Posts Tagged ‘Morgan Pietz’

Sinking ship “Prenda” is breaking with a loud sound. Rats are leaving the vessel

Posted: February 20, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Guava/Lightspeed, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
113
Saying that judges rarely use words “incarceration,” “fraud,” “automatic bench warrant” in an order to show cause would be an understatement. Nonetheless, Judge Otis Wright did just that in Ingenuity v. Jon Doe (CACD 12-cv-08333). Tired of apparent Prenda Law’s fraudulent activities, he ordered its counsel Brett Gibbs to explain his and his law firm’s behavior at a hearing set for March 11. Additionally, he allowed parties (Brett Gibbs and Morgan Pietz) to file briefs before February 19. A deposition of Prenda by Morgan Pietz was set to proceed on the same date.

Brett Gibbs tries to play a pity card, points finger at “Prenda senior people”

Copyright troll Brett Gibbs

A couple of hours before the deadline, Brett Gibbs filed his declaration through a newly hired law firm Waxler Carner Brodsky LLP, which has been “primarily defending lawyers in malpractice actions.” Although it was a relatively wise move (akin to an old lawyer’s saying that “a lawyer who represents himself in a court has a fool for a client”), the result was a pile of horse manure that does not pass a common sense scrutiny. The funny thing is that this spectacular failure does not characterize Gibbs’s defenders, it’s just too much lying to explain: no star attorney is capable of coming up with a credible story painting Gibbs an innocent kid deceived by evil grown-ups.

Regardless, the main huge news is that Brett has given up his stubborn loyalty and has started pointing his finger at Prenda’s “senior members” (Paul Hansmeier and John Steele):

I am and have never had an ownership interest in the copyrights involved in the Copyright Litigations. As discussed in greater detail below, I did not make strategic decisions like whether to file actions, who to sue, and whether to make a certain settlement demand or accept an offer of settlement in the Copyright Litigations. These types of decisions were made by the clients, after consulting with senior members of the law firms that employed me in an “of counsel” relationship.
[...]

I have never had a financial or fiduciary (i.e., ownership) interest in AF Holdings. AF Holdings was a client of S&H and then Prenda. The face-to-face and direct interactions between S&H and later Prenda with AF Holdings were handled by the senior members of the law firms and not me.
[...]

I have never met Alan Cooper, and do not know what the extent of Mr. Cooper’s role is in AF Holdings aside from seeing a signature from an “Alan Cooper” on the copyright assignments and pleadings.
[...]

I first became aware of a question regarding the identity of Alan Cooper when it was raised by Mr. Pietz.
[...]

I confirmed the existence of the client-executed verification either by seeing a copy of the signed verification, or at the very least, being informed by a representative of S&H or Prenda that a signed verification was in the possession of S & H or Prenda.

The explanation of the reason how Alan Copper’s fraudulent signature was verified by Gibbs and why he failed to present the original is simply stunning. Sure, it is a credible and sufficient reasoning that will clear Mr. Brett’s name so he will avoid sanctions:

In Case No. 84, Mr. Pietz first asked for a copy of Mr. Cooper’s verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony on or about December 2012, well after the petition had been discharged. Given the length of time since the case was discharged, I was informed and understand that S&H (and later Prenda) no longer has a copy of Mr. Cooper’s verification to the petition to perpetuate testimony.

Just a week earlier Steele and Hansmeier decided to delegate Gibbs’s responsibilities to Michael Dugas. After two and half years of collaboration, they have thrown Brett under the bus, so no surprise that his loyalty has evaporated quickly.

I’ll leave it to a reader to go through unconvincing excuses, which are not as entertaining as those that another troll’s mob mastermind, Keith Lipscomb, poured on Judge Baylson last fall.

 


Click to enlarge

[2/21/2013 update] It is not remotely funny anymore that Brett (to whom we already gave an honorable nickname “Pinocchio”) is lying without even thinking about the possibility of anyone doing some basic fact checking. Here is an example (thanks to a commenter for noticing):

From Gibbs’s declaration:

31. In addition, in order to rule out neighbors of the 1411 Paseo Jacaranda, Santa Maria, California 93458 location utilizing the internet connection, I performed a Google map search and obtained a satellite picture of the corner house located at 1411 Paseo Jacaranda, Santa Maria, California 93458. A further public search revealed that the house was approximately 1,200 sq. ft. which sat on a 6,534 sq. ft. lot. Considering the position of the house on the lot, and its position away from the neighboring houses, it seemed clear that, should the household have wireless internet, it would not have been accessible by the neighbors.

