Posts Tagged ‘Mark Lutz’

Prenda’s local Jacques Nazaire: Judge Wright’s order is irrelevant because… Anonymous attacked PayPal

Posted: May 22, 2013 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
17

Ah, Prenda’s local in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire… The amount of entertainment he provides should get him promoted to a lutz (at least) in Prenda’s ranks. I wrote about Nazaire’s delusional pleading a month ago; Popehat (among others) scoffed at Nazaire’s crazy argument that Wright’s order was irrelevant because Georgia did not endorse gay marriage…

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Exhibit B: a nasty, yet absolutely irrelevant email:

 

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

Featured comment

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

Let me get this straight.

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

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

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

Media coverage

Ethically handicapped Prenda’s “boss” Paul Duffy signs a new batch of extortion letters

Posted: May 12, 2013 by SJD in Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
56
Many remember that less than 3 years ago an infamous scumbag Steve “Lightspeed” Jones, a pornographer who specializes in “barely legal” genre (i.e. he recruits and films very young girls), articulated the “troll credo” that would become a modus operandi of the sleaziest porno extortionists:

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

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

Steve Lightspeed

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Good news

I want to finish on a lighter note.

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

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

 

I like it. I like it a lot.

Media coverage

Prenda v. the rest of the world

Posted: May 4, 2013 by SJD in Not so serious, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0
If you have been following Theatre of Absurd “Prenda” for a while, you’ll smile, chuckle, giggle, and laugh out loud more than once. Enjoy.

 

 

Sunlust v. Nguyen: from comedy to absurdist play

Posted: May 3, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Sunlust fiasco
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
9

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

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

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

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

Theatre of the absurd and alternate history

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

  • An email from Syfert to Steele’s/Gibbs’s attorney Katherine Yanes, which does not stand out as anything illegal and/or unethical — a usual lawyerly correspondence, which Syfert definitely expected to be publicized: it happens all the time.
  • Mark Lutz’s declaration that presents an alternate history (a popular science fiction genre), but does it by also using the legacy of the XX century absurdists.
    • According to this declaration, Mark knew Daniel Weber and his generous wife Sunny Leone very well and spoke to them “multiple times in the past.” In real world, he denied this knowledge under oath on 11/27/2012. By the way, in his statement Lutz misspelled Weber’s last name (“Webber”).
    • There is an interesting exhibit to Mark Lutz’s declaration — a “Letter of Engagement” — signed by Paul Duffy purportedly on 11/15/2011. This document is not only absurd, but also, according to Syfert, a fake one (read the next chapter).

      Mark has been a big businessmen (albeit without a tie), a manager of his own adult companies. He even hired Prenda to represent his companies in courts! Big client my ass! It does not matter that in real, not alternate history, during the last two years a paralegal Mark Lutz (or, sometimes his alter-DID-ego Jeff Schultz) made thousands of calls with the signature line “This is Prenda Law calling,” and who listed himself as a “Client Services Manager for Prenda Law” on his (now removed) LinkedIn page. His notarized (on 1/10/2012) affidavit (page 15) unambiguously states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Twain to Prenda

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

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

 

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

Is Prenda trying to simulate insanity to avoid prosecution?

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

When it rains, it pours

You’ll find the answer to the title question after reading the second of the two documents featured below.

To get up to speed, read Ken White’s eloquent piece about the first waves of the April 2 blast (“Georgia is on my mind” chapter). In short, one of the first fighters against copyright trolls — Georgia attorney Blair Chintella — filed a mighty motion for sanctions complemented by a very thorough history of Prenda’s shenanigans. This happened in AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel (GAND 12-cv-00262) after Chintella filed a motion to set aside his client’s default judgment, and Prenda tried to slither out by dismissing the case with prejudice.

Today, Prenda’s local counsel Jacques Nazaire purportedly himself (I’m rolling my eyes as I’m writing it) wrote an apoplectic response (and motion for sanctions!) full of insults and mind-boggling accusations. This motion is even more hysterical than the series of December 2012 tantrums attributed to Brett Gibbs.

Ken White will most likely analyze this document tomorrow [4/21/3013 Update: and he did], so I’ll just embed this masterpiece of vitriol, but, first, a couple of excerpts:

The EFF is a left wing organization which has some of the same goals as the anti-government group “Anonymous” as well as the terrorist group “Wikileaks”.

[...] it is reported on the internet that Mitch Stoltz, a staff attorney with the EFF has stated that EFF took care of Cooper’s travel arrangements to testify in a California case. As such, any statements made by Mr. Cooper should be suspect. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Cooper has worked an honest day in his life. Rather, it appears that Mr. Cooper has spent his lifetime depending on the kindness of others. Logic dictates that the more Mr. Cooper testifies against those opposed to the EFF, the longer he is allowed to travel from state to state.

