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.)

Malibu Media v. Andrew Leightner et al (INSD 12-cv-00845) is a long and eventful lawsuit, one of 866 extortion cases filed by copyright troll Lipscomb’s outfit on behalf of Malibu Media¹. “Malibu Media” is an alternative name of a hardcore pornography producer X-Art owned by Brigham Field and Colette Pelissier. This “company,” Malibu Media, was created by Keith Lipscomb and jaded, soulless pornographers with a sole goal of robbing US citizens of their savings. This plaintiff is involved in a closely watched Bellwether trial in Pennsylvania.

In Indiana (as well as in Illinois and Michigan) Lipscomb’s local lackey is a Michigan attorney Paul Nicoletti, a sleazy opportunist with a very questionable past (explained below). Well, while I doubt that any attorney in the trolling business has a slightest idea what dignity is, Nicoletti is apparently on the very bottom of the list sorted by scumbaggery: only Prenda’s attorneys would proudly occupy the space below him.

It would be a Herculean task to overview the history of this case, which already amassed 194 documents. I want to concentrate only on this week’s events.

Judge: You cannot silence the opposing counsel, especially without presenting any evidence

Attorney Paul Overhouser represents two defendants in this case (out of eight defendants in Indiana Lipscomb’s cases). Apparently, earlier this week Paul communicated to Nicoletti that there would be a motion containing something incriminating him. Trying to prevent it, panicking Nicoletti requested an emergency phone conference in every case where Overhouser has been representing defendants:

Plaintiff has recently been informed by counsel for Defendants Chris Minor and Teresa Stephenson that he intends to file certain documents with the Court. The proposed documents are not relevant to this case. The documents are solely intended to embarrass undersigned. Defendant is threatening to file the offensive documents so that he may gain an unfair advantage in this litigation in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and possibly one or more bar rules.

Magistrate Judge
Mark J. Dismore

Well, Nicoletti forgot that this country is governed by the US Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, which preempts his silly “arguments.” Fortunately, Judge Mark Dinsmore² did not forget about it and denied this disingenuous request outright:

Plaintiff’s motion seeks a telephone conference to discuss certain material that may be filed by counsel for Defendant and to “enjoin Defendant from filing any papers that could be construed as embarrassing to undersigned counsel until after such hearing.” First, any sort of injunction on the filing of motions or other documents, particularly in the entirely abstract scenario presented by the Plaintiff by this motion, could well constitute an impermissible prior restraint upon Defendant’s free speech rights. However, more fundamentally, until demonstrated otherwise, the Court assumes that all counsel that appear before it are aware of and endeavor to comply with the relevant rules, decisions and statutes that govern their conduct before the Court. To grant Plaintiff’s motion would be to presume, in the absence of any evidence, Defendant’s counsel’s intent to not comply with such rules, decisions and statutes. The Court does and must expect such compliance and, if any counsel fails in that duty, can then exercise the full extent of its authority to punish such failure. But an invitation to presume and/or enjoin such non-compliance in the absence of any evidence thereof is an invitation the Court cannot accept. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED.

A powerful motion

I hope that you will agree with me that Nicoletti’s fear was not unfounded. Today the promised motion (to require plaintiff to post a bond) was filed by Overhouser.

The requested bond size may sound shocking: half a million dollars ($250,000 per defendant), but if you read along, you will understand why: Lipscomb’s main enemy is his narcissism (not much different from John Steele’s):

Malibu’s attorneys acknowledge that “the average cost of copyright litigation is 600K through trial,” and this should be a factor in resolving cases:

[From Lipscomb’s email to Brad Partick — I mentioned this disgusting email last year]

[...]Toward that end, you should also apprise your clients that the average cost of a copyright litigation is 600K through trial, according to AIPLA survey of fees in IP cases. This is a relatively simple case, but the fees will the nevertheless be substantial and indubitably in the 6 figures.

Arguing why such bond is necessary, Overhauser brings the most damning topics:

• Judge Wright’s order (of course!);
• Granted motion to post a bond in AF Holdings v. Trinh, and today’s judgment to award fees against AF Holdings;
• Similarity between Prenda Law and Lipscomb’s outfit (remember how Steele extended his helping hand to one of Lipscomb’s locals?);
• Fantalis’s fight against Malibu Media and its trolls Lipscomb and Kotzker;
• New tendency in judges’ rulings — to question the methods and candor of forensic “experts” who supply the list of IP addresses of alleged infringers;
• Nicoletti’s rotten character (see the next chapter).

