Prenda

Prendacalypse #2: Judge Wright orders a follow-up hearing on April 2; no excuses for not appearing

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.

Coverage

 


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

wordpress counter

Discussion

102 responses to ‘Prendacalypse #2: Judge Wright orders a follow-up hearing on April 2; no excuses for not appearing

    • I don’t know about anyone else, but I sure will. Would not miss this one for the world. NOW would be the time for anyone who is connected or has connections to the mainstream media to start making phone calls. All of the even temperament that was shown on March 11th will – I predict – dissipate into thin air.

      I had mentioned in prior posts that we would soon see a hurricane. It’s just been upgraded to a Category 5 Tornado. Mass damage is imminent.

  1. wow. As an attorney I have to respect a judge who takes the bull (shite”) by the horns to mix my metaphors. These gentleman are in big trouble.

  2. That Judge Wright set the hearing for 10:30 AM implies he expects a shorter hearing, one that will be concluded before lunch, doesn’t it?

    Maybe Prenda’s people will be having bologna sandwiches?

    • … maybe the phoney brand kind, however Oscar Mayer may actually sue them for copyright infringement.

      So, it actually may appear that as negative as the outcome is, at least those who are being served will be served again… with a huge shit sandwich they all need to take a big bite from, compliments from a generous Hon. Wright.

  3. I love it:

    “Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a–m above not appear on March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their failure to appear”

    I read this as:

    “If Alan Cooper of AF Holdings does not appear, I’m going to take that to mean he does not exist and it’s proof of fraud”

  4. A commenter over at Popehat’s blog made an interesting comment which I am going to rephrase: How is Gibbs going to file proof of sevice on Alan Cooper of AF Holdings? He has to do it by tomorrow.

      • I agree. It was on display on Monday. He clearly found the situation humorous, absurd even, but that doesn’t mean he failed to take it very seriously.

    • Easy. He just needs to make a quick trip to the adult store, pick up one of those inflatable dolls, then simply give it a name (maybe Alan Cooper?).

      Actually, that may not be in his best interest, because it’s not so much that it’s obscene and offensive, but if the doll somehow gains a true identity, can it sue Brett Gibbs for fraud, defamation, or something else?

  5. If these guys are shown to have been engaging in fraud (big if because I foresee the FIFTH being invoked early and often), these guys are susceptible to being sued for pain and suffering as no doubt many, many Does lost sleep, became depressed, anxious, and may have sought professional care for these effects. Not to mention those who may have contemplated suicide like that disabled Doe sometime back. I’ll admit I myself have been there, have sought professional treatment, and am waiting in the wings to file a lawsuit for relief. A jury would not be kind to these guys, and I don’t think they should be if what appears to be true is. Other alleged copyright trolls ought to take notice, be sure their ducks are in a row, before proceeding with what looks like vexatious and menacing litigation.

    • Yep, imagine how these guys will look to any jury they find themselves in front of, in any case, civil or criminal.

  6. I think the most telling bit from this order is that he said the defendant lawyers don’t need to show up. That tells me the judge has his mind made up.

  7. I too love Wright’s style and devious sense of humor that reveals itself in ordering Gibbs to serve Alan Cooper of AF Holdings AND file proof of service by tomorrow. He is a predator toying with his prey; he knows neither Gibbs, nor anyone at Prenda, can do this but demands it anyway so they must hang themselves with their own rope.

    Expect this to play a major role in what happens after this hearing.

    Buckle up!

    • On the form, the original gets filed with the Court, and one copy goes to the requesting party. So, yeah, we get to see it for free. Of course, Hilary bills her client for the costs, which would be….Steele! That’s right, Steele has to pay to read Judge Wright bashing his enterprise and his ‘dupe’, Gibbsie.

    • As a software quality assurance expert (open offer to doe defenders: i’ll be yer huckleberry if you need an expert witness on the lack of QMS for the software that “tracks” “pirates” that is the basis of all of these lawsuits), I really enjoy a good flowchart. And, even if informally gathered, such as this flowchart, holy crap this is an amazing boiling down of 250+ pages of bullshit into a VERY handy graphic tool. If you did this, huge props my friend. Huge props.

    • The use of the various graphics was inspired. Much subtley. The Superman logo–that’s clearly how Steele sees himself. Great props for the creator of this.

