Archive for the ‘Coopergate’ Category

Prenda fables get craftier yet less believable

Posted: May 25, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

Background (which is not really relevant): DieTrollDie wrote in a recent post that on 5/17/2013 Judge Murray Snow stayed AF Holdings LLC v. Harris (AZD 2:12-cv-02144) due to concerns based on the sanctions laid down in Judge Otis Wright’s order:

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause within seven (7) days of the date of this Order why this Court should not dismiss this case. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts a right in the continuation of this case, Plaintiff is ordered to identify: (1) the persons who signed Exhibit B in the names of Raymond Rogers and Alan Cooper; (2) all persons who hold any interest in Plaintiff; and (3) if Exhibit B to the Complaint is in fact not signed by Alan Cooper and/or Raymond Rogers why Plaintiff and/or counsel should not be sanctioned pursuant to the Court’s inherent power and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for filing a fraudulent document with this Court. In the interim, this action is stayed until further Order of this Court.

Why did I say that the background is not really relevant? Well, the following story could be injected by Prenda into any lawsuit where a judge questioned Alan Cooper’s signature. When after 6 months of struggling with writer’s block, Steele and Hansmeier came up with a story that “plausibly” connects the dots in what we call Coopergate, the judge’s order directing troll Steven Goodhue to confirm the validity of the copyright assignment signatures was a convenient moment. Emboldened by recent relative victories, the gang is gambling on judge’s gullibility, yet with Aaron Kelly’s firm involvement in this case, I wouldn’t bet a single penny on Prenda’s “red” (herring).

Yes, it took six months of inventive evasion, attempts to remove a judge from a case, lies, invoking the Fifth Amendment to finally come up with a crafty plot that for the first time explicitly accuses Steele’s caretaker Alan Cooper of willfully participating in Prenda’s “business.” Furthermore, the trolls accused Cooper of changing his story with a goal of extorting Steele & Co.!

While this is no more than one in a series of delaying tactics, it is really sad that the crooks continue bringing hell to a simple man’s life. Sad, but inevitable: you cannot expect anything but a blank stare from these heartless creatures when they witness suffering.

(Note than none of the supporting documents referred in the Goodhue’s reply was filed.)

Court awards attorney fees against AF Holdings in the amount of $9,425

Posted: May 24, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12

There has been a hearing today in a precedent-setting copyright trolling lawsuit where motion to post an undertaking was granted (AF Holdings, LLC v. Trinh, 12-cv-02393). After Prenda unsuccessfully tried to reverse judge’s decision, on 3/8/2012 Judge Breyer issued a judgement with prejudice against the Plaintiff. The concern of today’s hearing was the motion for attorney fees. Paul Duffy appeared by phone. EFF’s Kurt Opsahl was at the hearing, and minutes ago he tweeted:

 

Minor congratulations to Nick Ranallo! (I’ll extend my major one when he is able to collect.)

ArsTechnica’s coverage (link below) contains a brief interview with Kurt:

In a brief interview, Opsahl told Ars the judge was “businesslike” during the short hearing, only asking whether the Wright sanctions order had been appealed (it has). Duffy then spent some time arguing the amount of sanctions was too high, as Ranallo could use similar arguments in his other cases.

“For what its worth, $9,400 for the amount of work Ranallo put in was a bargain,” opined Opsahl. “Any major law firm would have charged three or four times that amount, and the court probably wouldn’t have batted an eye.”

Media Coverage

My opinion: a pro se defendant needs a pro bono attorney

Posted: May 13, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5
There is a case lingering in the ILND, Ingenuity 13 v Bradley Hellyer (12-cv-06131). The defendant represents himself, and he answered the complaint, even included some counterclaims. I believe that Prenda would be happy to get rid of this lawsuit, but it can’t do it easily since the complaint has been answered. Just last week the plaintiff managed to get the counterclaims dismissed; dismissing the entire lawsuit is much easier now.

After the March 11 hearing in Judge Wright’s chambers, Prenda filed many “notices of allegations” in AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases. Duffy explained that the reason for these filings was his wide known candor and honesty. Nonetheless, note that no notice was filed in this case. In my opinion, the judge on this case, Judge Joan Lefkof, is lenient to trolls, but I can be wrong, just a gut feeling. The dismissal of counterclaims has nothing to do with this, though: those counterclaims were indeed weak: the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was well written (if one wouldn’t know the circumstances).

