Posts Tagged ‘Paul Hansmeier’

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

Posted: May 22, 2013 by SJD in Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
13

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.

My opinion: a pro se defendant needs a pro bono attorney

Posted: May 13, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5
There is a case lingering in the ILND, Ingenuity 13 v Bradley Hellyer (12-cv-06131). The defendant represents himself, and he answered the complaint, even included some counterclaims. I believe that Prenda would be happy to get rid of this lawsuit, but it can’t do it easily since the complaint has been answered. Just last week the plaintiff managed to get the counterclaims dismissed; dismissing the entire lawsuit is much easier now.

After the March 11 hearing in Judge Wright’s chambers, Prenda filed many “notices of allegations” in AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases. Duffy explained that the reason for these filings was his wide known candor and honesty. Nonetheless, note that no notice was filed in this case. In my opinion, the judge on this case, Judge Joan Lefkof, is lenient to trolls, but I can be wrong, just a gut feeling. The dismissal of counterclaims has nothing to do with this, though: those counterclaims were indeed weak: the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was well written (if one wouldn’t know the circumstances).

Therefore, in light of the damning Judge Wright’s Order, the likelihood of winning legal fees is rather high, so I believe this is a great opportunity for an Illinois-licensed attorney to chime in and represent Bradley pro bono. Even if collecting potential fee awards is arguably problematic, there is a certain value in having a favorable judgment in a lawyer’s portfolio. This is not only my opinion, an attorney thinks the same way:

 

To be clear, defendant never contacted me or anyone I know, it was not his initiative.

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 is essentially done

Posted: May 6, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
94

We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Congratulations to everyone involved, especially Morgan and Nick.

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.

 

 

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.

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

Answers are filed in the Prenda’s defamation lawsuits

Posted: March 21, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
65

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
Older Entries