In addition to arguing that the bond is necessary in this particular lawsuit’s needs, Overhouser urges the court to grant the bond for an additional reason — to deter future extortionate activities by Lipscomb and other trolls:

In exercising its “wide” discretion, the Court should also consider that frivolous litigation brought by intellectual property “trolls” is a growing societal problem that burdens the judiciary.

[...]

Requiring a Plaintiff like Malibu to post a bond for possible defense costs early in the case will deter it and other Plaintiffs who attempt to “outmaneuver the legal system” and “plunder the citizenry.”

Concluding, Overhouser asks the court for something that would stop this type of lawsuit abuse in Indiana for good:

If this motion is granted, Defendants also invite the Court to consider entering Orders to Show Cause why Defendants [sic: should be Plaintiffs] should not be required to post bond in the other cases filed by Mr. Nicoletti in Indiana (Exhibit 11).

This motion is not long, well written and powerful. Enjoy:

One simply cannot cease being a crook

Copyright troll Paul Nicoletti

There are 14 exhibits, the majority of which are rulings and pleading from other cases. The new one is #13 — a list of cases involving Paul Nicoletti, which also includes multiple sanctions levied against him plus other documents supporting the simple truth that Nicoletti desperately tried to hide from the world: this “attorney” is one of the sleaziest and most despicable human beings.

Thanks to Raul for contributing to this article.

¹1,129 together with the second Lipscomb’s favorite pornographer Patrick Collins.

²Involvement of Judge Dinsmore is heartwarming. If you read this scheduling order from another case, you will understand why.

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

• ArsTechnica: Prenda shell ordered to pay $9,425 in attorney’s fees by Joe Mullin.
• TechDirt: Another Court Tells Prenda To Pay Up On Attorneys Fees by Mike Masnick.

Ah, Prenda’s local in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire… The amount 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 was irrelevant because Georgia did not endorse gay marriage…

Nazaire met (and somewhat exceeded) expectation this time: in his yet another attempt (in the AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel, GAND 12-cv-00262) to shield the judge from the damning truth — that Prenda, according to Judge Wright, is a bunch of fraudsters, tax evaders and identity thieves.

10. The undersigned does not know the answer to that question. However, it must be noted that defendants (not the one herein) in these types of cases, typically employ various crafty and intimidating schemes against prosecutors and plaintiff’s attorneys. A newspaper article mentioning other types of intimidation is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.

11. Furthermore the undersigned has been personally harassed by these types of defendants (not the defendant in this instant case nor the individuals listed in Exhibit A) because of THIS case alone. (Please see Plaintiff’s Exhibit B attached hereto).

This is intriguing enough to jump to Pacer and download the exhibits. And what do we find?

Exhibit A: a newspaper article about Anonymous performing a DDoS attack on PayPal in 2010… Wow.

Exhibit B: a nasty, yet absolutely irrelevant email:

Well, the Prenda gang members are not new to using nasty emails sent to them for the purpose of moving judges to pity. Only this time the email contained a question, which Nazaire has perfectly answered himself by filing the Exhibit A.

Featured comment

Mysterious Anonymous on May 22, 2013 at 5:06 pm:

Let me get this straight.

He’s trying to argue that the fact that the firm he represents has been found to be defrauding the courts, committing ID theft, and has been catastrophically sanctioned for that behavior via monetary sanctions (that they are currently refusing to comply with) and criminal referrals to the USAO and IRS, is totally irrelevant to the case before the Georgia court.

And to support this argument (that the so-called irrelevant documents should not be filed), he files a couple of documents that, by his own admission, are totally irrelevant?

Now we know why this guy has to work for Prenda.

Update

5/24/2013

Defendant, through Blair Chintella, replied to Nazaire’s bizarre pleading. Translation from Legalese:

Exhibits A & B: WTF??

Also, Chintella tweeted that the sanction motion hearing is set to June 20, 2013.

Media coverage

• TechDirt: Prenda Lawyer Says Georgia Court Should Ignore Judge Wright’s Order Because… Look! Hackers! by Mike Masnick.

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.

People aren’t embarrassed when their neighbors find out they downloaded a few songs, but illegally trading midget, tranny, facials, and teen porn content? There is some news worth keeping from the wife, kids, parents, and neighbors.

Please feel free to continue to compare this to the RIAA…

Steve Lightspeed

(He said this in the context of hiring John Steele.)