    • One tiny correction: His name is Brett Gibbs, not Brent Gibbs. Other than that, this thing is amazing. I both love and hate the icons, since most of them are both funny and cute.

  8. We need to be clear that these are legal sanctions and not a criminal trial of the Trolls. They still have a lot of legal wiggling to do, and if they have enough money stashed overseas they should be considered a flight risk. They have not been charged with a crime and may not be. This will definitely open them up to scrutiny and possibly an investigation, but this hearing is only the first step in a long process.

  9. Hi everybody there is a site called the robing room.i just took a quick look and you can rate judges on this . stop me if i’m wrong but judge wright might get our support from this rating service.or know we support him at least

  10. I love how Wright previously referred to Brett L. Gibbs in his orders, but in this latest order it is just “Gibbs” by the end (although the first instance is “Brett Gibbs”, probably for some procedural reason?).

    Wright knows how to menace his prey in style.

  11. I’ve got a question I’d like to bounce around. These are only my thoughts – nothing more.

    A mammoth fraud is about to be exposed in a very public way. Taking all of it into account, with the ways it was constructed, and the evidence that was never really evidence at all, what recourse, if any, exists for the actual victims who paid settlements?

    I know this question may have been asked before, and I’m not trying to belabor the point, but it would seem logical to me that a settlement that was based upon fraud should be voidable. And, if true, the assignors should bear at least some of the liability – one would think.

    Ae there any legal minds here who could shed some light on the potential for liability against the assignors? It would seem to me that if lawsuits started cropping up all over the place, the assignors would take another look at what they’re doing.

    If such a liability does exist, I can see an entirely new Cottage Industry forming, with lawyers who begin suing the pornographers en masse.

    I welcome any thoughts about this.

    • It can be very difficult and burdensome, at best, to find and collect assets. Judge Wright could order them to disclose their financial records. A criminal or state bar proceeding could result in a victim restitution order. But one assumes they have given much thought to the endgame and are well prepared.

      • Really? Based on current events I don’t believe they were well prepared for an end game, or even thought about the possibility this would ever end. Based on the performances of Gibbs’ attorneys, and Prenda’s attorney only being able to field a sad attempt at procedural gamesmanship I think they were caught with their pants down and even late last week thought this was just going to be another tongue-lashing from a judge without consequence.

        They were super-sloppy in constructing their sham entities (Wright called them “not even shells” so you have one judge and former deputy AG’s opinion), as we have seen with the unraveling of Steele’s Alan Cooper bluff, and the pathetic way they tried to cover their tracks when questions about the Cooper documents were raised suggests he didn’t even try to build an airtight set of shells or a backstory more than one thin layer deep.

        I think if this does go to prosecutors Prenda’s house of cards will fall apart so fast it’s not even funny. They’ll pierce the veil, find the money, etc., etc. These guys are such clowns the feds will probably just read their emails and find everything.

        Do I think anyone but Uncle Sam will end up being the beneficiary? No way.

    • I doubt any recourse really exists. Let’s say hypothetically suing them is a slam dunk. You win instantly. It’s going to be impossible to get any money out of the shell companies. If by the grace of god the principals (which may not exist on paper) are held personally responsible, they will tie the litigation up with appeals for years. The same problem exists for any sanctions by Wright. If he sanctions Prenda Law, it’ll just fold up. If he personally sanctions Steele et al, they will appeal, appeal, appeal.

      All that aside the people who settled, took the easy and sorry, stupid way out. I doubt they are up now for a legal fight, which would expose their name and open them up to initial costs.

      • “If he sanctions Prenda Law, it’ll just fold up. If he personally sanctions Steele et al, they will appeal, appeal, appeal.”

        Yes, and I imagine that is one reason why the lawsuit proceeds all go into a *cough*”client”*cough* trust account. I assume that money can’t be touched by creditors seeking Prenda assets as it is being held in trust for the “client”.

      • Thank you for your reply. In agree in part and disagree in others.

        My way of thought focused more on the assignors and their liability, if any such liability exists. All of the assignors that have already been looked into have SERIOUS VISIBLE assets, including “planes trains & automobiles” – which is a metaphor for everything under the sun.