Alright. A typical wireless range is from 50 to 100 m. Look at the map: green circle’s radius is 50 m, and yellow — 100 m. So we are talking about 10-30 households capable of utilizing the wireless connection in question.

Can’t help noticing another funny argument in Gibbs’s declaration:

[...] the inconsistency did not prevent a prima facie showing of copyright ownership because the law only requires the assignment to he signed by the assignor. Given the court’s finding that the copyright assignment in Case No. 3335 was prima facie valid despite an issue regarding whether the assignee had properly executed the assignment. I had and have a good faith belief that the assignments in Case No. 6636 and 6669 are valid despite any alleged issue regarding the identity of Alan Cooper.

Or, as scruuball translated it to Twitter’s 140,

It doesn’t matter that we forged a signature, because we didn’t need it in the first place! Hah!

To our surprise, there is a certificate of AF Holdings’ incorporation, but the quality of the copy is poor, and I’m afraid that given St. Kitts’ secrecy laws, there is no way to validate that it is authentic. Even if it is real, this does not negate the fact that AF Holdings is a shell entity “owned” by Prenda. Note that nothing of this kind was presented for another fraudulent entity, Ingenuity 13.

The fact that Brett Gibbs has lawyered up has more significance: it will be easier for him to cut a deal with an Attorney General and (relatively) save his ass while allowing putting the major culprits behind the bars.

Morgan Pietz replies to Judge Wright’s OSC. One word: “Wow”

Defendant’s attorney Morgan Pietz had just an hour to review Gibbs’s weaselspeak. Admittedly, Morgan wrote the bulk of his response in advance, but still he managed to add thorough debunking of Gibbs’s whining. It’s impossible to pull pieces from this document, it is a must read from the first line to the last. It has is all: a long history of Prenda’s crookery, calling out lies and contradictions in Gibbs’s declaration, examples of more identity theft, damning revelations during the deposition of Paul Hansmeier (who, like a “boss” in an action computer game, appeared in the last episode).

I only want to quote the beautiful conclusion (links supplied):

The conduct of Prenda and its “of counsel” Mr. Gibbs in these cases undermines the integrity of the courts and the public’s confidence in the justice system. Here, Prenda has shown is that it is willing to do just about anything to obtain grist for its national “settlement” mill. Repeatedly, in hundreds of actions filed in courts across the country, Prenda has resorted to misrepresentations, halftruths, and questionable tactics, if not outright fraud, forgery, and identity theft. Until now, Prenda has gotten away with quite a lot of these kinds of tactics because it simply abandons its lawsuits, via a voluntary dismissal, after obtaining subpoena returns, and some settlements. Indeed, as noted above, Mr. Gibbs is already at it again, now sending out demand letters on behalf of Guava, LLC, which is now purportedly owned by Livewire Holdings, LLC not a mystery trust. Exactly who is responsible for the worst of Prenda’s actions here may not yet be clear, but this is the archetypical type of case, where there is a pattern of bad action that is done in such a way to avoid scrutiny, where a major sanctions is appropriate as a deterrent. This Court is urged not to go easy on Mr. Gibbs or Prenda Law.

 

Many paragraphs in this brief deserve separate posts, and sure we will continue shedding the light on Prenda and its epic downfall until the fraudsters cease their criminal activity and are severely punished.

Followup
Media coverage

Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied

Posted: January 15, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
25
The apoplectic and misguided Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied today by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.


Federal Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald

Anyone, who is familiar with the “Coopergate” — a damning accusation that Prenda Law is engaged in fraud, forgery, and identity theft — has no illusion why Brett Gibbs came up with this vexatious motion on the New Year’s Eve. It is clear that Gibbs has desperately attempted to delay the inevitable — the necessity to answer questions about the real owners of AF Holdings and Ingenuinty 13 — under penalty of perjury — as it was ordered by the judge, whom our lying little swindler attempted to remove from the case.

From the order:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it. Plaintiff’s argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright’s discovery orders.

[...]

Here, Judge Wright’s conduct simply does not demonstrate any pervasive bias against Plaintiff or other copyright holders of pornographic or erotic material. At most, Plaintiff demonstrates that Judge Wright is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse.