What Defendant is trying to allege is not that the assignment agreement is forged, but that Plaintiff misappropriated the identity of a corporate representative who acknowledged the assignment on Plaintiff’s behalf. The problem with this allegation is that the Court could strike Plaintiff’s signature from the assignment agreement and the assignment agreement would still be effective.

[...] the defendant, Patel, has admitted in his declaration that he was negligent in failing to secure his website [SJD: palmface] as alleged in paragraphs “62-70” of plaintiff’s complaint. As such, plaintiff’s complaint is meritorious. For Chintella to assert otherwise is an outright lie.

Good old tugboat is unsinkable.

From what has been put forth, Brett Gibbs is a fairly new attorney much like Defendant’s counsel. The undersigned, on the other hand, has over 16 years experience practicing law, has settled over millions of dollars worth of cases, including state and federal cases and has also served in Afghanistan as a Foreign Claims Commissioner, settling foreign claims in a war zone.

Yeah, right. That’s why this experienced attorney advertised his services on Craigslist: $125 per court appearance.


Exhibits:

 

A side note: it seems that Prenda is diligent in checking PDF metadata now (the document’s author is “Jacques”), after too many bloopers led to discoveries that Brett Gibbs possibly did not write his pleadings, and that perhaps many Prenda’s motions were written by a freelance legal writer.

Lutz brings the lulz

The funniest thing is Exhibit B: Mark Lutz’s declaration (not dated but notarized on 4/19/2013¹). I don’t remember laughing so hard for a long time:

 

Yes! A two year old multi-million extortion enterprise led by and with the help from Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy, Brett Gibbs, Peter Hansmeier, Steven Goodhue, Joseph Perea, Maurice Castellanos, Douglas McIntyre, Michael Dugas, Sirh-Ryun Stella Wi Dugas, Timothy Anderson, Daniel Ruggiero, Matthew Dumas, Rod Mastandrea, Jacques Nazaire, Curtis Hussey, Sam Trenchi, Benjamin Debney, Jonathan Tappan, Matthew Jenkins, William Webb, Michael O’Malley, Kevin Hoerner… always had a simple, noble goal: to benefit Mark Lutz’s unborn children via a trust named after John Steele sister’s boyfriend.

Featured comment

Another Attorney on 2013/04/21 at 7:55 am:

I am a lawyer, and certainly have some opinions to share. Jacques Nazaire has filed one of the worst pleadings I have ever seen – and I have seen some really bad ones. At the end of the day, the pleading misunderstands the law and burdens of proof. He jumps between theories of negligence and theories of actual copyright infringement, suggesting that he is either incompetent at making a coherent argument or can’t remember facts from paragraph to paragraph.

The comments regarding Gibbs are, even if true, stated in a completely unprofessional manner. This is just one example of many unprofessional comments.

A good litigator want to establish credibility with the judge. Nazaire seems to have no concept of this important strategy.

He should not have asked for sanctions. By doing so, he is admitting that sanctions are appropriate where there are shenanigans. Guess who is going to come out on the losing side of that equation. I also love how he suggests that sanctions should be awarded because the Defendant has merely asserted that it is “possible” that there is something fishy going on. Apparently Nazaire has no idea that this is why we have evidentiary hearings. The question (at this point) is not whether the Defendant can prove something fishy, but whether or not the Defendant has a good faith belief that something is fishy. Proving it comes through evidence at a hearing on the motion – and not now. This is not a difficult concept for all but the dimmest attorneys.

I could go on and on, but let me point the one thing that made me cringe the most. I am absolutely shocked that he filed a document with the court, adopting the tone he used, saying that “Salt Marsh” is a trust with beneficiaries that are Lutz’s non-existent children. (Didn’t Hansmeier state that there were no beneficiaries?) Under these circumstances, that is such a laughable assertion, that he has lost all credibility. Mind you, it could be true. Lutz, at some point, could have created such a trust. (I suspect he did at some point when AF Holdings began to be shown for what it was.) But even if this is true, it shows that there is something REALLY fishy going on – which is exactly the point Defendant was trying to make. Yes… Jacques Nazaire handed the Defendant their argument on a silver platter. Brilliant, Jacques. Just brilliant. How this guy ever got a license to practice law, I do not know.

Media coverage

 

¹ Lady, who notarized Lutz’s signature in Key West FL, has kindly replied to my inquiry:

It was notarized by me on April 19, 2013. I responded to another person, [...], about this same document. I did not prepare it, nor did I really even read it. Mr. Lutz just came into my building looking for a notary so he could execute the document and have it notarized.