        Again, only thinking out loud, we know that pursuing Prenda, et al would serve practically no purpose – but the assignors may very well be a better kettle of fish.

        All of the above describes my respectful disagreement. Now, for the agreement.

        Embarking on a legal case is a challenge for anyone, but remember that these people who settled paid very little money in the grand scheme. My question really focuses on Small Claims, which is fast, quick and efficient. True, Small Claims is a coin toss, but with an Order in hand indicating the entire operation was a sham, one would think that a plaintiff would stand a fairly good shot at a recovery judgment.

        Maybe I’m completely offbase here and maybe there’s no merit or anything worthwhile to pursue such a thing. I just think that since Small Claims is a court of equity, that a judge would take a look at some filings in 12-08333 and perhaps lean in the direction of a victim.

    • What recourse exists for the suckers who paid settlements? Simple answer: none. Even if a sucker could spend the thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get a favorable judgment to break a settlement agreement with a fraudulent organization, and grant a refund of the settlement amount – you still couldn’t get at that money. It’s hiding in the middle of a maze of corporate bureaucracy, international laws, and banks that pride themselves on privacy above all else.

      No. There’s no buyer’s remorse here. When a sucker kisses that money goodbye, it’s gone for good.

      About the last statement, regarding “lawyers who begin suing the pornographers en masse”, you’re making a critical assumption: that pornographers have any skin in this game. They don’t. They got skinned when they handed over claim of copyright to the shell corporations Prenda’s shrouded themselves with. That’s the whole reason Judge Wright’s going through this case with a flame throwing chainsaw: Prenda’s serving Prenda to profit Prenda for the love of Prenda. Once Prenda’s milked its last cow, it will almost certainly dissolve, leaving the principals sipping margaritas on a beach in St Kitts.

  12. With the ship out to sea, but the people in port
    the smell of the ocean will be on him in court
    sand holes of uncertainty with grand schemes
    coming so close to achieving his dreams
    another coasting through moments of life
    forget import of family and future wife

    one has turned, and one will consider
    a lie will be told by the highest bidder
    MCL in the secretarial of Duffy
    if they found that, then they’re just plain lucky

    arguments made about notice and hunches
    another about funds spent on lunches
    all come crashing to the sound of a gong
    when he finally learns who sings along

    some officials question about the gold
    from the firms and companies bought and sold
    sticking dates and names where they don’t belong
    leading one in particular to sing the song
    new incarnations of investigator and firm
    will leave the whole pile of rubble to burn

    two attorneys landlocked and lost
    when the current of livewire is tossed
    find themselves without any light
    after they are recruited to fight

    the sargeant at arms, she set up no trust
    concocted afterwards to exploit lust
    getting Lutz laid was a way to build loyalty
    but he should have been collecting a royalty
    there is not time to straighten the story
    the taint of the past will haunt any glory

    documents are created in stride
    as Prenda tries to save its hide
    but from one event fueled by whisky or ale
    the lowest bidder will end up in jail
    before the explosion, the fuse must be lit
    He can be counted on for that little bit.

  13. I’m going to be a bit of a pessimist to bring folks back down to earth.

    These Trolls probably knew that one day the gravy train was going to run out, so more than likely they have an exit plan of some sort. Maybe they all don’t but I’m sure some do. And I also have a feeling they may have known that this would come to the head it is right now.

    The Trolls are insulated on both ends by attorneys acting on their behalf in states and off-shore trusts on the money side. They are essentially middle men and that works in their favor. These offshore trusts have no obligation to reveal who the trustees are and there’s no US law that can compel them to release that information (well, maybe taxes and such, but even so several million is peanuts versus several billion from Swiss banks…).

    If they can overcome their greed they may walk away rich with a slap on the wrist. These are rich, old, white lawyers. Just as they’ve venue-surfed to find sympathetic courts for their lawsuits, there’s no reason to think they won’t be able to court-surf their own appeals into a more friendly court. They might end up losing their license to practice law, but at the end of the day they may also end up with all the money they’ve collected to date too. We are, of course, dealing with professional scumballs who abuse the legal system as if that’s the way it is supposed to be used.

