Posts Tagged ‘Copyright Troll’

Is Prenda winding down? Not until its principals are in jail

Posted: June 17, 2013 by SJD in Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
26

In a recent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Paul Duffy wrote:

Prenda Law is currently winding down its operations and is in the process of dismissing its remaining cases pursuant to the instructions of its clients [sic]. In some instances, the requests for dismissals are being opposed, resulting in delays and ongoing law and motion proceedings that have precluded Prenda Law from completely ceasing its operations.

Fortunately, everyone, including judges (well, except some either lazy or gullible ones), takes these words with a grain pound of salt. Whom do you want to deceive, Paul/John/Paul? Bullshitting a Court of Appeals is a very good idea. Go on, we are ready for an illustrious show.

So, while a San Diego law firm Klinedist has been doing its best to avoid unavoidable — a total destruction of SS Prenda — in a joke of a court that is located in St. Clair County IL, a brand new shake-down campaign is underway. Unbelievable chutzpah. In this judicial stinking hole, where even the chief judge is seemingly in bed with Prenda (Judge Baricevic signed a carte blanche “agreed order,” the document that no self-respecting judge would even consider signing), a new lawsuit/petition was filed on April 15: Peg Leg Productions v. Charter Communications. Who are the signers? Paul Duffy and Kevin Hoerner. Of course.

 

I don’t want even try to go into this garbage petition’s details, it is too obvious what’s going on here.

So, what the hell is “Peg Leg Productions”? A painfully familiar name offends our sight once again:

 

Let’s reiterate the dates (I’ll omit many secondary events: refer to a titanic job by John Henry, who organized all the events in a nice timeline):

  • April 2: Prenda principals plead the Fifth declining to answer questions about the bogus corporations and their roles in those corporations.
  • April 15: A new lawsuit/petition Peg Leg Productions v. Charter was conceived in a scandal-rigged St. Clair County court.
  • May 6: Fleet Admiral Judge Otis Wright slammed his massive hammer on the Prenda player’s heads.
  • May 28: An entity that managed to file a lawsuit 1.5 months earlier was finally created: Lutz & [unborn] Sons as a CEO.
  • June 14: In an “emergency” motion, ostensibly Paul Duffy stated that “Prenda is winding down its operations.” And please, John Steele, don’t insult judges’ intelligence once again, bullshitting that Lutz’s funny businesses are independent from Prenda; that you, Hansmeier, Prenda, and Lutz have nothing to do with each other.

 

I must give a credit to some sense of humor our crooks have shown: referring to a stereotypical pirate attribute is funny, and at the same time is an unambiguous hint to who is the actual pirate.

 

Update

6/17/2013

Today Morgan Pietz filed his response to Prenda’s “emergency” appeal that incorporates the same findings that are the subject of this post. I’m happy to note that Morgan came to the same conclusions: he illustrated that despite Duffy’s claims (made under oath), the stubborn facts do not corroborate those claims.

Reader’s comment: Shame on you Keith Lipscomb and shame on you X-Art

Posted: June 12, 2013 by SJD in Bellwether trial, Community contributions, Lipscomb
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
116

I still can’t push myself to listen to the Bellwether trial audio recordings. While I’m procrastinating, some opinions began to emerge on the web, and the chorus of those opinions is not singing in unison:

 

One particular comment to my recent post has struck me as very insightful: I simply couldn’t help making a post out of it. Thanks to the author, whoever he is.

 

By Anonymous

X-Art
The “Winning” Team:
Patrick Paige, Tobias Fieser,
Christopher Fiore,
Colette Pelissier/Field,
Keith Lipscomb, Michael Patzer

You know, I’m listening to the audio transcript, and I have to say it’s worth doing so just to hear the cringe-worthy ass-kissing of the judge by Lipscomb in the beginning. Listening to it, you’d think the bellwether trial was Lipscomb being raised to Master Mason or something. His tone is so sycophantic that even the judge, clearly embarrassed, admonishes him for his unsubtle brown-nosing. Were you not aware of how the trial was going to go, you’d almost feel embarrassed for Lipscomb. If nothing else, the transcript is worth listening to just to get a fix on Lipscomb’s voice and manner — it is plainly indicative of the kind of man he is.

As it goes on, Lipscomb’s voice is bugging me more and more — it reminds me of something.

Far different from John Steele’s vaguely simian mumble-grunts, Lipscomb sounds like the guy who got shoved into lockers and had his glasses smashed by minions of same kind of people who now run Malibu Media (or people like John Steele, now that I think about it). I don’t know anything about Lipscomb, but just listening to this transcript, you get the sense of a very small man on stilts: Now that he’s a lawyer he gets to hang out with the popular kids who once shunned him and pushed him around, and he has, in predictable fashion, taken pleasure in tormenting others as he was once tormented. No more smashing Keith’s glasses and pushing him into a locker! He runs with the cool people now and he’s finally going to experience the sublime pleasure of ruining people, and getting paid to do it.

And then it hit me: Shoeshine Boy. Underdog’s meek, milquetoast alter-ego. That is what Keith Lipscomb’s voice sounds like, to me.

Two other things, on another note

(a) Any mention of Malibu Media on blogs should always mention X-Art. People searching on X-Art should see the way they treat people — hits to this blog and others should be near the top in search hit lists. There are thousands of ways to spend money on pornography on the Internet. People ought to really consider whether enriching these people serves any purpose, given the alternatives. The tendency of pornographers to regularly conflate the “right to be compensated for work” and “destroying people’s lives because that’s how the statutes read” needs to be brought to light: they are not the same thing.

Pornographers and their advocates insist regularly that because an argument can be made that downloading porn you didn’t pay for is wrong (and illegal), that an appropriate and proportional remedy is to relegate people to debt slavery. X-Art seems to have no moral compunction about doing this and people who are going to pay for porn ought to think about, concerns about sexual exploitation aside, whether or not they want to pay sanction to people who behave this way. I sure wouldn’t want the Malibu people as neighbors, and I sure as hell wouldn’t give them my money.

(b) A lot of bad blood could have been avoided by simply sending out settlement letters asking people whose IP addresses they subpoenaed to buy a year’s subscription to their site. Not only would this have grown their subscriber base (and compensated them for supposedly lost revenues from torrenting), but maybe people would have found a subscription worthwhile and renewed it (not only for the content but for having been treated equitably).

Maybe positive word of mouth (“Good Guy X-Art”) would have attracted other people to the site as well (“Look how good our stuff is — we think a subscription is worth buying and we think you’ll agree.”). X-Art has decided to be the sleazeballs people tend to assume all pornographers are. I understand feeling like you’re being ripped off and you’re angry about it, and I understand insisting on compensation and even reasonable damages — I cannot understand a human conscience that believes wrecking lives and relationships is a just response to such relatively minor transgressions — transgressions I would add that in balance probably drive more subscriptions to your site than actually deprive you of revenue. The greatest fallacy in anti-piracy arguments comes into play here: the idea that every download represents a lost sale.

