    One such trick could be extra statements in the trust for a process to change the purpose. It could be written in such a way that no one could claim to have direct control over the trust — it’s basically on autopilot. Or to put it a different way, everyone could disclaim control for tax purposes. But they still have the ability to change the purpose.

    While the previous purpose could have been “direct all income to the subsidiary holding companies to be kept in the U.S. and be used for pursuing other cases”, it could have been changed to “move all income out of the reach of adverse judgements, holding it for the holding company’s manager’s (unborn) progeny or until a new Purpose is Defined”.

    Since the trust is in Nevis, we’ll likely never know the true details.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m betting that these guys thought they were a lot smarter than they are (sound familiar?) when they chose that type of trust but didn’t do their homework or have the expertise to structure everything correctly. They thought it was some magical get out of accountability (and jail) card, but the problem is even if that is hypothetically true, it seems like they are only now trying to come up with the story and corporate structure that makes the trust work the way they need it to. But now it’s too late and all the changing and conflicting stories in sworn statements, plus the previous blunders and possible forgeries, means they are in real danger of getting in trouble for fraud and perjury.

  18. CTVic says:

    A good dog will back down in the face of punishment from its master. A rabid dog, without hope of salvation, whose only recourse is to be put down, will bite any hand that comes near it.

    In the face of this much adversity and scrutiny, Prenda sure seems to be snapping and snarling at everybody.

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t get why Nazaire is willing to put his career on the line for Prenda. If he’s not a partner in the scheme, he doesn’t need to care what the EFFs motivations are, doesn’t need to pretend he’s not working for Prenda, doesn’t need to pretend he is or isn’t working for AF, etc. He doesn’t need to take the EFF’s or Internet’s word for it, he can just read the transcript from Wright’s hearing, the Hansmeier depot, etc. and draw his own conclusions.

      He must have a real stubborn and competitive streak if he’s willing to go that far out on a limb for some people he met on craigslist under these circumstances.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah — though the response reads a lot like something Steele might have written, never mind the insanity of Lutz’s declaration in favor of his unborn children. I really wonder if (as SJD has suggested) Steele submitted the response using Nazaire’s ECF account.

        • that anonymous coward says:

          Its not like Gibbs told the world they get your ECF login and post stuff…. er wait…

  19. Anonymouse says:

    These Trolls remind me of a good joke, in a way made slightly relevant by the content of this sort of lawsuit, which, before they moved to more generalized accusations, often involved file names involving anal sex. It was probably longer and more detailed in the best version of it.

    A woman goes to her Doctor. She is concerned about whether you can get pregnant from having anal intercourse. The Doctor says, “Where do you think Lawyers come from?”

  20. You know who says:

    [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

    To: GThompson: Why don’t you show who you are you coward. You should think twice coming after Nazaire. Trust me. You do not know who he knows internationally and what they do for a living. But bring it on.

  21. Nazaire says:

    [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

    To GThompson: Hey COWARD. This is Nazaire. I am NOT afraid of you. Why don’t we meet up for a lawful fist fight. We can sign waivers, meet in a jurisdiction which will sanction the same and we can go at it. I’m sure your NOT going to look pretty afterwards. Remember, this will happen only if you agree to it in writing. So please don’t fun to the authorities and claim that I have threatened you. Big fat cry baby.

    • Ken says:

      Everyone should exercise skepticism about whether this is Nazaire. It very probably isn’t; it’s some twerp. If Mr. Nazaire would like to confirm this is him, he should feel free to send me an email, and I will call him at his office, or he can email me from the address he used in his most recent Prenda filing to ken at popehat . com.