Therefore, in light of the damning Judge Wright’s Order, the likelihood of winning legal fees is rather high, so I believe this is a great opportunity for an Illinois-licensed attorney to chime in and represent Bradley pro bono. Even if collecting potential fee awards is arguably problematic, there is a certain value in having a favorable judgment in a lawyer’s portfolio. This is not only my opinion, an attorney thinks the same way:

 

To be clear, defendant never contacted me or anyone I know, it was not his initiative.

Prenda is essentially done

Posted: May 6, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
97

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

Media coverage

Is Prenda trying to simulate insanity to avoid prosecution?

Posted: April 20, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Coopergate
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
62

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.

Undefined beneficiary trust: what is it?

Posted: April 8, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Coopergate
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
13
I’ve been thinking about one of the charades in Hansmeier’s deposition, and although I know little about the corporate law (especially international), I risked to do some research and share my findings.

On page 39 of the transcript we read:

Q. So in my experience most trusts name at least one beneficial owner, but I believe you testified earlier today that the trust that owns AF Holdings has no beneficial owners; is that correct?

A. The trust that owns AF Holdings is an undefined beneficiary trust. I would suggest that your experience is not complete when it comes to trusts.

Q. Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is a undefined beneficiary trust? Allow me to be more specific. Can you explain to me what is the undefined beneficiary trust that owns AF Holdings?

Hansmeier evaded answering this question. And this is not an easy question, and Morgan Pietz did not deserve an arrogant remark that his “experience is not complete when it comes to trusts.” Information about trusts without beneficiaries is sparse on the Internet, yet we managed to find one document written by a Nevis’ law firm Liburd and Dash. This essay explains what this beast — a trust without beneficiaries — is about.

Nevis

Such trusts are also called “Purpose trusts” because despite the lack of defined beneficiaries, the trust’s purpose must be clearly defined. This is common around the world if the purpose is charitable, but non-charitable trusts with no defined beneficiaries are widely considered non-kosher even in notorious tax havens, but are perfectly legal in Nevis.

A Purpose Trust established under the laws of Nevis can be a valuable tool in the fields of Estate Administration, Tax Planning and Commercial Transactions. It is a vehicle which ensures that its assets have no beneficial ownership and can achieve a level of anonymity, by removing beneficial ownership and insulating the Source of Funds. However it should have a specific defined purpose and should periodically distribute funds to fulfill that goal. Periodic distributions would prevent any allegation that the Settlor or Source of Funds had no donative intent, and that the Trust is one which was not established for genuine reasons, but is a “sham”. This would allow a Purpose Trust established under the laws of Nevis to enjoy international recognition.

The document is not an easy read for us laymen and laywomen. Yet it may draw the attention of IRS. If anyone from this organization has stumbled upon this post and finds this document interesting (especially in light of Hansmeier’s statements quoted below), do not hesitate to contact me: I’ll connect you with people who possess more information on the subject.

Q. How about tax records. Has AF Holdings ever filed a tax return?

A. I don’t not believe they have filed a tax return in Nevis. I believe there’s an exception that if you’re not recognizing revenue, to filing a tax return, so I don’t not believe they have filed a tax return in Nevis.

Q. Has AF Holdings ever filed a tax return in the United States?

A. I’d have to think about that. I’m not aware of any tax returns that AF Holdings has filed in the United States.

 

Interesting links

Recent mega-leak of offshore business records:

Transcript of the March 11 hearing is now available

Posted: April 8, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Coopergate
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
22

The transcript of the pivotal hearing in Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe (CACD 12-cv-08333) is now available as an exhibit to Blair Chintella’s motion for sanctions, which deserves a separate post (and is a must-read).

Enjoy.

 

Big thanks to Michael Stone for recapping.

Update

I said above that Chintella’s motion deserves a separate post, and intended to write about it, but Popehat beat me on that (Prenda Law: Let The Other Shoes Hit The Floor).

Ken White uploaded all the exhibits to this motion, as well as to another post-April 2 masterpiece — Jason Sweet’s motion for attorney fees in a dismissed (in panic) Lighspeed v. Smith et al. (ILSD 12-cv-00889) I want to point to one particular exhibit: a 1/25/2013 transcript of the hearing in the Hennepin County Court (Minnesota) — a hearing that has two major events associated with it: Spencer Merkel’s affidavit (ohai, Adam Urbanczyk!) and the “Love in the Elevator” serving of John Steele.