It doesn’t. It never has.

Lastly, I admit to some fascination with Keith Lipscomb’s putative religious roots. He is now being compensated to humiliate people, possibly wreck families, and even destroy people’s lives on behalf of pornographers. Even if one takes the road of principle, that people ought to be compensated for the content they produce, I wonder if he has any pangs of conscience whatsoever about completely steamrolling people for blagging one molecule out of a giant landfill of pornography that covers the Internet. I get a pang of conscience when I kill a moth by mistake or go through the express checkout aisle with one too many items — I would love to get into Lipscomb’s head for just five minutes to know what it is like to be him. His grossly exaggerated description of BitTorrent bringing on the Tortpocalypse (or something — he made some sort of ludicrous exaggeration along these lines) is so absurd, I cannot accept that he believes what is coming out of his own mouth. Or maybe the problem that as a pornography lawyer, Keith Lipscomb has fallen so far, that he actually does. And that’s sad.

I’m not a religious person — and even when I was, I was a horrible sinner, but I might make an exception and say a prayer for Keith Lipscomb. I hope he truly questions what values it is he is serving and how he is living his life before it is too late.

I have no such hopes for the pornographers he represents. I am sure they believe themselves to be honorable business people who are the victims of Internet porn hounds. But I think when you get to a point that you’ve decided to slap your name on pornography, you’ve damn near reached the moral point of no return. Like a sort of ethical diabetes, human conscience is just ineffective at curbing your worst instincts anymore, and little you do triggers any sense of guilt or shame… or mercy.

Shame on you Keith Lipscomb and shame on you X-Art.

Copyright troll Lipscomb makes up facts, forges signature and gets away with it

Posted: June 9, 2013 by SJD in Lipscomb
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
27

This event took place more than a year ago, but I was not aware of it until Raul’s yesterday’s tweet. Yet this story is relevant today because tomorrow the slimiest copyright troll in history M. Keith Lipscomb most likely will be asking Judge Baylson (in what remained from once so promising Bellwether trial in Philadelphia) to refer Doe 16 to the DOJ for committing perjury. At the same time, this troll was caught in deeds that I think are no less grave than perjury — namely forgery. The following is just a single story, a tip of the iceberg.

Lipscomb filed Patrick Collins v. Does 1-4 (FLSD 11-cv-60571) back in 2011, adding 21 Does later (Doc. 17). Long story short, the lawsuit boiled down to a single named defendant, Elizabeth Congote, who apparently had been trying to avoid service: after numerous attempts her purported boyfriend accepted the summons on 12/5/2011.

On 12/6/2011 Judge K. Michael Moore denied Lipscomb’s motion to extend time (Doc. 49) and ordered (Paperless Doc. 58) to file a joint scheduling report by 12/13/2011 and threatened to dismiss the case otherwise.

Still unable to contact the defendant, Lipscomb got crafty and… made up the report as if it was indeed written together with the defendant: the language unambiguously suggests a joint effort (“The parties suggest,” “The parties propose” etc.). Moreover, you can see the defendant’s electronic signature at the bottom.

 

Firstly, there is no such thing as a pro se electronic signature. FLSD rules are quite strict:

Pro se litigants will not be permitted to register as Users at this time. Pro se litigants must file their documents in the conventional manner.

There is a provision for joint signing, but obviously, Lipscomb ran afoul of it:

In the case of a stipulation or other document to be signed by two or more persons, the filer should: submit a scanned document containing all necessary signatures; or, indicate the consent of the other parties on the document; or, file the document identifying the parties whose signatures are required and submit a notice of endorsement by the other parties no later than three business days after the filing. A model form (Form C) is attached hereto. The filing party or attorney shall retain the paper copy of the document containing the original signatures for a period of one year after final resolution of the action, including final disposition of all appeals.

Second, signing in someone’s name without consent is a forgery, plain and simple.

The fact of filing a joint report while Lipscomb kept saying that he couldn’t contact the defendant did not escape the judge’s attention, and on the next day the following order was issued:

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Joint Scheduling Report [56]. The Notice states that “Plaintiff hereby advises this Court that despite its numerous attempts to contact Doe 5 a/k/a Elizabeth Congote, to discuss the Scheduling Report, it has been unable to make contact with the Defendant.” The Notice continues to state that “the documents served upon Elizabeth Congote requested that she contact Plaintiff’s counsel by the close of business on December 12, 20011. At this point, Defendant has not contacted Plaintiff.” Accompanying Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Joint Scheduling Report is an actual Joint Scheduling Report. Despite Plaintiff’s noted inability to contact Defendant, however, the Joint Scheduling Report filed by Plaintiff bears Defendant Elizabeth Congote’s electronic signature, indicating that the Joint Scheduling Report was signed by Defendant Congote. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by December 22, 2011, why the Joint Scheduling Report filed by Plaintiff bears Defendant’s electronic signature despite Plaintiff’s notice to the Court that Plaintiff was unable to make contact with Defendant. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/14/2011.

Lipscomb did file the explanation of his apparent scumbaggery. Read this document, written rather by a weasel than a human:

Plaintiff filed the Joint Scheduling Report with Ms. Congote’s signature because Ms. Congote failed to contact Plaintiff and did not object to Plaintiff filing the report. This failure indicates that Ms. Congote acquiesced in having her name signed on the report.

Words fail me. Yes, I read Kafka’s “Process” in my college days, and now I have experienced an acute déjà vu.

 

Note that the cited case law does not support Lipscomb’s excuses. Not a bit.

Judge Moore did not buy Lipscomb’s excuses (neither was he impressed by misleading citations):

In support of this theory, Plaintiff s counsel cites to several cases for the proposition that “[w]hile failure to reply to a letter is not in all cases an act of acquiescence, when it would be reasonable for the recipient to respond and correct erroneous assumptions, and the recipient does not respond, it is considered an adoption.” [...] Tellingly, none of the case law Plaintiff’s counsel cites in support of this theory of constructive signing actually evinces the idea that a party may contravene the Rule 11(a) signing requirement because the opposing party failed to respond to a letter or inquiry.

This Court interprets Rule 11(a) to require that which it explicitly states, that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed … by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (emphasis added).

However, how the judge acted based on his findings put me in a deep depression.

So what was Judge Moore’s conclusion? Did he impose sanctions? Nope. Did he report Lipscomb to the Florida Bar? Nope. To the DOJ? Nope. Lipscomb was “punished” by a dismissal of this case without prejudice and striking of the fraudulent document.

 

The selectiveness of prosecution is astonishing. If you are a lawyer and lie to the court, forge signatures, produce phony explanations that do not withstand a slightest scrutiny — you will get away with it. If you are a layman and panicked, foolishly altered the evidence, not anticipating (and probably not realizing) that the wheels of the US criminal justice will grind you… If you are not a professional in weaseling out, expect your (and your family members’) life to be ruined.

