Posts Tagged ‘Peter Hansmeier’

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

Media coverage

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.


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

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
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 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

 

This is a wonderful news: yesterday Electronic Frontier Foundation announced on Twitter that it would help to fight the subpoena in the copyright troll Prenda’s defamation lawsuits designed to silence the troll’s critics:

 

We should expect an official press release on Monday, I guess.

My heart has melted because of all the support we have received. The site traffic was unprecedentedly high over the last week, and people (even those who never heard of us before) have offered all types of help, including creating a fund to raise the defense money. With EFF’s involvement, it became a no-brainer: if you want to support our cause and the fight for the free speech in general, EFF is the right organization to donate your money to. Note that this plea is my own initiative: if EFF chooses to intervene and help people, they do it unconditionally.

Shortly before the EFF’s announcement, Paul Sieminski, a General Counsel for Automattic (WordPress.com’s parent company) sent an official response to Paul Duffy, refusing to comply with the troll’s sneaky overreaching subpoena. I’m sure you will enjoy this eloquent email and praise the business that, while having to abide the law, actually cares about its customers and does not throw them under the bus (as, for example, Neustar does):

From: Paul Sieminski
Subject: Response to Subpoena to Automattic, Inc.

Date: March 8, 2013 2:39:47 PM PST
To: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Re: Prenda Law, Inc. v. Paul A. Godfread, Alan Cooper, et al.
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, Case No. 13-L-75

Mr. Duffy:

I write in response to Prenda Law, Inc.’s subpoena to Automattic, Inc. (“Automattic”) (relating to the WordPress.com sites dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com). Your subpoena is legally deficient and objectionable for numerous reasons, enumerated below, and Automattic will not produce any documents in response to this subpoena.

  • First, the subpoena purports to relate to an action pending in Illinois, but in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Sections 2029.350 and 2029.390, it is not on the proper form for a subpoena for production of business records in action pending outside of California and it fails to attach a true and correct copy of the Illinois subpoena. Indeed, the form served on Automattic is for appearance at a trial or hearing, and in violation of the instructions of the subpoena, you direct Automattic to serve documents to your office and not to the clerk of the court as required.
  • Second, the subpoena purports to require production of business records in Chicago, Illinois, in violation of CCP Section 2025.250.
  • Third, the subpoena was issued in Marin County, when the discovery is to be conducted in San Francisco County, in violation of CCP Section 2029.350(b)(4).
  • Fourth, the subpoena was issued on February 22, 2013, yet you demand compliance by March 4, 2013, in violation of CCP Section 2020.410, which requires a minimum of 20 days to respond following the issuance of the subpoena.
  • Fifth, the subpoena improperly asks Automattic to create a document and to supply information, rather than properly asking for documents from a nonparty.

 

In addition to the numerous legal deficiencies that render the subpoena invalid, it is also objectionable on numerous fronts.

  • First, it seeks information protected by the First Amendment, including rights under the First Amendment to anonymous speech.
  • Second, it violates the right to privacy under the California Constitution and common law, in that it seeks information relating to the websites that consumers visited.
  • Third, it is facially (and outrageously) overly broad, in that it is not limited to information related to any alleged defamatory posts, but instead seeks the identity of any person who ever read the blogs in question.
  • Finally, it seeks information that is not likely to lead to discoverable information, for the reasons enumerated above.

Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns. A copy of this message will also follow by US Mail.

Paul Sieminski
General Counsel
Automattic Inc. | WordPress.com

Followup
Media coverage
We all knew that March 11 sanction hearing would make history (mind the countdown calendar on the left). After Judge Write ordered Gibbs to name Prenda’s decision makers, we hoped that the judge would order the senior members of the infamous copyright troll firm to appear in person and be questioned under oath. However, this outcome would be too good to be true. Today it has turned out both good and true. The judge’s order definitely made Prenda’s masterminds forget about people saying mean things about them on the Internet: this week the trolls acquired an unprecedented headache.