 

The game is on. I have mixed feelings: sensing the pain of Prenda’s victims, I want this blain on the judicial body to burst as soon as possible. On the other hand, as a curious person, I am impatiently waiting for the next Prenda’s move: the experience shows that there is no limit to Gibbs’s creative douchebaggery. Wash your hands, ladies and gentlemen, in preparation to the next epic palmface.

A brief history of Prenda Law, by Morgan Pietz

Yesterday (on 1/14/2013) defense attorney Morgan Pietz filed an opposition to Gibbs’s frivolous disqualification request. This opposition has an interesting attachment (embedded below) — a declaration that tells the story of deception and fraud: a colorful brief history of Prenda Law. I commend Mr. Pietz for this thorough job: while many episodes of crookery and abuse are missing (for example, a farcical “informal discovery” campaign or Guava/Arte de Oaxaca fraud), all the major milestones were grasped with precision. It is difficult to say if Pietz’s opposition played a critical role in Judge Fitzgerald’s decision — maybe not: Gibbs himself made enough effort to communicate the fraudulent nature of his lawsuits to judges. Nonetheless, Morgan did a huge favor to anyone fighting Prenda — both lawyers and pro se parties — by providing a concise reference, a must have attachment to motions and declarations, especially in cases where judges are not familiar with the Prenda gang and the contents of its bag of tricks.

 

Visit Pietz Law Firm’s website to read the exhibits referred in this declaration.

Media coverage

Copyright trolls: “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money!”

Posted: October 12, 2012 by SJD in Lipscomb, Malibu Media v. Fantalis
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
54
One of the most important battles with copyright trolls is Jeff Fantalis’s dedicated and well-versed counter-attack on a copyright troll extortion outfit comprised of its “boss” Keith M. Lipscomb, a jaded pornographer Brigham Field (Malibu Media), and Lipscomb’s local Colorado puppet Jason Aaron Kotzker. An update to this story has been long due.


Jeff Fantalis

What happened since Fantalis filed his excellent First Amended Answer and Counterclaims? I’ll try to briefly cover the main events. If my emotional comments seem overboard, refer to the court filings, and I hope your skepticism will vanish :)

  • On 8/8 Kotzker filed a motion to dismiss Fantalis’s amended counterclaim. This motion contained many assertions that were not supported by case law. Raul called it “a panicked troll bitch response.”
  • On 8/13 Marc Randazza crashed the party with one of his amicus curiae briefs prepared on behalf of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA). This brief’s single topic was the claim that pornography belongs to the company of “useful arts,” and deserves copyright protection. My opinion on this issue was precisely expressed by a blog commenter:

    Randazza and the other copyright trolls brought this on themselves by abusing the court system with their predatory litigation practices. While I am definitely not one for censorship or limiting the ability of people to create works, even adult ones, I cannot help but be amused that the court system that the trolls and their adult film clients abused so egregiously of late could now potentially destroy them all if pornography is ruled to be uncopyrightable. That’s what they get for being greedy short sighted douchebags.

  • On 8/22 Fantalis opposed Randazza’s motion to file the amicus curiae brief, painting FALA as not a disinterested party, but essentially an adult business astroturf. The conclusion was that the brief’s biased opinion is neither welcome nor appropriate. Judge later allowed this brief to be filed.
  • On 8/24 Kotzker filed a motion for protective order (that was later granted), which included some outrageous statements:

    Plaintiff has good cause for a protective order because if this information is provided to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be subject to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff is aware of anti-copyright blogs and websites that follow cases by Plaintiff and disseminate defense strategies and other information. Often these blogs and websites encourage individuals to harass Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates in order to discourage Plaintiff from filing suits against individuals that have infringed its copyrights. Several of Plaintiff’s counsel have received death threats and other harassing letters and emails. Plaintiff has a legitimate fear that if the information of its employees and affiliates is provided and disseminated to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be susceptible to similar threats and experience annoyance, embarrassment and harassment.

    Dietrolldie made a post debunking these cowardly lies. I only want to add one thought: as we learned about the impending bellwether trial in Pennsylvania, our blogs’ community became rather excited (just read the recent comments) about the prospect of a fair trial that could take place as early as in April 2013. That alone tells volumes more than trolls’ unsubstantiated accusations: would you expect such an excitement from a community of near criminals, as Mr. Kotzker and other pornotrolls try to portray us?