Bellwether: essentially settled, it will be only a quick bench trial (no jury)

Posted: June 6, 2013 by SJD in Lipscomb, Bellwether trial
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
64

Frustrating. Bellwether has lost its bell and is confusingly standing under the rain, a miserable castrated sheep that does not lead anyone anywhere anymore.

The following was stipulated during today’s hearing in Judge Baylson’s chambers: there will a bench trial (no jury), which will start (and most likely end) on Monday, June 10, 2013. It seems that the case is essentially settled, only a few unresolved issues are left (the exact amount of money, given the statutory and stipulated ranges). As Raul emotionally put it in a tweet,

Dammit! Bellwether was settled the same way you would a fucking slip and fall case. Nothing was determined, nothing was gained. #sad

In all the fairness, defendants must share the blame for this epic failure. To the best of my understanding, Judge Baylson did want to destroy Lipscomb’s “business model,” hinting and almost guaranteeing the recovery of attorney fees for those defendants who would do it right. Alas, they didn’t. Doe 16’s alleged perjury is the worst thing that could happen. I’m still not sure if it is true, but if it is, it is much worse than admitting the smut-sharing. In the latter case, it is still possible to save face, fight for the cause, and prompt the condemnation of copyright trolling (and possibly reduce the fine to a reasonable level).

Notice:

 

Audio transcript of today’s hearing:

A better quality file is available via BitTorrent (magnet link). It will be the only source when my free mp3 host’s bandwith limit is reached (I’m afraid it will happen soon).

Update 6/10/2012: as of today, the audio above is temporarily not available, but DieTrollDie uploaded and linked a copy from his great post.

 

I don’t have any desire to comment on what happened today: too frustrated. One thing keeps me going: a year ago I was similarly depressed looking at Prenda’s relative success. We know where Prenda is now. Although today Lipscomb tried to distance himself from “copyright trolling” (and Prenda in particular: ~20:00 of the audio), his words have little value: in my opinion, Lipscomb’s extortion enterprise is worse than Prenda’s, the harm he and his “clients,” greedy pornographers, inflicted upon the society is immeasurable. It was not easy to defeat Steele & Co. It will be more difficult to get rid of the substance that has been clogging the plumbing of the judiciary, a hairball named M. Keith Lipscomb, but sooner or later we will wash this parasite away, no doubt.

Update

6/10/2013

DieTrollDie has posted a great analysis of this event: PA Bellwether Case — Recap Of The 6 June 2013, Hearing.

Bellwether trial is looming; Lipscomb’s weaselry continues

Posted: June 4, 2013 by SJD in Lipscomb, Bellwether trial
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
47
The Bellwether Trial (Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1,6,13,14 and 16 — PAED 12-cv-02078), conceived by Judge Baylson with the goal of testing copyright trolls’ evidence, initially had five defendants. Only a single one “survived” to date: Doe 16, represented by attorney Ronald Smith. All the others did not withstand the pressure and settled. As far as I understand, the pressure was unprecedented: not surprising given that Lipscomb’s extortion “business” is at stake.

Regrettably, I did not do a good job covering this lawsuit: not every event was documented.

The trial is scheduled to start on Monday, June 10. The jury selection and hearing on motions in limine will take place on Thursday, June 6, the day after tomorrow. These motions — filed last week — are the main subject of this post. What is a motion in limine? According to the legal dictionary,

Latin for “threshold,” a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial.

The defendant filed a list of his requests in a single motion, whereas the plaintiff’s requests spanned 6 filings, the majority of which, in my opinion, constitutes a brazen attempt at prior restraint and has nothing to do with due process.

Porn copyright troll and extortionist: don’t call me names!

(Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding references to plaintiff)

Plaintiff has been referred to in many different negatively connoted ways, including: “copyright troll,” “pornographer,” “porn purveyor,” and “extortionist.” Referring to Plaintiff at trial by any title except “Plaintiff” or “Malibu Media” would be unfairly prejudicial and would only serve to impede the impartial administration of justice.

Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff creates “adult content,” use of the aforementioned terms in this context is undoubtedly pejorative and invokes preconceived negative connotations.

If copyright trolling was mainstream news, Jon Stewart would have a field day with a pornographer asking to not call him a pornographer (deja vu). While it is unlikely to happen any time soon, our own talents compensate for it: I can only imagine the joy John Henry experienced creating this cartoon.

On a serious note, while I would agree that “troll” and “extortionist” are inflammatory, “pornographer” is a dictionary word, quite a neutral and precise description of Colette & Brigham’s occupation. Well, maybe these pornographers will disagree — they think of themselves as producers of “fine erotica,” yet if one visits their website (NSFW!), he will not be greeted by an age verification request or a warning, but by a full-screen explicit image with emphasis on genitals. Admittedly, X-Art’s hardcore pornography is a high-end one, but a blurry erotica-porno border is not defined by the cameraman’s skills. To date, the best criterion was articulated by Tinto Brass:

Pornography is there to give you an erection. Erotica is there to give you emotions.

Right: our pornographers and their lawyers find it normal to threaten file-sharers and innocents alike to let their families, neighbors and co-workers know about the hidden porn habits, but the same pornographers suddenly become shy in front of a jury. If hypocrisy could be measured, Lipscomb would undoubtedly make it to the Guinness book.

 

Let’s close our eyes to almost 900 lawsuits we filed around the country

(Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude evidence of third party lawsuits)

The Court should preclude Defendant, John Doe 16 (“Defendant”), from proffering at trial any evidence of, or making any reference to, lawsuits that Plaintiff has filed in the past or which are currently pending against third party copyright infringers. Plaintiff expects Defendant to attempt to reference these matters at trial in an effort to introduce unsubstantiated allegation of “abuse of process” against Plaintiff. As further explained below, however, such matters are: (1) inadmissible hearsay; (2) wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case; and (3) even if marginally relevant, sought to be introduced solely for the purpose of prejudicing and confusing the jury by the existence of collateral matters, the merits of which should not be litigated in this lawsuit.

This is probably the most outrageous out of six motions. Lipscomb makes a poor attempt to present this lawsuit as a standalone one. In the motion discussed in the next chapter, Lipscomb writes:

[...]the only facts relevant to this case are those which bear on the questions of whether or not Plaintiff owns valid copyrights and whether Defendant violated any of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights therein using the BitTorrent protocol.

WRONG. The entire idea of the Bellwether trial is to have a look at the bigger picture and decide if a myriads of copyright trolling lawsuits that have been clogging court dockets do or do not constitute a sheer abuse of the judicial system. In Judge Baylson’s words (emphasis is mine),

Bellwether trials have long been recognized as an effective means of enhancing prospects of settlement or for resolving common issues or claims in complex litigations. [...] “[T]he results of such trials can be beneficial for litigants who desire to settle such claims by providing information on the value of the cases as reflected by jury verdicts. Common issues or even general liability may also be resolved in a bellwether context in appropriate cases.”).