I heard stories about troll harassers/collectors (not only Prenda’s, but Lipscomb’s, for example) threatening to tell relatives, neighbors, and colleagues that the victim is being sued in connection to an illegal download of pornography. Along these lines, Lipscomb’s collectors inflicted more harm upon citizenry than anyone else — see Fantalis’s story.

Paul Duffy: “Pleaded Fifth? So what?!”
(Click to enlarge)

Yet I never saw these threats explicitly written in a demand letter — until yesterday. No one else but Prenda came up with a new sleaze at the time when the entire gang, including the ethically handicapped attorney who signed it (Paul Duffy), pleaded the Fifth and was referred to the authorities for criminal investigation (as a matter of fact, Duffy pleaded the Fifth twice). Last week people started receiving new letters, this time not from involuntarily dissolved Duffy Law Group (like in April), not from fake/shell corporations, but from the “Anti-Piracy Law Group,” the latest Prenda reincarnation. An explicit threat to call one’s neighbors was added to this masterpiece of douchebaggery (emphasis is mine):

[...] The purpose of this step is to gather evidence about who used your Internet account to steal from our client [sjd: never mind that this case is about hacking, not copyright infringement]. The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house. In the coming days we will contact these individuals to investigate whether they have any knowledge of the acts described in my client’s prior letter. [...]

Anything goes if it helps to scare an uninformed extortion target:

[...] Internet is full of stories of people being brought to court by our firm, incurring significant legal fees and suffering large judgments [...]

I don’t know what part of their bodies these guys use for thinking: to see what kind of stories people will find, try to google “Anti-Piracy Law Group,” or visit antipiracylawgroup.com (copy and paste to make sure that this is real).

If I was not a relatively modest kind, I would tell you what to do with such letter. But you know it without me if you spend an hour surfing the “Internet full of stories.”

By the way: the lopsided second page is not a result of faulty scanning. This is exactly how the original printed letter looks like. Also, we probably have a new definition of “Chutzpah,” since the letters are dated 5/7/2013 — the very next day after Judge Wright’s smackdown.

Good news

I want to finish on a lighter note.

I hope that everyone is familiar with Friday’s surprise interview that John Steele gave to ArsTechnica. It does not make sense to discuss the things this narcissistic megalomaniac said on the record. I keep wondering if this pretentious paltry creature understands the extent of the damage he inflicts upon himself and his buddies when he opens his mendacious mouth in public. Funny enough, Jason Sweet used Steele’s words from this interview to argue against Prenda in the evening of the exact same Friday!

While the entire interview is good news overall, there is more to it: while John struggles with mastering a delicate art of shutting-the-fuck-up, some people are doing their job in silence. And some of them visit this site in the line of their duty:

I like it. I like it a lot.

Media coverage

• TorrentFreak: Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates by Ernesto.
• Gizmodo: Latest Porno Torrent Blackmail: Pay Up Or We Tell Your Family, Perv by Eric Limer.
• Techdirt: Team Prenda Not Only Still Shaking Down People, But Also Threatening To Tell Their Neighbors About Porn Habits by Mike Masnick.
• ArsTechnica: New Prenda letter threatens to tell neighbors about porn accusations by John Mullin.
• Livre Navegar: Homem é acusado de piratear filme porno e Indústria pornográfica ameaça contar para seus vizinhos.
• Slashdot: New Prenda Law Shell Corp Threatening to Tell Your Neighbors You Pirated Porn.

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

Media coverage

• TechDirt: Judge Wright Tells Team Prenda To Pay $80k, Refers Their Activity To State Bars, Feds & IRS by Mike Masnick.
• Wired: Judge Asks IRS, Feds to Investigate Copyright-Trolling Attorneys by David Kravets.
• Popehat: Does Prenda Believe In No-Win Scenarios? Because Judge Wright Just Gave Them One by Ken White.
• ArsTechnica: Prenda hammered: Judge sends porn-trolling lawyers to criminal investigators by Joe Mullin.
• TorrentLawyer (Rob Cashman) has reblogged this post adding some interesting thoughts.
• DieTrollDie: Judge Wright Fires One Hell Of A Photon Torpedo at Prenda Law — 2:12-cv-08333 (CA).
• StarTribune (MN): California judge slams Minneapolis attorneys in copyright trolling cases by Dan Browning.
• Los Angeles Times: Judge fines firm for improperly enforcing porn copyrights by Stuart Pfeifer.
• TorrentFreak: Federal Judge Fires Phasers, Photons at Prenda for $80k Damages by Ben Jones.
• Madison-St. Claire Record: Wrath of Wright: Federal judge applies ‘Star Trek’ theme in sanctioning copyright lawyers by Ann Maher.
• The Register (UK): Judge hands copyright troll an epic smack-down By Richard Chirgwin.
• Gizmodo: Judge Unleashes Star Trek Assault on Prenda Porn Troll After “Blatant Lie” by Gary Cutlack.
• Slashdot: Judge Refers Prenda Copyright Trolls To Criminal Investigators.
• BoingBoing: Prenda law judge says porno copyright trolls are frauds, identity thieves; $80K in fines and disbarment pending by Cory Doctorow.
• Salon: Bad day to be a porn lawyer by Andrew Leonard.
• XBiz: Sanctions Ordered Against Porn Piracy Litigants by Rhett Pardon.
  

