Posts Tagged ‘Lawsuit Abuse’

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
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
Abraham Lincoln

 

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.

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

Enjoy.

 

Big thanks to Michael Stone for recapping.

Update

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibits:

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

 

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

Dear Mr. Godfread:

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

Welcome to the big leagues.

Paul

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

Update
  • On 3/26/2013 defense attorneys filed a motion to transfer one of the two cases from the IL Southern district to IL Northern district. A memorandum supplements the motion.
Media coverage
Although an epic hearing on 3/11/2013 was already devastating for Prenda, Judge Otis Wright apparently did not finish his job then: he has ordered a new hearing on 3/29/2013 4/2/2013¹, admonishing the alleged fraudsters for the failure to appear on March 11. Although they have enough time for weaselry — I’m sure that Steele & Co. will do everything possible not to be put under oath in front of Wright — it will be a very-very bad idea not to come to LA on March 29 April 2. Very bad idea. The countdown timer on the left has been reset.

Media coverage

 


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

Yesterday Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a press release (the original is located here) regarding their generous offer to represent this blog as well as DieTrollDie’s one in the “defamation” lawsuits filed by Paul Duffy and Prenda Law. Just wanted to keep a copy of this press release here and collect links to media coverage.

March 11, 2013

EFF To Represent Bloggers Against Copyright Troll
Prenda Law Firm attempts to silence critics DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is joining with attorney Charles Lee Mudd Jr. to represent two blogs caught up in a bizarre lawsuit filed by Paul Duffy and Prenda Law LLC, Duffy’s copyright troll law firm.

Copyright trolls try to make money by suing Internet users under various copyright laws. Their tactics include targeting large groups of anonymous “John Doe” defendants for downloading files on BitTorrent, seeking their identities, and exploiting the massive damages in copyright law in order to pressure defendants into settling quickly.

Duffy and his firm’s tactics are frequent subjects of criticism on FightCopyrightTrolls (fightcopyrighttrolls.com) and DieTrollDie (dietrolldie.com), two watchdog blogs maintained by anonymous authors.

Late last month, Duffy and Prenda Law filed two separate defamation lawsuits in Illinois state court, which have since been removed to federal courts in the Northern and Southern districts of Illinois. The complaints claim the bloggers and their commenters defamed Duffy and his firm, despite the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“These lawsuits are a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish critics,” said EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz.

Immediately after filing the suits, Duffy served a subpoena on Automattic Inc., the company that owns the WordPress blogging platform. The subpoena seeks the IP addresses of everyone who ever visited the two websites, threatening the privacy of the bloggers and their readers. On Friday, Automattic rejected the subpoena in a letter to Duffy, calling it “legally deficient and objectionable” and a violation of the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

“Not only is the subpoena improper under the First Amendment, it fails to comply with the simple rules for pre-trial discovery,” EFF Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo added.

Automattic has stated unequivocally that it will not turn over any information until the bloggers’ challenge to the lawsuit has played out in court. In order to protect this right to anonymity, EFF and the Mudd Law Office will not publicly release the names of their clients in this suit.

“Critics of the copyright troll business model have the right to speak anonymously without their identities being exposed to the trolls,” said Kurt Opsahl, EFF Senior Staff Attorney. “These sweeping subpoenas create a chilling effect among those who have spoken out against Prenda.”

Notorious copyright troll John Steele previously filed a similar lawsuit against the two blogs but dropped the suit last week without explanation.

Contacts:

  • Kurt Opsahl
        Senior Staff Attorney
        Electronic Frontier Foundation
        kurt@eff.org
  • Mitch Stoltz
        Staff Attorney
        Electronic Frontier Foundation
        mitch@eff.org

Tags:

 

Related Cases

 

Related Issues

 

 

Media coverage
Yesterday I wrote that I would not be coming up with a story about yesterday’s eventful day. I provided a couple of links to eloquent, well thought pieces, especially by Megan Geuss (ArsTechnica) and Ken “Popehat” White. Yet this morning an anonymous commenter, who attended the hearings, shared his own story, which belongs to a post, not a comment. Even though we will eventually obtain and publish the transcript, personal perspectives of attendees are invaluable: only facts can be redundant, not impressions.

By Anonymous

No.

Gibbs did not have Wright wrapped around his finger. Believe me nobody who’s touched Prenda or their shells (that are “not even shells” in Wright’s words) should feel safe.

The tone of the hearing was set when Wright opened by calling out Prenda’s attorney:

    “ARE THEY HERE!?”

    “No.”

    “HAVE A SEAT!”