Keeping the jury ignorant about the very idea of this lawsuit is absolutely nonsensical.

 

Another bleeding contradiction is related to the facts described in the blog’s previous post (events in Wisconsin, where Judge Crocker issued an Order to Show Cause as to why plaintiff shouldn’t be sanctioned for stuffing its frivolous complaints with even more frivolous Exhibit “C” — “extended surveillance” log). Today Lipscomb’s proxy Mary K. Schulz has asked for an extension of time to file her response arguing that… “Plaintiff is preparing for Bellwether Trial”! How the hell it is an excuse if, according to Lipscomb, Wisconsin lawsuits (among others) are “wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case”? Indeed, the hypocrisy of our “biblical scholar” is bottomless.

By the way, Malibu Media has no time to respond to sanctions order, but did file 12 news lawsuits since 5/28.

Let’s close our eyes to my sloppiness

(Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding references to timing issues related to plaintiff’s expert)

Recently Raul wrote a post about the beginning of the discovery controversy (Lipscomb and his “experts” had been sitting on Doe 16’s hard drive for four months before discovering it was “unreadable”). Many events have happened since then, including plaintiff’s accusation of spoliation of evidence and subsequent heated Doe 16’s attorney’s responses accusing Lipscomb of fraud upon the court. It seems that Judge Baylson was not amused by Lipscomb’s version of the events — the judge decided to appoint an independent expert. After that, our weasel asked for a permission to talk to this expert — an absolutely unethical and outrageous request.

Now Lipscomb asks to keep the jury in the dark about the timing of this entire ordeal. If you read all the documents related to this controversy, you will inevitably roll your eyes at the following. (Have I been repeating the word “hypocrisy” often enough?):

[...] regarding the timing issue of Plaintiff’s expert report as it relates to John Doe 16’s Hard Drive, the fault lies with John Doe 16. John Doe 16 has attempted to perpetuate a fraud on Plaintiff and this Court. And, he has taken innumerable actions toward that end such as sending an unreadable hard drive, fabricating evidence, wiping evidence from his hard drive, and then spoiling the original version of the John Doe 16 Hard Drive. Uncovering frauds takes time. Here, Plaintiff is doing so with all due speed.

The other requests

This post is long enough, and I won’t analyze the other three motions (somewhat reasonable, but keep in mind that even most obvious Lipscomb’s statements should be taken with a grain of salt):

 

I expect the next week trial to be closely watched and reported (hey, ArsTechnica and TechDirt: Prenda is fun, but Lipscomb’s extortion empire deserves much more attention than it currently receives). Regardless of the outcome, I hope that this trial is a very positive development. In the end of the day, it is not that important who wins — the Doe or the pornographer¹. What is welcomed is the wider exposure of trolls’ sickening methods. Juries are made of people, and people are not stupid, and even Lipscomb knows that. Otherwise he wouldn’t make the censorious requests discussed above.

Media coverage
Update

6/6/2013

As expected, the defendant filed his oppositions to Lipscomb’s motions in limine (and Lipscomb filed his opposition). As for the three motions analyzed in this post, defendant’s arguments are basically the same as mine (to be fair, not everyone agrees with those conclusions):

 

¹Don’t get me wrong, I pray for the defendant to win! However, it is not a secret that at least 70% of putative defendants did what they were accused of. While undoubtedly this case will have a huge impact on the future of the Bittorent litigation, finding the defendant liable does not automatically make copyright trolling “business” legit (as acquitting him won’t result in extortionate practice go away at once).

Winds of change begin to blow on Malibu Media

Posted: June 1, 2013 by SJD in Community contributions, Lipscomb
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
28
by Dragon

The 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 many times, in this blog and elsewhere in the community where Does expressed frustration that judges were simply not paying attention to the various infringement suits that were coming across their desks. It was an anomaly for a judge to question or put restrictions on discovery. While Prenda had everyone’s full attention in California, and justifiably so, Malibu Media took advantage of this fact with a landslide of lawsuits headed up by the weasel Keith Lipscomb and his “merry men.” As in the past, most of these lawsuits were granted discovery, which allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to “plunder the citizenry.” Then came May 6th. As word of Wright’s “proclamation” has begun to spread, judges are starting to lift their heads and pay attention to what is going on. Two particular districts in the past few days, where judges have looked beyond face value, have now taken an interesting turn.

Wisconsin

Magistrate Judge
Stephen L. Crocker

Three days ago, in the Western District of Wisconsin, Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker, took a closer look at what was going on and decided it was time for “the court to go to battle stations.” He issued an order today that literally had me clapping and cheering (at work mind you) for his ability to get to the root of what is really going on with these suits. Malibu has filed 11 suits in his district, which even though he is well aware of the criticism levied against them, has “no problem” with plaintiff protecting its copyright or negotiating settlement, regardless of the content involved.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. You may recall in Malibu cases, that additional infringement is now being entered as exhibits (exhibit “C” to be precise¹) under the guise of asserting that the Doe is a “serial infringer.” This community had concerns about including infringement of works that did not belong to Plaintiff and clearly those concerns are shared by this Honorable Judge.

This is nonsensical. Complaints are pleadings, not affidavits, so they have no “evidentiary purpose.” Complaints are to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” F.R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). Here, in each case, plaintiff is explicitly disavowing any claim based on Exhibit C. If it were to matter, under what rule of evidence would Exhibit C be relevant at any stage of this lawsuit? Propensity evidence is forbidden by F.R. Ev. 404(b)(1). Plaintiff makes no claim that Exhibit C is relevant under Rule 404(b)(2), and if it did, then the weighing process of Rule 403 would militate forcefully toward excluding this evidence. So what’s really going on here?

Well, we knew all along “what’s really going on here.” Slap down a complaint, coupled with 100 plus additionally alleged infringements, and you have now increased the chance of settlement exponentially. Trolls prey on FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and these exhibits are one unhealthy dose of it. It’s no surprise that the average settlement amount in these particular cases is between 10 and 15 thousand dollars. Unfortunately for Malibu, Judge Crocker gets the joke; and he’s not laughing.

Even a cursory review of each lawsuit’s Exhibit C shows first, that it is always much, much longer than the short list of titles that is the actual subject of plaintiff’s lawsuit, and second, thatamong the innocuous titles listed in each Exhibit C (e.g., “Top Gear,” “Star Trek VI”) are numerous “adult” programs, usually many more than the handful for which plaintiff is claiming a copyright violation, and many with titles exponentially more lewd than any title claimed by plaintiff Compare “Red Satin”with“[Bestiality] Young Blonde . . . Dog (www.sickporn.in).” One needn’t be a cynic to suppose that an intended purpose–perhaps the primary purpose–of Exhibit C to the complaint in each of these lawsuits is to increase the pressure on a subsequently identified Doe defendant to settle before s/he is publicly linked to hardcore/deviant titles that are completely irrelevant to plaintiff’s actual claims in the lawsuit. If this is true–and right now it is the court’s operating hypothesis–then plaintiff probably has violated F.R. Civ. Pro. 11(b)(1). Nothing else is going to happen in these lawsuits until the court decides this matter.