 

I expect to see some hasty filings tomorrow with all imaginable and non-imaginable excuses not to appear in Wright’s courtroom. You may remember that Paul Duffy claimed in November that he could not travel by air due to his health condition. I don’t want to imply it is not true, but it is worth mentioning that the doctor, who filed the sealed affidavit, is David J. Fletcher, Paul Duffy’s friend and co-defendant in a lawsuit that Duffy’s former employer Freeborn & Peters LLP filed against them alleging breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. If Paul cannot travel by air, there are still trains that serve millions of passengers every year, and I heard that traveling by train through the Rockies is a fantastic experience.

One motion from Brett Gibbs — via his lawyers who “primarily defend lawyers in malpractice actions” — has already hit the docket: a request for these lawyers to appear “on behalf of their client.” I do not know if “on behalf” means “instead of” in this context: if it is so, I do not expect Wright to grant it (as a matter of fact, I misinterpreted this motion due to my legal ignorance — see the update below — the motion was granted on 3/6/2013).

Update: my layman’s (apparently incorrect) assessment prompted an attorney’s comment. Ken wrote:

I think you are misreading Gibbs’ lawyers’ application. They are asking for leave to make a special appearance. That usually means an appearance for a limited purpose, as opposed to a general appearance, which makes you that person’s attorney of record for all purposes in the case. Lawyers seek to make a special appearance to limit their exposure — to avoid being stuck as counsel of record in the case. If you become counsel of record, you’d have to move to withdraw if you wanted to get out (for instance, if your client stopped paying you), and the judge might or might not let you out. Judges can accept, or not, a special appearance.

Anyway, it is less than a week until THE hearing, and if anyone wants to attend it, I advise to come earlier to avoid standing in a doorway.

In other news

Today, for more than 12 hours, visitors of Prenda’s site wefightpiracy.com were being redirected to The Pirate Bay. According to this site’s commenters, it was a javascript redirection, embedded into the site code: apparently, “hackers” did not elect to deface the site in order to deliver a message. Of course, there is no proof, but both a lame execution of the “hack” and the astonishingly long time to fix the site, suggest an inside job: we will learn soon if our community is blamed for this “takeover.”

Update

3/9/2013
There was nothing unexpected in the yesterday’s events: those who were summoned to attend the hearing, did everything possible to weasel out. Naturally, they waited for the last moment and filed their motion outside of ECF, and, as a result it is still not on Pacer. Bad thing is that I was busy yesterday and couldn’t break the news. Good thing is that there are many who follow this saga real-time and more eloquent than me, so continue reading about this expected douchebaggery:

Update 2

3/11/2013
Yesterday Morgan Pietz lodged (filed) a copy of yesterday’s investigative piece in a Minnesota’s StarTribune (by Dan Browning). The reason is an alleged (and damning) evidence of another name misappropriation by Prenda, namely using the identity of Allan Mooney in Prenda’s filings without his knowledge, even supplying a “notarized” copy of his signature. I did not cover this particular alleged fraud explicitly, but those who read Morgan Pietz’s filings referred in recent posts, know what I’m talking about.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the putative Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW by and through counsel, hereby lodges with the Court a true and correct copy of a Minneapolis StarTribune Article published Sunday March 10, 2013, a copy of which is also attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As relevant here, the headline for this article would be that Allan Mooney of Minnesota is quoted denying knowing that his name is being used in connection with federal court filings made by Prenda Law, Inc. (including in the St. Clair County Guava, LLC action). Further, Mr. Mooney also denies knowing that he was listed as the organizer for MCGIP, LLC, a plaintiff Prenda Law, Inc. has represented in numerous copyright infringement actions. The yellow highlighting to the relevant section of the article dealing with Allan Mooney’s denial of his alleged role in Prenda lawsuits was applied by undersigned counsel.

Media coverage
By Raul

For some time now federal judges across our nation have expressed uneasiness with a copyright troll’s bald assertion that in a porn copyright infringement complaint an IP address equates with the alleged copyright infringer. This concern was famously voiced by Magistrate Judge Gary Brown of he Eastern District of New York who noted:

[I]t is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function — here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film — than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.