Federal Judge Otis D. Wright

That was basically all he wanted to hear, although there was a brief exchange that established they were supposedly available by phone (whether that would be a domestic or international call was not established). She took a dressing down for the last minute filing tricks, but the bottom line is Wright did not dignify their gamesmanship by letting their attorney make excuses, he did not waste time grinding through their objections, he said they had been given an opportunity to explain themselves, and since they chose not take that opportunity, he moved on. I can only imagine what she is thinking after sitting through that hearing, because I’m sure they didn’t fill her in on the backstory.

The next order of business was calling out Hansmeier’s deposition. The judge dismissively tossed a copy on the desk in front of him (seriously) and said he spent the weekend reading it and it was the most revealing document thus far. Wright was extremely upset with that deposition. Extremely.

“Someone has an awful lot to hide.”

Hansmeier is probably in trouble.

The rest is incomplete and not very chronological, just salient points:

Wright used the phrase “the lawyers have a pecuniary interest.”

He noted that none of these companies file tax returns.

The fact that LiveWire has no office, just a P.O. box in DC, came up. Gibbs’ lawyer started to make an attempt to make this sound legit, but then he said something about it being a “cloud office,” there were derisive snorts, and he just kind of gave up.

Wright took several specific shots at Prenda’s credibility. The word “lie” was used. And “fraud.” A few times when Gibbs was trying to pass blame to avoid giving a straight answer, Wright admonished him for doing “all the stuff that you do” to redirect responsibility. Expect a defamation suit against Judge Wright to be forthcoming…

Alan Cooper of Minnesota was there. He confirmed the bits we’ve heard, that Steele bragged about his copyright litigation plans, Steele’s goal was $10,000/day for sending letters, told Cooper not to answer any calls related to Steele’s companies. Denied knowledge of all of Steele’s uses of the name “Alan Cooper.” Basically, it confirmed what we had already heard and read in his letter, but no doubt putting this on the record, under oath, in front of this judge was very damaging to Prenda. Gibbs’s attorneys appeared to begin to counter Cooper’s testimony by asking Cooper if he had called Steele and left a voicemail asking “how are my porn companies doing?” Cooper simply said “no” and they gave up. This must have been a reference to the “iPhone record function” Steele was blabbering about on Twitter, but if there is anything there, Gibbs’s attorneys did not think it was worth pursuing. By that point Steele’s credibility had been shredded, and Pietz had played several voicemails of Steele threatening Cooper with more litigation, so I assume that if a recording (of someone) exists Gibbs’s attorneys do not have a copy and decided not to gamble on Steele’s word.

During the break Mitch Stoltz told us EFF took care of Cooper’s travel arrangements, so those guys deserve all our thanks and if you wanted to find a way to help with Cooper’s travel arrangements, make a donation to the EFF.

A new revelation that came out while Gibbs was under oath is that he was briefly a W2 employee of one or more of the shells, I think it was LiveWire and/or AF Holdings, but it’s so convoluted with the “mergers” and everyone owning everyone that it was hard to keep straight. That contradicted his prior statements that he had only ever been a 1099 employee. Of course he was never paid while he was on the payroll, and it was strange, he sounded like he was bewildered by the fact he had been an employee, like maybe they did that without telling him first too? Since he was under oath at the time he was perhaps less likely to be BS’ing at that point, but that was the story regarding his surprise “in-house counsel” job.

Wright dug into Gibbs quite a bit for pathologically failing to file notices of related cases, and Gibbs’ persistent confusion of “joinder” vs. “related” for filing purposes. He did a bit of digging into Gibbs weak and apparently inaccurate justification of his “investigation” of the properties. Wright said he had used Google Earth himself to take a look, so Gibbs ended up claiming that when he looked at maps of those addresses, the maps he saw had a different angle that totally gave the impression the house was surrounded by emptiness. It was not convincing.

For the juicier issues of Prenda’s decision-making process, Gibbs pretty much just passed the blame on to “senior members” with lots of “decisions were made” type responses. After all our speculation that Duffy is a nominal figurehead, it was very interesting to hear Gibbs talk about who gave his marching orders. It sounded like he basically never talked to Duffy, maybe once or twice was the impression I got. Even after the firm supposedly changed ownership and Duffy took over, whenever Wright asked who was giving instructions and making decisions, it was always Steele and Hansmeier. No matter where we were in the timeline or who was supposed to be the owner of what, whenever Gibbs was asked who gave him orders it was “Paul and John,” and according to my notes the order Gibbs spoke was “Paul and John,” which may be revealing: certainly Hansmeier has more direct involvement than I had believed to be the case. As they got to the newer entities, Lutz’s name was sprinkled in here and there, almost as if they were still in the process of reconstructing the story to shift more responsibility (read: blame) to Lutz. In any case, it was enough to make me wonder if Duffy is even a real person, or if he has had his identity misused too or what, because he doesn’t seem to do anything, so it doesn’t make sense that he would put his name on this powder keg of risk (unless of course he is getting fat checks, which may well be).