 

Put another way, GAME OVER. He concludes by ordering all documents sealed, “to protect them from prying eyes” while the court is able to determine if these exhibits “should be stricken and whether plaintiff should be sanctioned” (emphasis added). Malibu now has to explain to the court what they were up to, or face sanctions.

 

Illinois

Moving on to the Central District of Illinois. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore has long been handling Malibu cases, essentially passing local counsel Mary K. Schultz the keys to discovery without so much as breaking a sweat. Currently, I count 38 cases pending in this district alone. While there isn’t a whole lot of detail to share yet, the following text was entered in each of these cases yesterday:


Chief District Judge
James E. Shadid

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Shadid and Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman for all further proceedings. Judge Michael M. Mihm, Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore no longer assigned to case. All discovery and deadlines are stayed pending further order of the Court. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 5/30/2013. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

Again, while there isn’t much detail to relate with these particular suits, it is worth noting that the Order issued has taken the cases from Springfield, IL and placed them now in Peoria to be handled. That raises some eyebrows as to what exactly was happening in Springfield that caused the reassignment.

Along with the Bellwether trial, Malibu Media is finally starting to get some much deserved notice and it couldn’t have come sooner in my opinion. As the winds of change start to blow, hopefully more judges across the country will start to uncover the truth: the troll “business model” is alive and in full swing with Malibu Media.

Update

6/1/2013 (SJD)

According to RFC Express (which is buggy, so the numbers may be slightly off), orders reassigning cases and staying discovery have been filed in at least 21 cases². Strangely, exactly at the same date (5/30/2013) Malibu/Lipscomb/Schultz voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (example) at least 9 cases. Feeling the heat and running away like thieves caught pilfering cigarettes? All these cases feature “extended surveillance” Exhibit “C,” which I hope will serve as a ground for sanctions against Lipscomb and his gang — first in Wisconsin, then in other states. I urge all the named and unnamed defendants in all states file judicial notes attaching Judge Crocker’s order.

Followup

@SaltMarshGhost has posted an interesting analysis of recent events on the copyright trolling front, with big emphasis to Judge Crocker’s order and its possible impact. Below is the entire piece (I only linkified it).

The Copyright Troll Big Picture

@SaltMarshGhost
2013-06-01

Several big things have happened in the last month in the copyright troll world. First, Ingenuity 13 v. Doe, 12-cv-08333 (C.D. Cal.) has essentially ended (some drama regarding Klinedinst’s withdrawal notwithstanding). Several Prenda characters have filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit; those will not bring about any news until October, when their opening briefs are due (fans of schadenfreude, however, can look at In re: Hansmeier, in which Paul Hansmeier has to file a “status report” regarding his sanctions by July 14. Or perhaps he will not file one, and withdraw his application to the bar. Anything is possible with Prenda). Paul Duffy posted a bond to the district court, but will not motion to stay until June 24 (not sure why this is), so there won’t be any news out of the Central District of California for at least three weeks. The CAND 12-cv-02396 AF Holdings LLC v. Joe Navasca case was closed recently, to our dismay, with Judge Chen saying that Prenda had “substantially complied” with his order to produce the Salt Marsh signature by claiming to no longer have it (given my twitter handle, I am personally disappointed by this). Sunlust v. Nguyen in FLMD also ended unexpectedly, with Syfert withdrawing all sanctions motions, in an apparent deal.

But in this lull, M. Keith “don’t call me a pornographer” Lipscomb has been busy. As discussed above, Judge Crocker in W.D. Wisconsin warned Lipscomb that his now-infamous Exhibit C put him in serious jeopardy of sanctions under FRCP 11(b)(1). (Note that Judge Wright, before moving to inherent sanctions power, was considering sanctioning under FRCP 11(b)(3).)

The relevant paragraphs of FRCP 11:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Wright’s assertion wrt FRCP 11(b)(3) was that Prenda did not sufficiently show that the Doe they were going after was actually the infringer; basically, that the IP address does not equal the infringer. While this is important, this isn’t actually central to the copyright trolling M.O. And his sanctions were not based on that at all; his sanctions were for Prenda’s asshattery with regards to their corporate structure, the Alan Cooper issue, etc. That’s where Judge Crocker comes in, and where Lipscomb has made a very, very bad mistake.

The primary component of the copyright troll’s M.O. is of course that a person who is accused of illegally downloading pornography will, much of the time, settle to prevent the news from being public. This smells of extortion, and Paul Duffy’s wife has admitted of Facebook to what amounts to inter-state extortion, according to Popehat. Where Lipscomb made a very bad mistake is in the so-called “Exhibit C”, which listed *other* works the Doe is accused of infringing, which appears to be nothing more than a print-out of the Bittorrent monitoring software and includes works that Malibu Media doesn’t even own the copyright to, such as real Hollywood movies. Crucially to Judge Crocker, it also includes several works with titles much cruder—and so more incriminating and more embarrassing—than used by X-Art. Judge Crocker finds this to be in violation of FRCP 11(b)(1).

This could be a crucial step in the dismantling of the copyright troll business. Judge Wright’s sanctions on Prenda, if upheld by the Ninth Circuit, would destroy Prenda but leave Lipscomb and other trolls intact. The broadest effect it might have is tilting other jurisdictions toward adopting an IP-address-is-not-the-infringer doctrine, due to Wright’s findings of fact. A finding that Lipscomb violated FRCP 11(b)(1), on the other hand, would strike at the heart of the copyright troll business model by saying that *filing a porn lawsuit based on trying to get somebody to settle to keep it out of the public eye* is legally-unacceptable harassment.

There is, however, one caveat—Judge Crocker seems to be interested in Exhibit C specifically. This leaves room for suits where the troll is not so stupid as Lipscomb and files a suit against a single, named Doe, for a single work. My understanding is that Lipscomb/Malibu are leaning toward this angle. (See Cashman on this.) If Crocker rules broadly and says that even that would violate FRCP 11(b)(1), then porn copyright trolls are all absolutely dead. If not, then Lipscomb/Malibu Media need to be watched very closely.

What with this and the talk of “copyright small claims” by Judge Titus in Maryland, the post-Prenda era (fingers crossed) still remains an exciting time for copyright troll watching.

 

¹The linked exhibit is from a different case: the complaint and all exhibits in this case are sealed per judge’s order embedded above. Yet it is perfect as an illustration: all such exhibits are essentially the same, only filenames differ.

