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

Media coverage


Prenda appealed. Almost exactly two years later US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments. And it didn’t went well (to put it charitably) for Prenda and its principals.

  1. […] to anonymous anti-troll blogs, this week’s order has been sweet vindication—and it elevated the Prenda Law situation to the attention of the national […]

  2. Anonymous says:

    How much do you want to bet that this “position” with Lutz was created very quickly after the twitter exchange that ID’d Steele as bittorrentbull?

    “I work part-time with Livewire Holdings, one of the entities that Lutz owns. My role is on the business side. I acquire other adult content companies and deal with expanding the holding company. The main goal is to handle a lot of content and websites and to be involved in the adult space. For that, I’m paid a flat fee. I won’t say how much, but it’s a modest flat sum. I’m not getting a percentage or a piece of settlements or anything like that.”

  3. […] Frontier Foundation (EFF) to anonymous anti-troll blogs, this week’s order has been sweet vindication—and it elevated the Prenda Law situation to the attention of the national press. But all […]

  4. Anonymous says:

    If Lutz was the owner of Livewire Holdings, and that’s how Duffy and he met, why was Lutz making phone calls for Duffy Law Group, Anti-Piracy Law Group, and Prenda claiming that he worked for them?

  5. SJD says:

    While John is struggling with mastering the subtle art of keeping his mouth shut, some people are silently working. And some visit my site in their line of the duty. And I like it. I like it a lot.

    • PleasePassThePopcorn says:

      Soo nice to see everyone’s investigative work isn’t going to waste. This site is practically one-stop-shopping for an IRS investigation. How is that appeal coming John?

    • Yep. IRS. Just geolocated the ip through a free ip locating service. Guess what. It’s a static ip address, which means it’s theirs forever. Oh, i love this whole thing. Thanks SJD

  6. […] Frontier Foundation (EFF) to anonymous anti-troll blogs, this week’s order has been sweet vindication—and it elevated the Prenda Law situation to the attention of the national press. But all […]

  7. thatbalddude says:

    I just got done reading the Arstechnica article and it’s funny how all the anti-Steele posts end up voted down so there’s not a single one with a positive rating. The tremendous amount of butthurt generated by Judge Wright’s order must be nothing short of phenomenal to get so many trolls repeatedly logging on to vote down the anti-Steele comments.

    You mad, bro?

    But of even greater note is why Steele is talking so much now but kept his face shut during the trial. Come on, Johnny, we know you’re out there. We know you visit here and you or one of yours is reading this. Why so much trash talking when the judge isn’t in front of you? If you’re in the right, why not sound off in court? Have a case of testicular atrophy or something? That’s okay, though, schmuck. Keep pleading the Fifth. Some of the other Does and I will share a fifth toasting the demise of the copyright troll industry.

  8. Mysterious Anonymous says:



    May is the month that keeps on giving. Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Inc. appeal is grinding through the system.

    That qui tam claim is going to look a lot more legit after Wright’s ruling, and with the case before Chen about to blow up in their faces as well, these guys will be notorious in California.

  9. […] Frontier Foundation (EFF) to anonymous anti-troll blogs, this week’s order has been sweet vindication—and it elevated the Prenda Law situation to the attention of the national press. But all […]

  10. Karma says:

    Jordan Rushie thinks “Prenda is a competent law firm”:

    Jordan Rushie • a month ago:

    Also, this opinion is on appeal right now in the D.C. Circuit:

    If there is one section of law where there is “federal common law” it’s bittorrent litigation. Almost all the authority comes from District Court.

    In any case, when I did railroad defense, part of the problem is how national the issues were. There are only a few railroad defense law firms in the country, so it also involved having a law firm directing the litigation by using local counsel. It’s paramount to know the specific issues in railroad litigation.

    It’s the same with Prenda and bittorrent litigation. There are only a few law firms that are competent to represent porn companies in intellectual property matters. Prenda is one of them. But due to the nature of piracy, they directed the litigation but had to use local counsel if the client had needs out of state. However, it’s more important to know the issues specific to bittorrent litigation than anything. Like it or not, Prenda is one of the few law firms that knows how to do it, and what the issues are.

    I just think it’s very unfair to suggest they are not a “real” law firm. They’ve litigated a ton of cases successfully, and the model was built on the needs of the client.

    • Anonymous says:

      I love that Heather Rosing pointed out the standard for validating an appellant’s request for a Stay by the District Courts:

      (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the

      (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

      (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
      proceeding; and

      (4) where the public interest lies.

      It’s like an advertisement for why they shouldn’t get a Stay.

      1. They are unlikely to succeed based on the fact that their business is built on fraud, which was noted by a District Judge.

      2. I don’t think they care about their reputation. There is no way for them to appear the good guy in the scam that they are running. They know that they’re bottom feeders. The people who they extort will not feel any better or worse about them based on this case.

      3. A stay will clearly and substantially injure other parties interested, because the settlement letters have not stopped. Prenda, Duffy and the gang continue the very behavior that got them sanctioned. If the Stay keeps other courts from being informed on the scheme being perpetrated by these guys, their is great risk that others could be taken advantage of.