I will grant that Gibbs did a somewhat successful job of looking duped and misled. He was even asked directly if he felt duped by Wright, and after a surprisingly long pause said “in a way.” Not that I believe this could be true after two years of working with Paul and John, but I think he pulled it off. There were one or two points that even made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. For example, according to Gibbs’s testimony, many of the recent dunning letters bearing his signature that have been sent out for cases in other states used a stamp of his signature without his permission. He claims this began after he had decided to get out and sever ties with the firm, and that he told Lutz and Steele to stop (of course he didn’t notify any courts or authorities…). It sounded like a possible carefully constructed CYA, but given Steele’s vindictiveness it may well be that Gibbs is a “victim” in the sense that Steele has been attempting to set Gibbs up for even more trouble. Gibbs deserves every bit of trouble he may get, but I don’t want Steele to be allowed to weasel out of his own share of responsibility by using Gibbs’s name instead of his own. I can also believe that Gibbs did not know about the Alan Cooper and other possible forgery issues.

For the most part, the specific issues for which Gibbs was present became a sideshow. His attorneys kept returning to them, because that appeared to be all they were prepared for. My guess is they have absolutely no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes, but if they do know they have not had time to prepare excuses for the past two years of shenanigans, and they were overwhelmed. They had canned responses to the points on the OSC, but Wright was far more interested in digging into Prenda’s overall pattern of behavior and business model. Gibbs’s attorneys were unprepared to field those questions, and they occasionally offered up some objection that Wright’s line of inquiry wasn’t relevant to the OSC, but Wright rebuffed them by stating his concern was now patterns of practice and fraud upon the court. The last words from Gibbs’ counsel were an obviously prepared statement that seemed awkwardly out of place given the turn the hearing had taken; I believe they expected to show up, run through a prepared script, and call it a day. They are probably wondering what the hell happened.

What struck me as ominous for Gibbs and especially the rest of Prenda is that Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo appeared well prepared to go into greater depth to establish that Gibbs was working in more than an “of counsel” role, to argue the jurisdictional issues of the other Prenda guys, etc. But Wright really wasn’t interested in hearing more. But I don’t mean he didn’t find it relevant or convincing, more like he had made up his mind that this circus has gone on long enough. I would sum up his attitude at this point as “Why bother? I don’t need to hear this.” It was as if Wright was satisfied that he had more than enough for… Whatever comes next… And when he got to that point he was just done.

To me, the absolute standout moment of the day was when Gibbs stepped down from the witness box and Wright said “Good luck to you.” You had to be there to appreciate the menace in his voice.
For now, we can only guess what Gibbs might need that luck for.

Personally, I think Lady Justice is practicing her dropkicks.

Update

Here are another hearing attendee’s observations:

By jw

Since you ask for more impressions/observations, here are some from my own non-legal-expert perspective:

  • Many have noted the judge did not seem amused. While that is generally accurate with respect to Prenda’s (allegedly) fraudulent, deceptive, evasive practices, there were times at which the judge stifled laughter in apparent amusement. In particular: when he had to correct Waxler for saying the client “retains” attorneys; when Pietz corrected his use of the word “porno” with “adult entertainment.”
  • There was a nice moment in which, just before breaking for a 10-minute recess, the judge almost tenderly said “I hate to stop you [to Pietz]. But, since I care more about her [referring to the court reporter] than this case, and she has been going non stop since this started, we are going to break for 10 minutes.”
  • At one point, the judge asked Gibbs, under oath, if he understood his question, and then added, “Because I can hear you now… ’compound!’…”, making a joke about Gibbs’ extensive objections in the ~300 page deposition of Feb 19.
  • I was careful to observe Heather Rosing (attorney for Steele, Hansmeier, van den Hemel, and Duffy) throughout the hearing, since she got shot down so harshly by Wright at its opening. She was quite active throughout, talking animatedly to two other gentlemen who accompanied her there, and taking copious notes. She also at some point, spoke with Gibbs’s attorneys in an effort to apparently join forces to get them to contact her clients by phone. Though a phone appearance never happened, it seemed for a bit like they were trying to make it a real possibility. For what it’s worth, and this is only my impression, Rosing seemed a bit stunned by the revelations offered at the hearing, as if she hadn’t had the full story when she filed that ex parte motion… I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if she withdrew after yesterday’s revelations.
  • All the talk about popcorn, one might think there would have been a carnival atmosphere to the hearing. But it was really intense, people were quite glued to the proceedings, and very quiet. And, based on Wright’s demeanor and his strict no-food policy, it would have been terrifying to try to eat popcorn in there! I was even a bit scared to take a sip of my water in the room.
  • I have never been to a hearing before, so maybe court clerks are always awesome. But I have to say, I was really impressed by the court clerk running the show. She was a well-dressed, petite woman who was extremely attentive and obviously very on top of things in the room — keeping track of all the exhibits, etc. Wright’s two clerks (sitting behind the defense’s table… I think that’s who they were), were also interesting to watch. At one point, one of them, dressed very nicely in a purple tie and grey suit, handed Pietz his own flow chart Prenda diagram to use on the overhead “document reader” thingie when Pietz was having difficulty with the display from his iPad.
  • There were a bunch of reporters in the room. I noticed one young woman from the LA Times, who said at the very end of the hearing “I have a lot of reading to do.”
  • Wright clearly likes and respects all of the people that work for him, and vice versa.
  • Gibbs’s attorneys were making fun of Morgan (to themselves — I was just sitting behind them, watching closely) as he brought forward more and more evidence showing that Wright probably has jurisdiction over Steele and Hansmeier. It seemed like they were just saying it was overkill. The judge, however, seemed to appreciate Pietz’s efforts. At the end of the jurisdictional stuff, the judge said it was time for Plaintiff to go, and noted that they obviously would have no objection to the evidence Pietz brought forward to support Wright’s jurisdiction over Steele and Hansmeier, “Otherwise, he’s in [looking directly at Gibbs].”
  • I thought it was noteworthy that during Pietz’s questioning of Gibbs, Gibbs admitted that Steele and probably Hansmeier have his email passwords, and also his ECF password, allowing them to send emails as Gibbs, read all emails Gibbs receives (attorney-client privilege??) and submit things to the court as Gibbs. Apparently Gibbs also received emails to other attorneys (I can’t remember their names, one in Nevada…) and then was supposed to forward them on to the actual attorneys. When all this was being revealed, Judge Wright sat back in his chair and frowned.
Update 2

3/13/2013

Transcripts of the voicemails John Steele left on the Alan Cooper’s phone are available. As Dark Moe tweeted after the hearing,

…and another thing: The voicemail messages from Steele bothered me. Cooper did nothing to deserve being threatened with a lawsuit.

It’s sickening. Wish you could have heard the messages. My lawyer was moved over it. Couldn’t believe what he was hearing.

Before reading the following, make sure you allocated enough time to have a shower afterwards.

Usually I do some promotional stuff to get certain events noticed and publicized. Obviously, no need to do it today. I’ll leave it to the witnesses and more eloquent/professional folks to tell their versions of today’s story. I’m glad that today’s events caused so much interest, and I hope it is just the beginning. I’m happy that our community has contributed to this apotheoses in progress. Thank you all!

Stories about today’s hearing

 

In an unexpected and rather desperate move, in the midst of growing public’s and judges’ impatience regarding Prenda’s conduct, this “law firm” has commenced three libel lawsuits designed to chill free speech by burying its critics in massive legal fees.

Initially those lawsuits have been filed in state courts so loved by Prenda (St. Clair County IL, Cook County IL, and Miami-Dade FL), but were promptly removed to the federal level by the defense lawyers. So, now we have:

Here is one of the complaints (the other two can be found in Jordan Rushie’s blog post):

 

Alan Cooper and his attorney Paul Godfread are the main targets, obviously because they brought some uncomfortable questions to the daylight. Stifling the criticism of Prenda’s actions is the second, but not a secondary goal.

Who are the Does 1-10? If you read through largely identical complaints, you’ll see the answer: us. Us: me, DieTrollDie, dozens of community members who spend our personal time and resources to keep public aware of the predatory practice known as “copyright trolling” — abusive lawsuits with a declared goal to stop online piracy, but in reality designed to coerce quick settlements from alleged file-sharers, guilty or not. This is achieved by leveraging the social stigma attached to pornography and by insane, disproportionate statutory fines meant to be applied to large, commercial-scale infringement. We have been diligently reporting on lawsuit abuses, and it is not a surprise that those who benefit from such abuses are eager to shut us down.