  Steele on Tuesday told XBIZ that he plans on appealing Wright’s order with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  “Obviously we don’t agree on the ruling,” Steele said. “Judge Wright based his order on an eight-minute hearing where there was no testimony, no evidence introduced. Clearly Judge Wright does not like this type of litigation and he’s no fan of intellectual property law.”

• Above the Law blog: Prenda Boldly Benchslapped Where No One Has Gone Before by Joe Patrice.
• The unofficial Otis D. Wright, II Statue Fundraiser on indiegogo.
• TechDirt: John Steele Plans To Appeal Judge Wright’s Order; Says Judge Is ‘No Fan Of IP Law’ by Mike Masnick.
• The National Law Journal: Judge Lashes Out at ‘Fraud’ in Porn Infringement Claims by Amanda Bronstad.
• The Guardian: The best judicial ruling you will ever read (Trust us, just read it) by Adam Gabbatt.
• ArsTechnica: Why weren’t the Prenda porn trolls stopped years ago? by Nate Anderson.
• Courthouse News Service: Judge Refers ‘Porno-Trolling’ Law Firm to Feds by Matt Reynolds.
• EFF Deeplinks blog: Prenda Law Is The Tip of the Iceberg by Mitch Stoltz.
• ArsTechnica: Prenda lawyer downplays devastating order, promises appeal by Joe Mullin.
• Business Insider: Judge Slams ‘Troll’ Lawsuit Against Illegal Porn Downloaders by Erin Fuchs.
• Forbes: Sanctions May Be Least Of ‘Copyright Troll’ Worries As Matter Is Referred To Feds, IRS by Kelly Phillips Erb.
• Techdirt: John Steele, Silent In Court, Keeps Talking To The Press; Says New Lawsuits Are Being Filed by Mike Masnick.
• ABC: Judge Slaps Attorneys For Alleged Porn Shakedown by Alan Farnham.
• TechDirt: Why Prenda Has Been Able To Proceed For Years: The Whole Setup Was Too Brazen by Mike Masnick.

As you may recall, M. Keith Lipscomb’s porn extortion enterprise hit a bump in the road last October when Judge Baylson of the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, more or less, directed Lipscomb to bring some of his copyright troll lawsuits to a verdict so as to ascertain whether these lawsuits were legitimate or not. Of course this direction is contrary to the usual porn copyright business model, which is to obtain the personal identifying information of the person who pays the ISP bill, harass the shit out of said person to pay thousands to settle, and then dismiss the lawsuit once it gets either (a) uncomfortable due to heightened judicial scrutiny or (b) grows stale with the maximum settlements deemed achieved. Aside from the Fantalis matter in Colorado this is the first lawsuit in which a copyright troll’s evidence will be tested in a court of law. Accordingly, SJD and others have been reporting on this lawsuit as it progresses and SJD’s coverage is here, here, here, and here.

Question: How do you gather and refine your evidence to prepare for a trial (the first of its kind in the US) which is set to begin on June 10th? Answer: If you are M. Keith Lipscomb, in the most overreaching and last minute fashion humanly possible.

One example of this has been his sloppy, roughshod trampling of privacy concerns in the third party discovery of ISP Verizon which has been covered by others, including TechDirt, as well as the incredibly invasive demand for “Six Strikes” info.

A more recent example of this overreaching and slipshod trial preparation was disclosed last week when Lipscomb filed an Emergency Motion to allow the plaintiff entry into John Doe 16’s home for the purpose of making forensic copies of his hard drives. The basis for this motion is that the copies of the hard drives previously provided by this party are unreadable which Lipscomb just discovered on April 30th due to the illness and resulting death on April 26th of one of his two experts witnesses. Conspicuously absent from this motion is an affidavit from the surviving expert witness explaining why the copies are unreadable and when this problem was discovered.