²ILCD Malibu Media cases stayed and reassigned:

  • 2:13-cv-02096-HAB-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02097-HAB-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02094-HAB-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02093-HAB-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02059-MPM-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02044-MPM-DGB (dismissed)
  • 2:13-cv-02058-HAB-DGB (dismissed)
  • 1:13-cv-01073-JES-JAG (dismissed)
  • 1:13-cv-01200-MMM-BGC
  • 1:13-cv-01201-JES-JAG
  • 3:13-cv-03116-RM-BGC
  • 3:13-cv-03118-RM-BGC
  • 3:13-cv-03119-RM-BGC
  • 1:13-cv-01194-JBM-BGC
  • 1:13-cv-01195-JBM-JAG
  • 1:13-cv-01189-JES-JAG
  • 1:13-cv-01096-JBM-BGC
  • 1:13-cv-01075-JES-JAG
  • 3:13-cv-03044-SEM-BGC
  • 1:13-cv-01074-JES-BGC
  • 1:12-cv-01493-JES-JAG
  • 1:13-cv-01102-JES-JAG

Defendant in Prenda’s case was served by a charged drug dealer

Posted: May 31, 2013 by SJD in Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
25
Businessweek’s Prenda story
(c) boobs

Yesterday Bloomberg Businessweek published probably the most thorough (as of today) article about Prenda: Prenda Law, the Porn Copyright Trolls by Clair Suddath. If you never heard the Prenda story, it is a must read to understand all the nuances. If you have been following these trolls for a while, read it anyway: it is worth your time.

Clair started writing this piece back in March. I don’t know how many hours she spent, I assume a lot. I saw many examples of sloppy reporting in so-called “big media”: Clair’s work is the very definition of the opposite of “sloppiness.” The number of people she interviewed (including yours truly) to get 100% understanding of the trolling world is staggering.

Investigating Prenda is like stepping into a swamp. Obviously, the author had much more material than what finally found its way to the feature. Editors enforce limits (it’s not only about the Internet, this article will be featured in the next printed edition of Businessweek). Something should have been sacrificed, so, regrettably, our community was not mentioned. Nonetheless, it is the least of my concerns: the goal of explaining the story of fraud and abuse to readers unfamiliar with the trolling phenomenon was met with an A+.

I will get back to Bloomberg’s article in a moment.

Scandal in St. Clair County

There is an ongoing scandal in the St. Clair County, IL involving two judges and a probation officer, among others:

 

If you can’t watch the video, here is a recap from another article.

ST. LOUIS — A southwestern Illinois probation worker who an FBI agent says admitted providing cocaine to two judges [Joe Christ and Michael Cook] , including one of died of an overdose at a hunting cabin while with the other jurist, pleaded not guilty Tuesday to a federal drug charge.

James Fogarty, 45, of Belleville, entered the plea in East St. Louis to a cocaine distribution and possession count. He remains jailed without bond, pending a detention hearing postponed Tuesday by a magistrate judge after federal prosecutors cast Fogarty as a flight risk unworthy of bail.

[...]

Admitting he repeatedly sold cocaine to the two jurists, Fogarty said Christ used the drug on weekends and that Cook partook of the drug at Fogarty’s house roughly 10 times, Murphy wrote. Fogarty snorted cocaine with the two judges at times on golf trips and at least once at the Cook family’s lodge where Christ later died.

Remember the probation officer’s name — James Fogarty.

Prenda and St. Clair County

Regarded by many as a den of corruption, St Clair County court naturally attracted Prenda to carry out their shady dealings. We covered Prenda’s activity in this judiciary hell many times, from the first Prenda’s endeavor — Lightspeed Media v. Smith at al — to the ongoing mockery of justice LW Systems v. Hubbard. A former judge as Prenda’s attorney, a stubborn judge who only understands the language of the Supreme Court’s slap on the wrist, a redefinition of “Chutzpah” by Prenda (suing two telecom giants), a former Bar president lying to a court clerk… I can go on and on. It’s not a surprise that Prenda tries so hard to remand a vindictive SLAPP lawsuit Prenda v. Cooper, Godfread and the Internets back to this hole.

Service of the defendant

As I mentioned above, Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Smith et al lawsuit (initially St. Clair county, removed to ILSD — 12-cv-00889) was covered in this blog previously. There are more recent post-worthy events that I did not write about due to lack of time, maybe I’ll catch up later. One particular event is of our interest: the service of the defendant Smith. Clair Suddath’s article that I started this post with tells us the following story:

Tony Smith had a porn problem. A 27-year-old nursing student in Collinsville, Ill., Smith was listening to music and doing homework one night last August when he heard a knock on his apartment door. He opened it and an imposing-looking man with a flashlight handed him a lawsuit and his business card. A name was written in pen on the back. “Give this guy a call, he can help you get through this,” the man told Smith. “He’s looking out for people like you.” Smith turned it over and read the name: John Steele.

According to the complaint, Smith was accused of conspiring with 6,600 anonymous people to hack into computers owned by Lightspeed Media, an Arizona adult-entertainment company, and steal its porn. Before serving him with the lawsuit, Smith recalled, Chicago’s Prenda Law firm had mailed him threatening letters for three months. “They always said that if I went ahead and wrote a check for $4,000, they’d drop it,” Smith says. Because he didn’t know how to hack into anything and didn’t have any illegally downloaded porn on his computer, he’d thought it was a scam and ignored it.

Assuming Steele was a defense attorney, Smith called him. He says Steele explained the allegations and offered to help. Steele asked about Smith’s job (school made full-time work impossible), his roommates (none), and his computer (an old hand-me-down). The two talked for several minutes before Steele mentioned that he worked with Prenda, helping on a lot of its cases. Smith became suspicious and hung up. After an hour of frantic Googling, he determined that Steele “didn’t just work with Prenda, he ran Prenda,” he says. “That’s when I knew, I’m never talking to this guy again.”

Here is how Anthony Smith describes this event in a sworn affidavit. Scroll down to the photo of the business card in question:

 

 

Connecting the dots

I hope you have already connected the two dots: the probation officer James Fogarty, a charged drug dealer, was the one who served the complaint to Smith — the one who tried to trick Smith into calling John Steele. I bet that Prenda’s local attorney who handles Prenda’s dirty deeds in an even dirtier swarm of vermin was a middleman in this con.

Make your own conclusions.

Update

6/1/2013

There is another link between Prenda and Fogarty: Attorney who will be defending Fogarty, Clyde Kuehn, filed (together with Duffy and Hoerner) some pleadings on behalf of Prenda/Lighspeed Media. Both Kuehn and Hoerner served as St. Clair Bar presidents in the past; Kuehn (like O’Malley) is a former judge. The question why St. Clair Bar looks the other way when Prenda “plunders the citizenry” is rhetorical and does not require an explicit answer.

Alan Cooper fable: more scrutiny and more questions

Posted: May 29, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
57

The post below is a follow-up to the recent two articles:

 

This post is yet another community contribution, which makes me happy: this blog was never about me or my ego, and I’m always glad when more writers are involved.