I will avoid commenting on these three cases for the time being; will restrict myself to only reporting facts. Anyone with half brain can see all the flaws and the real goals of these cases anyway (as well as the answer to the question: “Why are there three nearly identical lawsuits, not one?”). Feel free to discuss these lawsuits, but be aware that if discovery is granted, your identity will most likely be revealed to the plaintiffs (I cannot do anything about it), so don’t say what you would not say openly.

As for me, I stand by everything I wrote. Maybe the words I have chosen were overly emotional, but everything I said has been based on provable facts and good faith. In addition, I never tried to smuggle my opinions as facts.

This country is still a world leader in free speech, and I hope that the outcome of these lawsuits will only strengthen my and many others’ pride.

Update

3/6/2013
At least one of the cases, John Steele v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and Does 1-10, FLSD 13-cv-20744 was dismissed without prejudice by John Steele today.

3/7/2013
As DieTrollDie reports, WordPress has notified us that it received a ridiculously overreaching subpoena asking for all the blog visitors (not even posters, visitors!) since 1/1/2011. Note that the subpoena is issued from California and signed by Duffy in connection with St. Clair county case. This case was removed to the federal level.

3/8/2013
Happy International Woman’s day!

This is the email I received from WordPress this morning:

Hello,

Thank you, we’ve received your response and will take no further action on this subpoena until the judicial process is completed.

Thank you,

WordPress.com

Followups
Media coverage

The Court hereby orders Brett L. Gibbs, attorney of record for AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC, to appear on March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., to justify his violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 83-3 discussed herein.


Federal Judge Otis D. Wright II

That’s how Judge Otis Wright starts his “Order to show cause re sanctions for rule 11 and local rule 83-3 violations.” Not that it was totally unexpected, but the language of this order is something that will definitely make Brett Gibbs (and other Prenda’s racketeers) take an urgent trip home to change their underwear.

Judge Wright starts his order with enumerating various Gibbs’s abuses, then proceeds with an angry tirade, condemning trolls’ “business model,” specifically the weakness of the “evidence” that is used to harass their victims with the purpose of extorting settlements from their targets (including many innocents):

To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence.

What is more, downloading data via the Bittorrent protocol is not like stealing candy. Stealing a piece of a chocolate bar, however small, is still theft; but copying an encrypted, unusable piece of a video file via the Bittorrent protocol may not be copyright infringement. In the former case, some chocolate was taken; in the latter case, an encrypted, unusable chunk of zeroes and ones. And as part of its prima facie copyright claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants copied the copyrighted work. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). If a download was not completed, Plaintiff’s lawsuit may be deemed frivolous.

[...]

The Court has previously expressed concern that in pornographic copyright infringement lawsuits like these, the economics of the situation makes it highly likely for the accused to immediately pay a settlement demand. Even for the innocent, a four-digit settlement makes economic sense over fighting the lawsuit in court—not to mention the benefits of preventing public disclosure (by being named in a lawsuit) of allegedly downloading pornographic videos.

The judge demands that Gibbs addresses two allegations during the appearance on March 11:

  • Failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order.
  • Fraud on the Court.

 

The latter allegation is related to the Alan Cooper saga that we have been diligently covering over the last 3 months. Definitely, Judge Wright has no slightest intention to let this issue go away, no matter how hard Gibbs tried him by multiple temper tantrums, attempts to remove the judge, and childish urge to simply run away from the tough questions:

If Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Pietz so desire, they each may file by February 19, 2013, a brief discussing this matter. The Court will also welcome the appearance of Alan Cooper—to either confirm or refute the fraud allegations.

Moreover, the decision not to sanction “plaintiffs” suggests that Wright believes that the alleged identity theft is not a mere conspiracy theory; he is seemingly convinced that Prenda made up AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and therefore Gibbs and his bosses have actual financial interest in the numerous lawsuits. Failure to disclose such interest is a fraud by itself:

The Court declines to sanction Plaintiffs AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC at this time for two reasons: (1) Mr. Gibbs appears to be closely related to or have a fiduciary interest in Plaintiffs; and; (2) it is likely Plaintiffs are devoid of assets.

But the most damning language that I mentioned above is in the last paragraph: when a judge says “imprisonment” and “bench warrant for contempt” in an order to show cause, it is hard to underestimate the seriousness of the situation Gibbs dug himself in (emphasis is mine):

Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench warrant for contempt.

 

Wow. Like the previous powerful ruling by the same judge, this order will definitely send tsunami waves across the US federal districts.

Related
Followups
Media coverage