  • On 8/29 Fantalis filed his Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim. Although this document was later stricken, I highly recommend reading it: it is more refined than the previous one and has many new damning exhibits, including a Berlin Court’s injunction that finds Guardley’s IP harvesting methods erroneous. We were aware of this document for a long time, but it was not translated from German. Now we have an English version, and I advise movants to refer to it in any opposition to trolls’ claims regarding the accuracy of their forensic “experts,” especially in Malibu Media cases: Lipscomb’s outfit employs IPP International, which is merely a Guardaley’s facade.
  • On 8/31 the pot called the kettle back and filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The content of this motion is a pure definition of irony: Kotzker claims that Fantalis’s counterclaims are frivolous. However, the motion does not present any facts that would support this claim, which makes this motion frivolous itself. I’m not sure that Kotzker understands this irony: by this time it became clear that our little troll is scared. His subsequent actions suggest that the fear of discovery overcomes the fear of being disciplined. Kotzker tries everything to stall the process, which is not a surprise: trolls excelled in taking off but did not care to learn how to land: in other words, despite filing hundreds of cases across the country, they did not even think about preparing to litigate.
  • On 9/5 Fantalis replied to plaintiff’s motion for protective order, thoroughly debunking all the phony claims that Kotzker had made on 8/24. I want to thank Jeff for defending our community from baseless attacks:

    The “anti-copyright” blogs, to which Plaintiff refers, are by no means against copyright as a matter of law. What they are dedicated to is to the education and support of John Does who have been sued or otherwise approached by a company like Plaintiff. They are anti-mass-for-profit-infringement-litigation blogs.

  • 9/22 Kotzker’s reply to response to motion for leave to amend is worth reading too.

So what about this post’s title? The answer is in 9/21 response to trolls’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. While the document itself is a no less important and must-read than Fantalis’s previous filings, the most incriminatory piece is the exhibit, having seen which even very skeptical person will shake his head in disbelief. Four people — three attorneys and a 66 y.o. defendant — each filed a sworn affidavit that tells essentially the same story: how they approached plaintiff, voluntarily offering their hardware for forensic examination to prove innocence, and (surprise?) the troll said “no.” Or, translated to plain English, “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money”:

 

So here we are. While this battle rages on, the trolls acquire new headaches every day. So far these headaches are:

  • A class action lawsuit against five pornographers, including Malibu Media;
  • Yesterday 33 Malibu cases in the Central District of California were reduced to a single Doe each;
  • Fast-track bellwether lawsuit in Pennsylvania;
  • Another defendant in Colorado fights back;
  • A defendant in Maryland (with a help of attorney Eric Menhart) comes up with a different set of counterclaims, explicitly accusing trolls of running a honeypot.

    • I’m sure I have missed a few. Moreover, it is clear that this list is destined to grow, as it is clear that trolls’ house of cards is shaking and will soon fall apart.

    Do not feed the trolls. Do not settle. In order to win, you must fight back.

    Updates
    • On 10/5 Plaintiff filed his further support for Rule 11 sanctions. He called this blog “anti-copyright” once again on page 21 (the irony continues: no fact supporting this claim can be presented) and whined that Fantalis should be stopped because… others can use his excellent reasoning in defending themselves! Unbelievable. Yet I’m grateful to the trolls for drawing the judges’ attention to this humble blog one more time. I hope that Judge Hegarty follows the links in the filings and will click on the footnote 12.

      Needless to say, the subject of this post was not addressed at all: seemingly it is not a big deal do extort obviously innocent people.

    • On 10/11 Fantalis, tired of plaintiff’s games, filed a motion to compel to produce requested documents. Must read.
    • On 10/12 Fantalis filed an objection to an earlier magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation that advised to entry a default judgement against another defendant on this case, Bruce Dunn. As a commenter below noted, “it has much more to do with how a judgment against Bruce Dunn would prejudice his own case rather that out of charity. Fantalis is absolutely correct, that judgment against Dunn would be paradoxical if (read: when) Fantalis prevails at trial.”
    • On 10/18 Judge Hegarty granted Fantalis’ motion for time extension to file second amended answer and counterclaim, motion for leave to file second amended answer and counterclaim, denied Kotzker’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and denied as moot Fantalis’ second amended answer and counterclaim.

    11/9/2012. Follow-up post: Malibu Media v. Fantalis et al: update. Second Amended Answer; discovery sabotage; hearing on the Motion to Compel. All further updates will be posted there.