Prenda trolls appear in Judge Wright’s courtroom only to plead the Fifth. Furious judge ends the hearing after 12 minutes

Posted: April 2, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Coopergate
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
73

If the last Prenda hearing was a tornado, this one was an earthquake.
Abrupt, powerful, and leaving unclear casualties.

Adam Steinbaugh

 

Basically, the title says it all. I was not there (looking back — fortunately: the travel would be too expensive given the length of the show). I could filter the bits of information from the Twitter feed, but it does not make much sense: Ken White‘s analysis is by far the most read-worthy:

However well grounded in the individual rights of Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy, the invocation eviscerates their credibility as lawyers and the credibility of Prenda Law as an enterprise in every court across the country. I expect that defense attorneys will file notice of if in every state and federal case Prenda Law has brought, through whatever guise or cutout. The message will be stark: the attorneys directing this litigation just took the Fifth rather than answer another judge’s questions about their conduct in this litigation campaign. I expect federal and state judges across the country will take notice and begin their own inquiries.

The consequences for the individuals behind Prenda Law may arrive slowly — particularly by the standards of Twitter and anxious blogs. But they will come — and they may come from many directions at once.

Prenda Law may still be standing. But it’s dead.

I want to make sure that one particular tidbit is not lost: according to an earlier Dark Moe’s tweet, “IRS Agent from L.A. Anti-Money Laundering Unit will be in the audience.”

As in the case of the previous hearing, I’ll try to collect links to all the stories about this short, but “an extinction-level event for Prenda.” Needless to say, this post will be updated as I become aware of new coverage.

Transcript
Featured comment by a witness

Anonymous wrote:

Well there wasn’t really enough drama to do a full narrative writeup. Popehat and Ars have it covered, and Ken’s background provides more insight than I can given there were no new revelations.

But there are a few things I thought were interesting that I don’t think were highlighted in the other coverage:

Steele now has his own attorneys.
Paul Hansmeier has his own attorneys.
Duffy, Van Den Hemel, and Prenda are still represented by Rosing.

Peter Hansmeier and Lutz did not have representation.

Hansmeier and Steele were sitting next to each other and chatting, so they still appear to be buddies.

Duffy entered separately, looked beet red.

Peter Hansmeier looked like he was about to cry at one point.

Paul Hansmeier looks like he has been eating all the settlement money, or maybe he is a stress eater and the last month or so has been particularly rough.

Lutz looks much older than I expected, maybe 40′s. I assumed from his being such a fool, and the antics like showing up to court in flip-flops, that he would look like a 20-something college dropout. He decided to wear a suit this time and looked like someone I would take seriously if I didn’t know better.

I believe Van Den Hemel entered and sat with Lutz, Steele and the Hansmeiers, but not sure if I caught it all, I didn’t know who she was or that she was there yet.

So it looks like factional lines are being drawn.

Nobody took credit for being Alan Cooper, Wright made a particular point of asking if there was an Alan Cooper; I’m sure this is key to whatever he has in mind.

Gibbs was present but basically ignored, the only acknowledgment of him or his lawyer I recall was when Wright thanked Waxler for successfully serving the rest.

Pietz and Ranallo were present and armed to the teeth with boxes of stuff, but I think they only spoke to identify themselves when the hearing began.

Except for Rosing, who seemed like she is at least trying to do her job and put up some fight, the other guys’ attorneys got steamrolled by Wright, they barely even tried. They literally ended up hunched over the table, arms splayed out, mouths hanging open looking like “WTF is happening to us?’

I wanted to get pics of the crew, especially Lutz since he has been the Prenda Mystery Man, but no electronics in the courtroom and they didn’t leave with the crowd, probably slithered out the side doors long after everyone else left.

I will also predict that, with Prenda simply pleading the 5th regarding everything they do, the defamation suit counterclaims will be disastrous for them. Not sure what they can do at this point if they simply won’t answer questions or produce discovery, but at the rate they are going they may be forced to let them go to default judgements.

By the same token, it seems like anyone involved in a Prenda case that hasn’t been dismissed yet has a golden opportunity. Get a counterclaim in, and if they are are simply unwilling to speak about any of their cases, how will they defend it?

A bit anticlimactic, a lot less theater than last time, but it looks like they are seriously screwed.

Featured cartoon

JohnGenryLawyer created a splendid cartoon relevant to the theme of this post. To those who started following Prenda cases only recently: text on the left is from the April 2 hearing transcript, which is embedded above; text on the right is from another famous transcript — of the hearing that took place in Judge Scriven’s courtroom in Tampa in November.

