Transcript of the March 11 hearing is now available

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).



Big thanks to Michael Stone for recapping.


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.

wordpress counter


23 responses to ‘Transcript of the March 11 hearing is now available

  1. MR. WAXLER: Well, I mean, Mr. Gibbs may have more
    knowledge than specifically what Mr. Hansmeier said.

    THE COURT: Oh. Mr. Hansmeier has no knowledge of

  2. POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! POPCORN! Fer Chrissake can we permanently banish any reference to getting popcorn. The joke became stale the last fucking millenium.

    • How about a drinking game. Every time you read the word “Fraud” or “Fraudulent,” have a shot of whiskey. That’ll put you at .08 by the end of the hearing.

      If you really want to get hammered, try “Funds” or, for the truly hardcore, “Document.”

  3. Just….dayam. Prenda is smoked. Steele and Handsmeier, doomed. The delicious irony about this is that if the sanctions are successful, then Prenda will have been forced to pay for the transcript that we’re all enjoying.

    Having read this, I cannot imagine how these scumbags can escape sanctions.

  4. WHeeee!
    Now everyone be on your best behavior, I invited another Judge to come visit.
    Kashmir Hill was nice enough to call out the comment on Forbes so hopefully the Judge has seen it..

    I posted that in response to the tweet (I think it was Raul) about

    Everyone make nice, and give the Judge a nice welcome.

    • I hope Brent Berry is really the signature on the doc. Nice cell phone photos, wouldn’t you like to “meat” the real author of the texts

    • The texts when visible are trying to make something out of nothing…His declaration mentions he was scared for his life of cooper and that he threaten to shoot him, paraphrasing:

      Berry says, coming up next weekend don’t shoot me lol

      Cooper says, I wouldn’t shoot you, well maybe in the foot lol.

      Typical Prenda blowing things up making it seem like the world is out to get them.

      • The world is out to get Prenda? What do you expect when you consider Prenda has, for a long time, been out to get the world?

    • So which is it? Alan Cooper is unbalanced or Alan Cooper is CEO of a firm that Penda is working for? Oh what a twisted web we weave. A fiction writer wouldn’t push this story because it doesn’t even make sense but I agree someone must have flown over the coo coo’s nest.

  5. The filing by Rosing is worth reading.

    She lists many things of which there has been “no proof” or “no evidence”. For instance “there has been no evidence that Duffy, Van Den Hemel, or Prenda has any type of ownership interest
    in either AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13.”

    Well, that’s not quite true. A refusal to answer basic questions about things you are obviously know and are legally obligated to reveal is evidence.

    Paul H was deposed as the ‘Person Most Knowledgeable’ about AF Holdings. He was extremely evasive in deposition about the basic details — details he was obligated to know and reveal. Simple facts such as who caused the shell companies to be formed, who directed them, and what they did. But, except for a clerk in Nevis, there was no one outside of Prenda listed as involved.

    The judge noted the contradictory statements, evasiveness, and near complete refusal to answer questions. There were two months and two hearings where erroneous conclusion could be corrected. Taking “the fifth” doesn’t suddenly mean that there is no evidence.

    I also noted that she restates that the court has no jurisdiction over the Duffy et al. Even implying that their since relationship to Gibbs wasn’t proven, just testified to, therefore they were not parties to the litigation. And therefore they had no obligation to show up for the March hearing. Hmmm,

  6. “MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, so, then, should Mr. Pietz be on the stand if he is going to give essentially testimony about this exhibit?
    THE COURT: I don’t make a habit of placing lawyers under oath, but this case may change that. I figure officers of the court will not knowingly make misrepresentations to the court, will they.
    MR. WAXLER: No, they won’t.
    THE COURT: Until this case.
    MR. WAXLER: My client hasn’t in this case.”


      • Ugh–this read is yet another reason I could never be a lawyer. I know she’s doing her job, but there’s not a hot or long enough shower to wash away the stink of having to put that bullshit together…

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s