No matter how this phrase is banal and overused, it will be repeated many more times, guaranteed. Because… Prenda is a gift that keeps on giving. At different times different clowns appeared in the farce; today it was Jacques Nazaire’s turn to take the stage. For those who don’t remember, Nazaire is a Georgia Craigslist lawyer who entertained us in the past by telling the court that Judge Wrights’ famous order is irrelevant in Georgia because California recognizes gay marriage, and because Anonymous attacked PayPal. He called the EFF “terrorists organization” and his “your momma” email to me prompted so many laughs…
- Plaintiff’s Paul Duffy reiterated once again that because the assignee’s signature is not required by law, forging it is an-OK¹;
- Defense’s Blair Chintella dug deeper into the copyright assignment, questioned not only Alan Cooper’s signature, but also the validity of the Raymond Rogers’s (the purported original rights holder) affidavit;
- Jack Nazaire: “Look, Judge: the defendant has all the licorice and I’ve got none. Unfair!”;
- Jack Nazaire filed 59 pages of tweets — to prove God knows what;
- Jack Nazaire tried to make a big deal that Chintella was helped by other attorneys, Mark Randazza in particular. Randazza denied it, but why would it be a big deal if someone helped the defense anyway?
But one particular Jacques Nazaire’s filing left my face burning from an involuntary facepalm:
First of all, there is no such thing as a post-dismissal sanctions hearing by a jury. This isn’t going anywhere, period. The case was dismissed. What “trial” for God’s sake? We really need the Twenty Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, which addresses the problem with attorneys who embarrass themselves and the legal profession: those comedians should be banned from the courtroom.
But, if for the sake of argument we assume this childish act has a quantum of merit, I think that when Nazaire wrote
[…] listen to the factual [non-legal] issues of this case […],
he mixed up the “factual” and “legal” terms. The questions derived from the “factual issues” are pretty damning:
- whether Prenda seeded its smut to entrap file-sharers;
- whether Prenda forged the signature on the copyright assignment;
- whether the “client” AF Holdings exists at all;
- whether former Prenda’s paralegal, John Steele’s drinking buddy and a fugitive from justice Mark Lutz, is really a principal of a sham corporation AF Holdings;
The list can go on and on, and some of the “factual issues” have already become “facts” — Judge O’Kelley has adopted Judge Wrights’ findings in full.
When facts are not on your side, the only way to get away with scams is to juggle legal [non-factual] issues. That’s how all the copyright troll cockroaches (Keith Lipscomb, Michael Hierl et al) avoid justice today and continue plundering citizens with impunity — by exploring the cracks in the legal system while playing fast and lose with facts.
Here is our advice, Jacques: stop digging. Humbly accept the sanctions that Judge O’Kelley will most likely impose on you. All your temper tantrums will only worsen your situation. Don’t embarrass yourself any longer, fade into obscurity: even though you took orders from the con artists (who, I hope, will end up in jail soon), your shenanigans were relatively minor, and I bet that Prenda’s victims are willing to forget them if you stop disturbing the past over and over again.
¹ Note that Duffy continues deceiving the court by signing his missives as “Duffy Law Group” — an entity that was involuntarily dissolved a long time ago.