Media coverage

Answers are filed in the Prenda’s defamation lawsuits

Posted: March 21, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
65

Today defense attorneys Jason Sweet and Erin Russell filed answers in two remaining Prenda’s defamation lawsuits:

  • Paul Duffy v. Alan Cooper, Paul Godfread and the Internets, ILND 13-cv-01569 (Answer).
  • Prenda Law v. Alan Cooper, Paul Godfread and the Internets, ILSD 13-cv-00207 (Answer).

Answers are nearly identical and provide ten affirmative defenses. Also, six counterclaims are asserted:

Exhibits:

  • A: Copyright assignment agreement purportedly signed by Alan Cooper.
  • B: Ingenuity 13 Petition (Gibbs, CAED 13-cv-01569).
  • C: Rental agreement signed by the real Alan Cooper.
  • D: Paul Godfread’s December letter filed in four MN AF Holdings lawsuits.
  • E: First Wright’s OSC (February 7, CACD 12-cv-8333).
  • F: Alan Cooper v. Steele et al. complaint (Hennepin, MN).
  • G: Paul Duffy v. Cooper, Godfread & Internets complaint (Cook, IL).
  • H: Prenda Law v. Cooper, Godfread & Internets complaint (St. Claire, IL).
  • I: John Steele v. Cooper, Godfread & Internets complaint (Miami-Date, FL).

 

Note an interesting email sent by Paul Hansmeier to Paul Godfread on 2/21/2013 (p. 16):

Dear Mr. Godfread:

My firm has been retained by Livewire Holdings LLC to pursue claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against you and your coconspirators arising from defamation, civil conspiracy and related acts. The alleged acts occurred in e-mail communications and blog posts describing my client as a criminal enterprise. As you know, such statements constitute defamation per se and are, quite frankly, wildly inappropriate. Less-egregious claims have resulted in multi-million dollar judgments, as I trust this one will. The facts of the underlying case are essentially a law school exam hypothetical of every possible variation of libel. Perhaps you can forward my client’s complaint to your former professors at William Mitchell. My client is well-aware that you are a major contributor to these blog sites. The purpose of this e-mail is to inform you of impending litigation so that you preserve all relevant evidence in your possession including, but not limited to, communications between yourself and David Camaratto, Morgan Pietz, Nicholas Ranallo and any other individuals associated directly or indirectly with the sites fightcopyrighttrolls and dietrolldie. Further, any and all other evidence that might be relevant to this matter must, of course, be preserved. I suspect that you aligned yourself with these defamatory efforts as a marketing strategy. I don’t know if these efforts paid off, but I can assure you that making baseless accusations of criminal conduct is not a wise move for a licensed attorney. All of that being said, my client knows that you didn’t work alone in these wrongful efforts. If you think we are missing out on more serious actors in your enterprise my client would be willing to consider decreasing your liability in exchange for information about these individuals. Of course, that interest will disappear if someone else comes forward first. Think it over and let me know. If you’re willing to take the fall for whole group then you are decidedly a “true believer.”

Welcome to the big leagues.

Paul

“Big leagues” is a relative term, and even if Prenda’s attorneys believe to be superior to Paul Godfread (which is a highly questionable claim), current defense (don’t forget to add EFF to the bunch) is obviously a couple of leagues higher. No matter what an endeavor is, hubris is a bad companion.

Update
  • On 3/26/2013 defense attorneys filed a motion to transfer one of the two cases from the IL Southern district to IL Northern district. A memorandum supplements the motion.
Media coverage

Prendacalypse #2: Judge Wright orders a follow-up hearing on April 2; no excuses for not appearing

Posted: March 14, 2013 by SJD in Clans, Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
102
Although an epic hearing on 3/11/2013 was already devastating for Prenda, Judge Otis Wright apparently did not finish his job then: he has ordered a new hearing on 3/29/2013 4/2/2013¹, admonishing the alleged fraudsters for the failure to appear on March 11. Although they have enough time for weaselry — I’m sure that Steele & Co. will do everything possible not to be put under oath in front of Wright — it will be a very-very bad idea not to come to LA on March 29 April 2. Very bad idea. The countdown timer on the left has been reset.

Media coverage

 

¹Update: the hearing has been moved to 4/2/2013 for purely administrative reasons, I guess.

Older Entries