Keep in mind the trial is set to begin on June 10th and discovery should have been completed some time ago.

In opposition to this motion the attorney for John Doe 16, Ronald Smith, points out with well-deserved indignation that Lipscomb’s expert witnesses had been sitting on these supposedly unreadable copies for 4 months!

It appears unequivocal that Defendant’s counsel first learned of this problem on May 1, 2013, after the scheduling of this case for Trial. How or why, with a period of over four months, could the parties not be made aware of the difficulty in discovery and now at the midnight hour request an opening of the discovery process when trial is only days away. At this late juncture, not only has Defendant’s counsel for John Doe 16 been prejudiced, but perhaps other counsel in this matter who have indicated that they have had no choice but to settle.

Furthermore defense counsel underlines what by now is obvious:

Plaintiff’s counsel has been egregious in the handling of this case and at this late date the rewarding of and opening of discovery will not only penalized John Doe 16 but the other parties as well.

A telephone conference is scheduled for tomorrow regarding this example of sloppy and overreaching trial preparation and let’s hope that Judge Baylson is not in a forgiving mood.
Filed under: Bellwether trial, Lipscomb ]]> http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/05/05/bellwether-trial-update-how-not-to-prepare-for-trial/feed/ 30 raul4117 http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/05/04/prenda-v-the-rest-of-the-world/ http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/05/04/prenda-v-the-rest-of-the-world/#comments Sat, 04 May 2013 19:37:01 +0000 SJD http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/?p=6756 ]]> If you have been following Theatre of Absurd “Prenda” for a while, you’ll smile, chuckle, giggle, and laugh out loud more than once. Enjoy.

Prenda’s Sunlust Pictures LLC, v. Nguyen, (12-cv-01685) has started as a comedy, continued as a farce, and now enters the Theatre of the Absurd domain.

Last time I wrote about this eventful lawsuit less than a month ago and covered two significant events:

• On 4/11/2013 defense attorney Graham Syfert stipulated withdrawal of his motion for sanctions against Matt Wasinger¹ and Brett Gibbs. As a part of the agreement, Gibbs filed a declaration, which unambiguously stated that the real puppeteers in this and hundreds of other lawsuits had always been John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. These two crooks continue to vigorously deny their involvement amid the overwhelming evidence and the deafening sounds of the spectators’ reflexive facepalms.
• On 4/23/2013 Judge Mary Scriven issued a strongly worded order, granting Wasinger’s motion to withdraw and directing the plaintiff to urgently find a new counsel, who must promptly reply to Syfert’s pending motion for fees and costs. The judge was clear: if the substitution does not happen, this motion will be granted.

The actors in this comedy/farce/absurd case continue to live up to our expectations: four pleadings of various entertainment values were filed over the course of one week — since 4/29/2013.

Theatre of the absurd and alternate history

The fist and the funniest document is John Steele’s pro se motion for sanctions (he excused himself for publicly doing pro se despite being represented because “Brett Gibbs’ [sic] contradictory testimony in this matter has created an apparent conflict of interest…” — see the Footnote 1).

In a pot-calls-the-kettle-back fashion, Steele accuses Syfert of a fraud on the court. Why? Because, according to Steele’s words (and John is a paragon of candor, as you all know), the abovementioned Gibbs’s declaration is “demonstrably false.”

Wow. Let me remind you that Judge Scriven dismissed this very case (emphasis is mine)

[...] for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative [...]

Prenda’s paralegal Mark Lutz,
without a coat and a tie

Let’s get back to Gibbs’s declaration… An obvious main goal of Steele’s motions is to neutralize the devastating effect of the said declaration, to “prove” that Gibbs is essentially lying, and hence to get spared from Syfert’s motions for sanctions (and a nationwide avalanche of similar motions).

To facilitate this “proof,” Steele presents a couple of exhibits (not separate PDFs, but appended to the motion):

• An email from Syfert to Steele’s/Gibbs’s attorney Katherine Yanes, which does not stand out as anything illegal and/or unethical — a usual lawyerly correspondence, which Syfert definitely expected to be publicized: it happens all the time.
• Mark Lutz’s declaration that presents an alternate history (a popular science fiction genre), but does it by also using the legacy of the XX century absurdists.
  • According to this declaration, Mark knew Daniel Weber and his generous wife Sunny Leone very well and spoke to them “multiple times in the past.” In real world, he denied this knowledge under oath on 11/27/2012. By the way, in his statement Lutz misspelled Weber’s last name (“Webber”).
  • There is an interesting exhibit to Mark Lutz’s declaration — a “Letter of Engagement” — signed by Paul Duffy purportedly on 11/15/2011. This document is not only absurd, but also, according to Syfert, a fake one (read the next chapter).
    