    I see this as possibly the beginning of the end of Troll suits, but I don’t think this will be an abrupt lifestyle change for the perpetrators. I see a sealed settlement in which the court and the attorneys all walks away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. They’ve got to have an exit plan for a soft landing.

    Full disclosure: I hate the scum sucking trolls and was a doe myself, but the court doesn’t like to be the arm of vigilante justice. Don’t get too excited that these guys are going to suffer anything more than not having to work as lawyers anymore.

    • Most of these lawyers are only a few years out of law school from what I’ve read.

      I think you give them too much credit for experience they DON’T have.

    • The Prenda AssClowns will NOT get to keep any money. They will have to cough up any $$$ gained through their criminal enterprise as well as prior assets, i.e. cabins and such. A trust does not shield assets obtained fraudulently. It’s not like one can rob a bank, put the loot in a trust and then play dumb. Once the Feds get involved John Steele and Co will have to spill the beans, ALL the beans; unless they preferr to be locked up forever.

  14. The anticipation is driving me bonkers… for so long so many knew there were problems and the wheels of Justice are slowly starting to get up to speed.
    One can only hope once they all appear in court they will be set to frapé.

  15. It will just keep dragging on and on. yet the extortion letters will keep going out. I agree with JamesBourbon on many points, but I believe there are more shady things going on.

  16. I would love to see Gibbs serve Steel as Steel and then serve Steel as Cooper.

    On a side note, this all reminds me of one of my fav movies……
    I can picture this scene with the Preda crew Brainstorming their scheme

  17. As if we needed anymore evidence that these people are clients to themselves. I just checked my phone logs for the calls from Guava, LLC (I’m on the St. Clair County suit).

    4 Calls total. All from Mark Lutz, all say to call Guava LLC at (888) 588‑947‍3 (Which is the same number listed on their letterhead). However, it’s curious where the calls come from.

    Anti-Piracy Law Group lists their phone number as (800) 380-0840 on their letterhead. Here’s my log of calls. Again, all from Mark Lutz, all saying to call GUAVA LLC at (888) 588-9473.

    1. Feb. 07, 2013 FROM (800) 380-0840 (Blocked the Number)
    2. Feb. 21, 2013 FROM (800) 380-0840 (They got my block message)
    3. Feb. 21, 2013 FROM (800) 380‑084‍0 (2 Minutes later on a different number)
    4. Mar. 07, 2013 FROM (888) 588‑947‍3

    It looks like they wised up to the fact that their Caller ID was exposing Prenda’s new entity and changed it over between Feb. 21 and Mar. 7. If they’re trying to claim that Anti-Piracy Law Group (or Prenda) isn’t run by the same people, why do they share a phone number?

  18. I see both Prenda Law and the Anti-Piracy Law Group (are these actually separate entities?) have been getting the Wikipedia treatment. I wonder if they’ll sue more of the Internet for covering them. One more thing, since Prenda Law is changing its name (and client book has held 3 names in as many years), how much damages could a libel suit really show, even if (and A HUGE IF) they can show that the allegations were fact not opinion and FALSE (good luck!).

  19. I really hope those assholes all serve time for mass extortion.

    Honestly it would not surprise me if they were responsible for the pirated content in the first place. There is just too much money to be made of off copyright extortion for nobody to be abusing it. Prenda is just one and you can bet there are many more pulling the same shit.

    Just think like a felon and it becomes pretty clear what’s going down I know because I am one “ex” and in the position it’s what I would do. It’s not a good thing but I can always spot a good way to abuse shit.

    Piracy laws are legislation about Internet piracy and copyright … allow for up to five years in prison and $250,000 US Dollars.

    That says one thing to me and that is each person caught uploading pirated content is potentially worth up to $250,000.
    All I’d have to do is find a shady copyright owner that’s ready to go into the extortion business.
    Get a VPN, leak the content, and monitor it.
    Get the IP list of the people sharing it.
    Once you know that and you have their contact information do a little research on them so you know how much they’re worth.
    After all that it’s time to put on a little show.
    Call them up or mail and let them know they’re at risk of a 250 grand fine and prison.
    After that give them a option to pay a few grand but make sure it’s cheaper than the person hiring a lawyer.
    If it’s porn use it to you’re advantage making the people know everyone is going to know if it goes to court.