Before I pass the pen to JoseDoe, I want to note that the missing exhibits to the bizarre troll Goodhue’s pleading (which is in the center of the ongoing discussion) have been finally filed today (see the docket, entry 59). The most interesting piece is John Steele’s sworn affidavit. In my opinion, John waived his 5th amendment rights by filing it. Someone has immediately noted that the notarized date is 5/28/2013, while Goodhue’s response to OSC was filed on 5/25/2013. Moreover, some quotes purportedly from this affidavit in the motion itself can’t be found in the affidavit (e.g., “cut down significant acreage of wood and unlawfully removed it from Steele’s property”). Indeed, it is hard to quote a document that does not exist yet.

 

 

By JoseDoe

I received a report from Aitken County on the land parcel that contains the former vacation home of John Steele, at 21251 220th St, Mc Grath, MN 56350 (Lat: 46.3329, Long: -93.2880). The parcel number is 25-0-008600, and the file is dated 12/12/2012, before the final sale of the property in February of 2013. The size of the parcel is 44.5 acres, according to Aitken County.

Who owned the land?

The first thing to note is that John Steele did not own this land. An entity called, variously SRR Properties LLC or Snake River Ranch, LLC owns it. I do not believe that it is the more famous Snake River Ranch in Wyoming that is buying property in Minnesota, either.

A check of the Minnesota Secretary of State shows that Snake River Ranch, LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation owned by… John Steele, with a mailing address to his next door neighbor. Just like Saltmarsh, Mooney, and Cooper, Steele appears to have named one of his shell companies after something else more famous. The LLC was founded two months before the deeding of the property over to it.

But it does get better. See Property Sale below.

 

How big is the property?

The property was conveyed to SRR in June of 2004, from the Estate of John Steele Sr., our troll’s father, who passed away in July 2003. The property was conveyed to SRR as a “Trade, Gift, or Estate” for $151,827.00. The Aitkin County Detailed Parcel Report (embedded above) states the parcel size at 44.50 acres. I searched various real estate websites, such as Zillow and Trulia. The size given for the property on Zillow is 125 acres. Here is a map of the parcel on Trulia:

 

The logical question is: who is right? The mix-up can be explained by the fact that the original estate was broken into three parcels (25-0-008600, 25-0-008800 and 25-0-008700): presumably one for each sibling. John got the cabins, Jayme and Elizabeth — only land.

How Clear the Cutting?

One of the more scurrilous allegation is contained on page 8, lines 19-20:

In September 2012 [...] [Alan Cooper] cut down significant acreage of wood and unlawfully removed it from Steele’s property…

There are two ways to refute this allegation: one is to compare before and after pictures, the second is to consider how something like that would be done.

Compare the ait-17-016 shot in 1998 with Google maps. I cannot guarantee that the satellite imagery is after February 2013, but the imagery is “copyright 2013.” Bing Maps shows similar imagery. In each case, there is no readily identifiable deforestation as alleged. The small trail that runs south to the river ford actually runs off the property lines in both the Trulia image as well as those general property lines formed by the tree lines. When John Steele allegedly went four-wheeling with Alan Cooper, he trespassed on his neighbor’s property.

Let us consider from where all these trees would have been cut. The ones lining 220th Street appear to be intact, as well as any other trees north of the river. This leaves south of the river. The trees there appear to be too small to harvest, especially when you look at photos 8 and 9 of the Trulia listing. But, for the sake of argument, let us say they were cut down. How were they removed? The only possible way is via the trail across the river ford. Certainly, dragging “significant acreage of wood” across the ford would have wreaked major destruction with the soft soil around the ford. None of this is evident in the aerial imagery.

I have not inquired as to where the trees would have gone, although if I were so moved, I would call a few of the licensed firewood vendors in the McGrath area and ask them if an Alan Cooper sold them live timber in September of last year.

Property Sale

According to Goodhue (Page 7, line 21), “In mid-2012, Steele listed his vacation property for sale by auction.” Well, this is curious. Because, Steele didn’t own the property, SRR did. But wait. According to the MN Secretary of State, Snake River Ranch, LLC was “Administratively Terminated” on 01/07/2008. It didn’t exist. It couldn’t sell anything. How can a terminated LLC convey good title to a plot of land?

But let’s examine the sale. On 8/19/2012, the property was first offered for sale for one dollar. It was listed under MLS# 4183515. On 10/02/2012, the price was pushed upward to $465,000. The property was sold on 2/28/2013 for $417,000.00. The listing was removed on 3/09/2013 at that same price. (all data from ReMAX Results) The agent appears to be Brent Berry. According to Realtor.com, both the buyer and seller used ReMAX Results as the property brokers. The current Zillow.com estimated price is just under $322,000 — the new owners are already $95,000 underwater, a loss of almost 23% in three months. The seller made out well. $417,000 – 6% realtor commission = 391,980 – 151,827 = $240,153 profit.

 

Taxes

Here’s where it gets interesting. If the LLC was administratively terminated, could it convey good title? What is the statute of limitations? What if John Steele signed as one of the officers of a defunct LLC, deeded the property over to the new owners, and just pocketed the check? He didn’t sell the property, the LLC did. But the LLC died five years previously. There’s also the wrinkle that this is a vacation home. I’ll have to research this some more, but it is possible that capital gains taxes may be due this year on the $240K profit Steele made on the sale of the property.

What does it all mean? It’s another typical Steele operation. The receipt, ownership, and sale of the property are cloaked in ambiguity. Did Steele own it or not? Who pays taxes on the gain? The Goodhue story of the widespread tree cutting cannot be countenanced, for the trees are too small to be commercially salable and their supposed removal left no traces on the landscape, as seen in images from 1998 and 2013.

But it’s a fair bet their neighbors can’t pick up their WiFi signal.

Another reader, who wished to remain anonymous, made a couple of notes independently. Here are the points that have not been addressed above:

  • I noticed that the property was sold in February, 2013 for full value. If the property was indeed damaged by a chainsaw there should have been a reduction in price or there would have been repair work done on the property. Another local realtor would know if the property was damaged or the price was reduced.
  • I would LOVE to know who the buyer was – and if they were told anything about cut timber or chainsaw damage. It’s a log cabin, after all. It would be pretty obvious if a repair had to be done. it’s not as simple as replacing some sheet rock.
Update

5/29/2013

The latest tax documents on the three parcels that were sold in February: all three now have the same owner:

5/30/2013

A Techdirt post explores yet another blooper in Steele’s declaration: John Steele’s Claims About Alan Cooper Contradicted By History by Mike Masnick.