      4. Protecting the general public from malicious litigation is in the public interest

      Therefore… No Stay.

  11. Mark says:

    I just wanted to put this up here in case the a_holes missed it…

    “Further, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and Prenda are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they have contravened the Court’s order to pay the attorney’s-fee award. The Court hereby imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day, per person or entity,1 until this attorney’s-fee award is paid or a bond for the same amount is posted. This penalty shall be paid to the Clerk of Court on the same day the attorney’s-fee award is paid or the bond is posted. This penalty must be paid unless it is evident that the award was paid or the bond was posted on or before May 20, 2013. Failure to comply will result in additional sanctions.”

    there is justice after all

  12. SJD says:

    Dear Friend,

    I am the head of Accounts and Audit Department of Bank of Nevis. I decided to contact you after a careful thought that you may be capable of handling this business transaction which I explained below;

    In my department, I discovered an abandoned sum of $13.5m US dollars (Thirteen million, five hundred thousand US dollars). In an account that belongs to one of our foreign customer who is unable to withdraw the funds due to active investigation by the US IRS Criminal Investigations Department.

    Since i got information about this, The bank have been expecting his next of kin to come over and claim his money because The fund cannot be released unless somebody applies for it as next of kin or relation to the owner as indicated in our banking guidelines but unfortunately I learnt that his supposed next of kin has not been born yet leaving nobody behind for the claim .It is therefore upon this discovery that I now decided to make this business proposal to you and release the money to you as the next of kin (I want to present you as his business associate )to the previous owner for safety and subsequent disbursement since nobody is coming for it and I don’t want this money to go into the Bank treasury as unclaimed Bill.

    The Banking law and guideline here stipulates that if such money remained Unclaimed after seven years, the money will be transferred into the Bank treasury as unclaimed fund.. The request of foreigner as next of kin in this business is occasioned by the fact that the customer was a foreigner and a Nevis national cannot stand as next of kin to a foreigner.

    I agree that 35% of this money will be for you as foreign partner, in respect to the provision of a foreign account, 10 % will be set aside for expenses incurred during the business and 55% would be for me . There after I will visit your country for disbursement according to the percentages indicated. Therefore to enable the immediate transfer of this fund to your account as arranged, you must apply first to the bank as next of kin.

    Upon receipt of your reply, I will send to you by fax or email the text of the application. I will not fail to bring to your notice that this transaction is hitch free and that you should not entertain any atom of fear as all required arrangements have been made for the transfer..

    I expect that you contact me immediately as soon as you receive this letter, and send me your personal data including your international passport before i send you the full details for continuation of this transaction.

    Hoping to hear from you immediately.

    Yours faithfully,
    Dr. Alisha Private
    Accounts & Audit Department,
    Bank of Nevis.

  13. SJD says:

    Remember @bittorentbull a.k.a. John Steele? It all started peacefully when a million-dollar idea visited the head of bored/chased by flies Bull….

    No free lunch, John: the last scene is happening as we speak:

  14. […] first time I read Judge Otis Wright II’s order issuing sanctions against Prenda et al, I knew I was witnessing history in the making. There were […]

  15. […] 6: Fleet Admiral Judge Otis Wright slammed his massive hammer on the Prenda player’s […]

  16. […] Steele/Hansmeiers/Lutz were not served by Pietz/Ranallo with the copies of the documents from “The Star Trek” case. The most serious is John Steele’s motion — as it exhibits Pietz’s email […]

  17. […] the Prenda front. I almost stopped covering Prenda stories, firstly, because I think that Prenda is done since this spring, and I should refocus my efforts on other trolls; second, because many other […]

  18. […] the arrogant attorneys John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. We know what happened. Stupendous Wright’s Star Trek order paved the way for many other silver hummers going upon Prenda’s […]

  19. […] quite a radical way to avoid disbarment. Will John incarcerate himself to avoid […]

  20. […] Morgan Pietz, who was instrumental in toppling one troll — Prenda Law — has been recently seriously involved in crashing […]

  21. […] from the judge’s ruling on these motions: as time passed, we hoped that he had been preparing an Otis Wright-like smackdown, but alas, I had rather mixed feelings reading the October 31 […]

  22. […] Order, Central District of California, paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 11¹. (See Wright Order […]

  23. […] Notes from the 11/20/2014 AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel hearing | Fight Copyright Trolls on Prenda is essentially done […]

  24. […] While this is a big victory over the law abusers, I regret to note that the predatory practice continues unabated: troll David Lowe (one of the plaintiff’s attorneys) still files fraudulent lawsuits in the State of Washington, and his brothers-in-scams in other states are busy extorting citizenry. I hope not for long. If the evidence substantiating one particular fraud — fake declarations and forged signatures filed in nearly 200 cases nationwide — reaches its critical mass and attracts interest of the FBI, we will see a downfall bigger than Prenda’s. […]

  25. […] Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, Brett Gibbs, and two bogus plaintiffs (AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13) were epically smacked down by Judge Wright on 5/6/2013 (Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe, CACD […]

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