    Even if the person is innocent they’ll most likely pay rather than risk public humiliation and a costly trial they cannot afford.
    It would never go to trial if the person refused though because it’s better to just move on to the next victim.

    That’s how I would do it if I were in charge of running the extortion scam.

    • If you could prove that THEY were the ones who uploaded the file, and THEY hold the copyright, doesn’t that tread into fair use territory? The copyright holder posted their copyrighted work in public therefore releasing all rights?

      I’m not a lawyer, but it seems as though making material available for free constitutes a legal distribution scheme.

      • I have thought all along that these guys seeded the files, in order to “get them stolen.” I have no proof of that, but I assumed it was part of the general workflow, or business framework, or whatever you call it.

        That said, as soon as the file is put on bit torrent, and one person downloads it, and makes it available (starting the swarm), the original seeder is not the sole host. (We should be clear that there is no “upload” per se.)

        But, Bit Torrent experts chime in here please – in order for them to view the IP traffic do they have to be looking at a computer with the file on it? In other words, for them to view traffic MUST THEY themselves (or there phorensic expert) be hosting the file? In that case, then yeah, they are putting the file out there, daring people to steal it, and then crying when they do.

        I do not think this in itself removes the rights of the owner, or grants downloaders any rights.

        It’s just sketchy.

          • Thanks for the info re: honeypot. I had not heard of that; I am trying to keep up. Two points: 1) I cannot find a case on point indicating that the “honeypotter” loses the right to recovery. 2) a honeypot might show up in a cartoon soon.

        • a “honey potter” has no right to “recovery” because they are the one holding the rights to distribution and they are the one distributing. if a company gives their stuff away for free they cannot sue you for accepting it.

  20. Here’s a dumb question. It’s really just a curiosity, I’m not planning on doing it, just wondering what the thoughts are.

    When Prenda sends their letters they always say that you have a duty not to spoil any evidence. Ignoring the fact that they’d argue spoilation no mater what, when the case is dismissed, would you be able to freely reformat/defrag/reinstall/mess with your systems?

    • They don’t say what kinda files you can’t delete so I would think you can argue in court that they didn’t say what kinda specific files you cannot delete…That part confused me as we’ll since you are not a named defendent yet so I don’t think they can order you or tell you what to do I might be wrong though someone correct me if I am

    • You can freely do all of that now, before the case is dismissed. Nobody’s saying that you can’t maintain your equipment, and forgoing normal maintenance for years is just stupid.

      If you’re that worried about spoliation charges, drop $50 on a new hard drive for your main computer, reinstall all your shit over on that one and set your current one aside. That way if anybody tries to charge you with destroying evidence, you can prove that you went above and beyond to actually PRESERVE it for them. Setting a drive aside is actually preferable for anybody wanting to do a real forensic analysis, because you’re preventing any accidental spoliation of evidence due to standard things that windows (or whatever OS you may be running) does to the drive that are out of your control.

    • CTVic has good information. Even if you don’t do anything to destroy evidence, the Trolls (Not just Prenda) will likely claim you did. One of the recent CA cases had Prenda claiming a defendant destroyed evidence by running CCleaner. The defendant only used it to keep his Windows systems performing as expected – cleans up registry error and such. Note: It does have the ability to wipe the free space (unused portion) of the hard drive. The Troll was trying to say that the defendant destroyed direct evidence (removed the BT program, deleted BT files, & deleted the movie), and then wiped the free space to further hide his actions. Analysis disclosed he did not do this. But Prenda still held onto this view as can be seen in the Paul Hansmeier deposition, when he tried to chastise attorney Nicholas Ranallo for his clients actions and what Mr. Ranallo told them. Remember they only have to make the suggestion with little to no proof. It clouds the real issue and they hope to sway a judge/jury to their claims. Civil cases are decided on a preponderance of evidence, so they burden of proof is lower.

      Just because you are not named at this time, don’t think that spoliation does not apply. Destroying evidence and/or making a false statement can get you into some serious trouble. The only way I could see this becoming an issue is if you do get named and it gets to a deposition. That is a small chance IMO. As stated, normal system maintenance is fine and almost a requirement to prevent the system from going bad on you. Just be prepared to explain your actions and try to minimize anything the Troll will try to exploit.