      • SJD says:

        Sorry I was distracted (watched “Hobbit,” which is finally available on bluray on Netflix). He is the IP information of the purported Nazaire (same as “Another Attorney says”):

        IP: 12.152.53.220
        ISP: AT&T Services
        Organization: Att Bco Army Recreation Machine
        Type: Corporate
        Assignment: Static IP
        Geolocation Information

        Country: United States
        State/Region: Maryland
        City: Aberdeen Proving Ground
        Latitude: 39.4738 (39° 28′ 25.68″ N)
        Longitude: -76.1288 (76° 7′ 43.68″ W)
        Area Code: 410
        Postal Code: 21005

        Also, judging on poor grammar, it can’t be an attorney (or, at least, a sober attorney).

        • that anonymous coward says:

          http://www.armp.org/

          Welcome to the Army Recreation Machine Program web site. Better known as ARMP, our organization is dedicated to providing support to America’s service personnel throughout the world. With sites in nine countries, we truly are Serving MWR Worldwide.

          – snip –

          During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied, and use for authorized purposes. Use of this DOD computer system, authorized/unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal, or other adverse action.

          and I’ll just leave this here.

        • DieTrollDie says:

          Have to find a good resume, but Troll Nazaire could be an Army Reservist. Here is an AVVO link that shows he was awarded the Bronze Star (US Army) in 2012 – scroll down a bit. http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/30144-ga-jacques-nazaire-462494.html

          http://www.armp.org/index.html – Info on what the Army Recreation Machine Program.

          It is possible Nazaire is doing a little reservist time and used a MWR public use computer to make his comments.

          AVVO Military Law Attorneys in GA – http://www.avvo.com/military-law-lawyer/ga/kennesaw.html He is listed here.

          DTD :)

        • Porno Doe says:

          all I can think of is:

      • that anonymous coward says:

        There is however an easy way to tell.
        He threatened violence against my favorite upside down pony loving foriegn national while using what appears to be DoD resources.
        As the network is monitored it should be easy to establish if the posts were in fact routed via DoD property and whom was accessing them.
        If its spoofing its spoofing, no harm no foul.
        However if this is an unhinged individual making threats of violence with access to and using DoD property game on. No one threatens the upside down pony lovers.

    • Ken says:

      I had an email exchange with someone using what appears to be the same gmail address as is listed on Mr. Nazaire’s state bar profile and recent Patel filing. The person using that email address says he has not commented here. Though I cannot absolutely rule out spoofing or hacking of the email address, the evidence seems pretty convincing that Nazaire is not posting here.

  22. Another Attorney says says:

    [sjd: this is an impostor, not Nazaire — see a Ken White’s comment on this page]

    If there are any REAL attorneys who wants to post a comment here. Please identify yourselves by name and stop hiding. COWARDS. No honor, no glory. If you believe in what you say, you should show who you are.

    • Ken says:

      Dear Another Attorney: my name is Kenneth P. White. I am an attorney. I have been blogging about the exploits of Prenda Law at my blog, Popehat. I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you would like to set up a time for a call, feel free to email me at ken at popehat . com.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Its sweet, you think we need a ‘real’ lawyer to tear the tissue paper you call a case to shreds.
      Will you be finding one to supervise you while your here? It appears you might be in need some help grasping the law.

      I am the That Anonymous Coward, I have much more honor than you.
      I don’t work for a group that shakes down senior citizens for hard core porn.
      Funny you can’t say the same. This is your glory, your going down in a blaze of it.

      In the morning, when you see what you have done, remember that the internet never forgets.
      It’s been a hoot having you visit and watching your meltdown.
      Now GTFO Troll.
      You have now power here, leave before someone drops a house on you too.

  23. […] of entertainment he provides should get him promoted to a lutz (at least) in Prenda’s ranks. I wrote about Nazaire’s delusional pleading a month ago; Popehat (among others) scoffed at Nazaire’s crazy argument that Wright’s order […]

  24. […] winner Jacque Nazaire — filed motions featuring all kinds of bizarre arguments ranging from painting EFF as a “terrorist group” to arguing that Judge Wrghts’s order is irrelevant because California allows gay marriage and […]

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