    Mark has been a big businessmen (albeit without a tie), a manager of his own adult companies. He even hired Prenda to represent his companies in courts! Big client my ass! It does not matter that in real, not alternate history, during the last two years a paralegal Mark Lutz (or, sometimes his alter-DID-ego Jeff Schultz) made thousands of calls with the signature line “This is Prenda Law calling,” and who listed himself as a “Client Services Manager for Prenda Law” on his (now removed) LinkedIn page. His notarized (on 1/10/2012) affidavit (page 15) unambiguously states:

    1. I am Mark Lutz, a paralegal formally at Steele Hansmeier, PLLC, and now employed by Prenda Law, Inc.

    So, Mark Lutz employed Prenda at the same time Prenda employed Mark Lutz. Marvelous. “In order to understand recursion, you must understand recursion.”

And this is just a couple of examples of small lies, half-truths and bluffs. If you read the November 27 transcript and Steele’s motion/Lutz’s declaration side by side, you will be overwhelmed with the number of contradictory statements.

The games Steele plays are ballsy and dangerous. Gibbs, most likely, has tons of evidence to support his claims, while Steele has to resort to stories that make Ionescu plays look concise.

Naturally, by neglecting a time-consuming task to reconcile statements made at different times, these guys want to buy as much time as possible to collect an extra buck (the extortion machine is still runs full revs: people report Lutz’s harassment calls and Duffy’s illegal letters daily). The only difference is that the time these guys are buying is now packaged in very small bags.

Graham Syfert’s third motion for sanctions: accusations of faking a document

I will not comment on Syfert’s third motion for sanctions that was filed on 5/1/203, soon after Steeles’ pro se short story in the alternate history genre. Unlike that story, the document embedded below can be read without rolling your eyes and shaking your head. In short,

• Syfert adds a new “non-party” to the list of those who should be sanctioned, namely Paul Hansmeier, which is expected and natural.
• In addition, Syfert shows the results of his homework: he went through hundreds of filings in order to solidly debunk new Steele/Lutz’s horseshit. Specifically, based on the genesis of Prenda’s letterheads, Syfert shows that the “Letter of engagement” could not possibly be signed at the alleged time: in 2011 all the letters contained Prenda’s Miami address, while the exhibit to Steele’s delirious motion shows the Chicago address only — a change that did not happen until around 2/29/2012.

White collar crime defenders look to withdraw from this mess. Judge Scriven strikes Steele’s motion

Steele’s motion discussed above was stricken on 5/2/2013 by the judge: according to the M.D. Fla. Local Rule 2.03(d),

Any party for whom a general appearance of counsel has been made shall not thereafter take any step or be heard in the case in proper person, absent prior leave of Court…

In other words, while a party (or a non-party) is represented, it cannot file pleadings pro se. Although Steele’s “white collar crime defending” attorneys indicated their intention to withdraw from the case (yet asking for an extension citing Brett Gibb’s out-of-the country honeymoon), they still formally represent Steele.

If you re-read Steele’s motion, you will find another yummy irony: by arguing that Syfert broke one of the M.D. Fla. Local Rules and filed his second motion for sanction without leave of court, Steele demonstrated once again his ability to read the rules selectively: as I just mentioned, the basis for striking his motion can be found in the same set of rules.

There is one unanswered question: what are the implications of Steele’s motion being stricken from the docket? I’m mostly concerned about the exhibits, one of which is claimed to be fake (“Letter of Engagement”) and the other may lead to perjury charges (Lutz’s affidavit). If the entire document is stricken, can the exhibits be admitted as evidence for any purpose? So far I couldn’t find the answer.

Mark Twain to Prenda

Once upon a time, in an alternate history, Mark Twain was addressing Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs and Lutz. One of his wise phrases from that speech is particularly worth reminding:

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

¹ Reminder: Wasinger is one of the tree short-term attorneys for Sunlust on this case: all of them, after learning the extent of Prenda’s infamous douchebaggery, ran from this case as from plague.