      When a case is finally dismissed, you are no long tied to it and can do whatever you want to the computer and/or other equipment. If a Troll sends you notification that they intend to refile a case and not to destroy anything, you are back to keeping it around for a while. If they do not refile in a reasonable time, I would take that they have decided otherwise. Sending a simple notice to a Doe is easy and can be accomplished in one day. As the time between the alleged downloading/sharing is so long (months to a year+), the Plaintiff is not really concerned about doing a forensic exam.

      I kept my old Firewall/Router (what I was using at the time of the alleged download) until a few months after the case was finally closed. I had it plugged into the wall with no connectivity to keep the memory/logs good. I still have screen shots of the settings for my records.

      DTD 🙂

      • I wasn’t too worried; it was a theoretical question about the way these cases and the law works. I actually did what CTVic suggested when I got my first letter.

        Given that the calls continue to happen, even if a case was dismissed with prejudice, and the fact that Prenda argues that you aren’t a party and have no rights within the legal system, it just made me wonder what happens to that spoilation suggestion once a case was dismissed.

        Thanks for all the info!

      • All good stuff. DTD & I have usually been on the same tech wavelength.
        After I got my first notice from my troll, I swapped out my drive within a week or two (at the first chance I got to spare a few bucks for a new drive) so that it was preserved as well as possible. A few months later, my system took a nasty power surge that took it out of commission. The case was dismissed a few months after that.
        I’ve still got the whole rig sitting on a shelf in my garage, and I’ll be holding onto it until after statute of limitations (3 yrs) expires. Actually getting sued was a remote possibility from the get-go, and gets smaller every day, but my old equipment is my insurance policy against the bastards having a chance of a successful lawsuit. I’ll be holding it until I’m entirely clear.

        After statute’s gone by, I plan on destroying & disposing of the hardware in a little paganistic ritual that will involve plenty of fire & alcohol. Maybe a few dog turds discretely shipped to a certain law office.

    • So Mark Lutz is a hard man to reach now, huh? Weird, because there are several reports of him being quite the phone chatterbug.

    • I already tweeted to the author pointing to this bizarre statement. Hope she will fix it promptly. Other than that, a decent article.

      • Just took a look. Still not corrected. I agree that I do find it a decent article, but in due respect to the author the “bizarre” statement really needs to be corrected without further delay.

        • I sent an email to the editor-in-chief right after midday, and received a response that she forwarded the issue to the “article editor.” DTD wrote a comment. We contacted the author on Twitter multiple times. All in vain. THis is just ridiculous. I will send email tomorrow to every address I will be able to locate. If it will not help, thinking about shaming them in a post.

        • It truly is a false “bizarre” statement. Don’t want to sound paranoid, but I’m almost wondering if it could have been planted. I don’t like the tone or how the article is written at all, especially with the all-important hearing coming up. Tried to locate the writer but no luck yet as of today.

        • After a lot of searching and poking around, I finally found only two phone numbers for internal contact: Their Customer Care Department – 877-256-2472, and there’s a phone contact for a Michael Medwig who is the VP of National Advertising – 212-457-9470, with a fax of 646-822-5035. Couldn’t find any other business phones for the website except for these. Someone should contact them and demand a retraction or at the very least a correction, without delays.

  21. I wonder if there is someone in driving distance of the court who could go to the records department there (California Central District), xerox the transcript, and upload it. Some courts will xerox and send records (by snail mail, or possible fax, for a small fee).

    • Most interesting in that document, with respect to the Cooper v Steele, Prenda, AFH, I13: “Mr. Steele has been served with the summons and complaint, but has not yet answered.” Isn’t he risking a default judgment? I wonder if any of the other defendants have answered. Sadly, the Minnesota courts page doesn’t seem to get updated very quickly (or nothing else has happened, in which case all the defendants may be at risk of default judgment) If they all default, seems like the Duffy and Prenda libel cases are open and shut done for the plaintiffs.

  22. The trolls’ paper filings from 3/8, lame ex parte motions by Steele, Duffy, Hansmeier x2, attempting to get out of having to attend the OSC, have finally shown up on RECAP.

  23. So, what’s the plan for tomorrow? Frantically updating Twitter feeds? I wish we could get a live cam from there, but, yes, I know, not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s