A closer look at troll Goodhue’s response to Order to Show Cause

Posted: May 27, 2013 by SJD in Community contributions, Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
32
By Dragon

Yesterday we took a look at the newest filing from AF Holding’s v David Harris (AZD 2:12-cv-02144) where Prenda’s lackey Steven Goodhue attempts to dismiss the fact that Cooper’s identity was stolen and downplay the events in Honorable Judge Wright’s courtroom. Hopefully, I was not alone in immediately identifying several “holes” in the story he presented related to Cooper’s now alleged involvement at the outset of this debacle. Here’s a more in depth look at the Response as well as the inconsistencies presented.

Goodhue starts with the same song and dance that we have seen since the start of Coopergate, namely it doesn’t matter who signed the assignment, AF Holdings still has standing to file suit against infringers. This argument didn’t work before, however I’m not surprised that it is still an integral part of their defensive strategy. It will be interesting to see how the Honorable Judge responds to this…

Next, Goodhue embarks on an extensive explanation into Cooper’s involvement in the copyright scheme. He leads through a heartwarming tale of Cooper and Steele being best of friends after they entered into their arrangement with Cooper as live-in caretaker of Steel’s property:

Steele visited his vacation property regularly between 2005 and mid-2011 and became close friends with Cooper. Steele and Cooper spent substantial time together, including, for example, boating on Lake Mille Lacs, riding all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiling, and attending estate auctions. Steele and Cooper would regularly collaborate on various handyman projects, including building a porch addition to and reroofing the guest cabin. Cooper and Steele regularly attended county fairs and other Northern Minnesota social events together, including the White Pine Logging and Thrashing show, Howie’s Mud Bog, the Aitkin County July 4th fair, and the Kanabec County fair. Cooper’s relationship extended to Steele’s family. Conservatively speaking, Cooper joined Steele’s family for dinner over 100 times. On several occasions he babysat Steele’s daughter. The two were such good friends that Cooper remarked on several occasions that Steele was the brother he never had.

But Cooper had a small problem, he was broke. So Mr. Steele, being the charitable man he is, introduced Cooper to Mark Lutz (CEO for AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13) as the answer to his financial woes. Cooper was involved in two copyright assignments as a “corporate representative”, even though he knew nothing about the adult industry, but soon this created too many issues with his second wife, so he soon withdrew from this status. Finally, Goodhue ends this saga with Cooper’s downhill slide, that started with his divorce coupled with Steele putting his property up for sale (which would end Cooper’s “free” residence) and ultimately drove him to a mental state where he was attacking guests, vandalizing Steels property and pilfering everything that wasn’t nailed down:

[...]Cooper used a chainsaw to remove large portions of load-bearing walls in Steele’s guest cabin, tore down nearly every interior wall in the guest cabin, stole 4 rifles, 1 shotgun and 5 pistols Steele stored on his property, threatened prospective buyers of Steele’s property, cut down significant acreage of wood and unlawfully removed it from Steele’s property, and stole hundreds of items, including tools, equipment, lumber, and virtually every item that was not bolted down in Steele’s kitchen. Cooper even stole a large trailer of Steele’s that Cooper used to haul away entire rooms of furniture from Steele’s cabin.

Hungry for revenge, Cooper was conveniently “recruited” through text by Godfread to file a lawsuit against Steele. Of course the EFF was involved, essentially asserting that they along with Cooper and Godfread collaborated together to “launch collateral attacks on Plantiff’s copyright infringements lawsuits.”


“Cooper used a chainsaw to remove large portions of load-bearing walls in Steele’s guest cabin.”

 

I can’t help but think of one of my favorite lines from Ace Ventura, “well fiction IS fun, but I prefer the story where”… Goodhue must have selective memory. Let’s go back to the very beginning of Coopergate and follow the events leading up to the pivotal ruling in the CACD and the recent Goodhue Response. Way back in November, when Cooper initially retained Godfread, his goal was clearly stated, “My client would like certainty that his identity is not being used without his knowledge and against his will as the would be CEO of AF Holdings, LLC or as a manager of Ingenuity 13, LLC.” It wasn’t until several months later, after Prenda and Duffy dodged their question, including flat out stating that they refused to answer, that Cooper was forced to file suit (January 22nd to be precise).

During this same time, Attorney Morgan Pietz, defending Does in California, engaged in several emails requesting that Prenda’s Brett Gibbs answer two simple questions. First, identify if there was another Alan Cooper that was being held out as the Principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. There was a mess of childish behavior including the now famous line, “I’m sure there are hundreds of other Alan Coopers in this world”. Secondly, when Gibbs purportedly had to ask his client for the original assignment, Pietz requested to know who “the client” was. As events unfolded, Gibbs threw “tantrum” after “tantrum” to avoid answering these two simple questions. Shortly thereafter, Nick Ranallo and Morgan Pietz asked Judge Wright to allow discovery on these two issues and a few more pointed questions to get to the heart of the Alan Cooper issue. And they got it. Gibbs response? “I think I’ll try to disqualify the Honorable Judge Wright for abhoring Plantiffs who try to protect their pornography copyrights.” When that didn’t work, Gibbs tried the cut and run, dismissing the case. Duffy substituted in for all the Gibbs cases and then stated dismissing them one by one.

 

All of this history begs the answer to a couple of questions relating back to Goodhue’s response. If Alan Cooper was truly involved in from the beginning as “a Corporate Representative” for AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 and signed the original copyright assignment, why would Gibbs et al go through such great lengths to avoid answering that Alan Cooper from Minnesota signed it? When asked to provide the identity of his “client”, why would he not simply identify Mark Lutz as the client? Mr. Goodhue, the facts clearly show that Cooper’s intent was not to file suit as was stated, but to clear his name. When this failed, he had no option but to file a lawsuit. Further, Mark Lutz was not identified as the CEO of the off-shore companies until the February Deposition of Paul Hansmeier, which is why Gibbs was unable to identify him before that date. But Goodhue doesn’t bother to mention any of these discrepancies.

Goodhue also attempts to incorrectly reference the transcript of the March 11th hearing to prove that Godfread sent a text message to Cooper to recruit him to his cause. However, Cooper never stated under oath that it was Godfread that sent him the text, simply that someone alerted him to the situation and told him to contact Godfread. He also conveniently skips the part where Cooper, still under oath, states that it was not his signature on the documents in question, that he uses a middle initial in his signature. And let’s not forget that the fairy tale woven by Goodhue comes from the Affidavit of John Steele, who was not under oath. Should we trust the words of a man who “suffers from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming of an officer of the court?” Let’s hope that the Honorable Judge does his research and is able to quickly dismiss Goodhue’s Fable.

(The illustration above does not show the actual John Steele cabin.)
Followup
Update

5/28/2013
Yesterday, 5/27/2013, defendant David Harris filed his response.

Prenda fables get craftier yet less believable

Posted: May 25, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12

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. Update: all the exhibits were finally filed on 5/29/2013.)

Followups
Update

5/28/2013
Yesterday, 5/27/2013, defendant David Harris filed his response to the fable:

Media coverage
Older Entries