Graham Syfert withdraws his call for sanctions against Gibbs and Wasinger; Gibbs claims that Steele and Hansmeier have been driving litigation in Florida

Posted: April 12, 2013 by SJD in Prenda, Sunlust fiasco
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21
Thanks to Judge Wright’s resolution to get to the bottom of Prenda-related controversies, the poo-throwing among the Prenda gang members has recently escalated dramatically. In this light, yesterday’s event is not surprising. We covered the Sunlust fiasco (Sunlust Pictures v. Tuan Nguyen (12-cv-01685) extensively in December. This coverage started with a hilarious hearing where a stand-up comedian Mark Lutz tried to dupe Judge Scriven into believing that he was a Sunlust representative. Later we also wrote about apparent fact-bending in the series of declarations by the plaintiff and his lawyers, which resulted in a motion for sanctions against Gibbs, Steele, Duffy and Wasinger filed by the defendant’s attorney Graham Syfert. It is also worth mentioning that Prenda’s members (for the first time, to the best of my knowledge) have lawyered up.

Although the transcript from Judge Scriven’s courtroom gained a status of celebrity among court transcripts and was exhibited in numerous motions across the country, the case itself remained dormant for months — until yesterday.

On 4/11/2013 Syfert decided to withdraw his motion for sanction against Gibbs. In addition, all the issues with Matt Wasinger have been resolved. According to Syfert’s motion, this young attorney was “duped” by Prenda — he became Prenda’s local counsel for a short time, but unlike many other “local representatives,” either obtuse or ethically challenged, quickly understood that his career was at serious stake and called it quits.

The reason why Gibbs was also spared can be found in his damning declaration, which was filed as an exhibit to the motion embedded above. While the new statements contradict Gibbs’s previous ones, Gibbs seems to be more truthful now. He speaks about the lawyers who de-facto drove the lawsuit in question (it is not a big stretch to assume it to be true for all the other Florida cases). Is anyone surprised that these lawyers appear to be… John Steele and Paul Hansmeier?

Although those who have been following the Prenda quest find nothing new in Gibbs’s declaration, it is notable that his confession is now written is stone — in a public court document. No matter how obvious some things are, Prenda’s lawyers were good at concealing the smoking gun, and judges don’t like hearsay and conspiracy theories. Now we have juicy evidence.

In my opinion, one particular consequence for Steele is that Gibbs’s words imply that Steele and Hansmeier have been driving the Florida lawsuits, i.e. it possible that they have been practicing Law in Florida without license. Given that Steele signed an affidavit agreeing not to do it, I expect Florida Bar to be annoyed (to put it mildly). Remember that even though the law prohibiting practicing Law without license in Florida is rarely enforced; such practice is still a third-degree felony.

Media coverage
Update

4/24/2013

On 3/23/2014 Judge Scriven issued a strongly worded order, letting Matt Wasinger go (I sincerely wish good luck to him) and instructing plaintiff to find a new counsel in 2 weeks and after that to file an opposition to Syfert’s motion for sanctions. Otherwise she promises to grant this motion and order Prenda to pay up:

Followup

Undefined beneficiary trust: what is it?

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

On page 39 of the transcript we read:

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

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

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

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

Nevis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Interesting links

Recent mega-leak of offshore business records:

Transcript of the March 11 hearing is now available

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

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

Enjoy.

 

Big thanks to Michael Stone for recapping.

Update

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

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

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

Posted: April 2, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
72

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

Adam Steinbaugh

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript
Featured comment by a witness

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Peter Hansmeier and Lutz did not have representation.

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

Duffy entered separately, looked beet red.

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

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

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

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

So it looks like factional lines are being drawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured cartoon

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

Media coverage

sharkmp4: the Prenda Law honeypot

Posted: March 20, 2013 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
34

Graham Syfert (a Jacksonville attorney, who does not need an introduction) posted an interesting investigative piece today. I found it extremely important and encourage everyone to read it. But before you start, I want to point out to one coincidence that Graham did not mention (probably he did not know): a person who we strongly believe was John Steele had been commenting on this blog via Mullvad VPN (links at the bottom). Although it does not prove anything per se — a single exit IP address is shared by many VPN users — the fact that Mullvad VPN was allegedly used to seed certain pornographic movies is interesting.

sharkmp4: The Prenda Law Honeypot

By Graham Syfert

Many know of the problems encountered by Prenda Law in the case of Sunlust v. Nguyen, a copyright infringement case that resulted in the Sunlust v. Nguyen hearing transcript. Many also know of the cases of Steele, Prenda, and Duffy v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper, and The Internet.

And everyone who is reading this probably knows that there has been a problem in California, where a federal judge is quite concerned regarding the client and firm merging together in cases titled in the Plaintiff’s name of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.

Recently, the question came to be asked: Has anyone ever seen these movies they’re suing on available anywhere but bittorrent? I do not have any current AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13 cases, I have never looked at the works, or even focused on Ingenuity 13 any more than hunting Alan Cooper or Salt Marsh. But I decided to try and help. Oh, and I guess the Prenda Law client VPR Internationale, also comes into play. Probably others.

Knowing that Steele likes to sue the internet, for making false statements, I will simply present the facts.

Continue reading on the Graham Syfert’s blog…

Comments from Mullvad VPN addresses — (strongly suspected) made by John Steele
Media coverage
Older Entries