Likewise, Judge Otis Wright in the Central District of California put his concern in this regard a little more bluntly:

An IP address alone may yield subscriber information, but that may only lead to the person paying for the internet service and not necessarily the actual infringer, who may be a family member, roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete stranger. [...] And given the subject matter of AF Holdings’s accusations and the economics of defending such a lawsuit, it is highly likely that the subscriber would immediately pay a settlement demand — regardless whether the subscriber is the actual infringer. This Court has a duty to protect the innocent citizens of this district from this sort of legal shakedown, even though a copyright holder’s rights may be infringed by a few deviants. Thus, when viewed with the public interest in mind, the Court is reluctant to allow any fishing-expedition discovery when all a plaintiff has is an IP address — the burden is on the plaintiff to find other ways to more precisely identify the accused infringer without causing collateral damage.

See also, Rob Cashman’s excellent analysis of this issue.


Federal Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz

Finally, however, in the Southern District of California Judge Barry Moskowitz has found that an IP address, alone, is insufficient to support a complaint for copyright infringement. The lawsuit is AF Holdings v. Rogers (CASD 12-cv-01519) brought by the infamous Prenda Law Firm http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/category/clans/prenda/. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and negligence. On 11/20/2012 Mr. Rogers, the defendant pro se, filed his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (I believe the motion was cribbed from the one filed by attorney Nick Ranallo in another AF Holdings lawsuit). Subsequently on 12/3/2012 Prenda filed its response in opposition to the motion. Judge Moskowitz made his Order granting in part motion to dismiss on 1/29/2013. Addressing the copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, the judge notes that:

[...] the Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the FAC does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant). As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.

Furthermore, the judge is concerned that:

Because the subscriber of an IP address may very well be innocent of infringing activity associated with the IP address, courts take care to distinguish between subscribers and infringers. Courts limit discovery regarding Doe defendants in BitTorrent cases to ensure that potentially innocent subscribers are not needlessly humiliated and coerced into unfair settlements.

Accordingly, the judge determines that (emphasis supplied):

Due to the risk of “false positives,” an allegation that an IP address is registered to an individual is not sufficient in and of itself to support a claim that the individual is guilty of infringement.

Judge Moskowitz next finds and orders (emphasis supplied):

As mentioned above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, using IP address 68.8.137.53, participated in the swarm that downloaded and distributed the Video on May 7, 2012. Under Rule 11(b)(3), Plaintiff’s counsel certified that to the best of his knowledge, this factual contention has evidentiary support. However, due to the potential for abuse in these types of cases, the Court wants to make sure that Plaintiff’s contention is supported by evidence that goes beyond the identity of the subscriber to the IP address. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement setting forth the factual basis for its allegation that Defendant used IP address 68.8.137.53 to infringe its copyright. [Footnote:] In its Opposition, Plaintiff states in a footnote that “Plaintiff’s allegations and identification of Defendant are based off of much more information than a lone IP address…” Plaintiff does not, however, specify what information it has.

The judge next summarily dismisses Prenda’s idiotic negligence claim as follows:

Plaintiff’s claim fails because there is no underlying duty. One who fails to act to protect another is generally not liable for breaching a duty unless there is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act. [...] There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant which gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to ensure, through heightened security measures and hawkish monitoring of internet usage, that nobody uses his internet connection to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.

 

Returning to the claims of copyright infringement and contributory infringement, of course, Prenda had no further evidence as to the identity of the infringer other than the IP address, so on 2/6/2013 it dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

With the recent explosion of individual copyright infringement shakedown lawsuits, now clogging the dockets of federal courts across the country¹, it is expected that this Order will be cited often by defense attorneys and the courts to justify the dismissals of these predatory lawsuits. In fact, the mere mention of this powerful Order in another Prenda lawsuit (Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Shashek, ILSD 12-cv-00860), caused Prenda to dismiss that case the next day (2/14/2013).

 

Media coverage

 


¹ Indeed, besides suing the aged, impoverished and infirm, Prenda sues the dead.