Prenda

Prenda’s local attorney Daniel Ruggiero denounces his employers

Daniel Ruggiero, Prenda’s local in the Eastern states, filed dozens of cases on behalf of Prenda’s fake plaintiffs. Today he submitted a curious motion to withdraw (without substitution) as Plaintiff’s counsel in AF Holdings, LLC v. Chowdhury (MAD 12-cv-12105), one of the two cases Prenda couldn’t easily dismiss because the counterclaims are pending (hat tip to Booth Sweet). In this motion Ruggiero plays a gullible attorney, who did not know that “Prenda” is a synonym of “Fraud” and suddenly wakes up:

The undersigned had absolutely no prior knowledge of any of the findings of Judge Wright and the additional findings of Judge Chen.

Once I became aware of the “on goings” of AF Holdings and the others mentioned in his decision, I reached out to speak with someone about it. I received a phone call from someone who claimed to be Mark Lutz. It is my understanding that Mr. Lutz is the owner of Plaintiff, but to be honest, I have no idea what to believe.

While I share Daniel Ruggiero’s sentiments regarding Mark Lutz, I don’t believe in Daniel’s sincerity: either he is a cynical hypocrite or he has an IQ of… to not figure out Prenda’s “on goings” much earlier. Well, neither conclusion is flattering.

 

There are rumors that Ruggiero has 99 problems with Massachusetts’ Bar, and Prenda ain’t one. Thus, I wouldn’t worry too much: justice will be served one way or another. In addition, by throwing his former bosses under the bus, Ruggiero has finally done something useful that will heal one or two bruises on his abused Karma.

In other news

Prenda’s/Anti Piracy Law Group‘s site wefightpiracy.com / wefightpiracy.org now redirects to Google. Good riddance. Fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com are alive and well.

Update

8/21/2013

Judge Joseph L. Tauro Endorsed ORDER entered — Allowed 22 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Daniel G. Ruggiero terminated. 

Ruggiero has dodged the bullet.

wordpress counter

Discussion

24 responses to ‘Prenda’s local attorney Daniel Ruggiero denounces his employers

  1. What’s up with the “DATED: September 25, 2012” at the bottom of the motion as well as again on the certificate of service? Obviously it couldn’t have been written/signed then since it refers to much more current activity. And it couldn’t have been a simple typo getting the month, day, and year wrong either.

  2. Both of the signature blocks are dated September 25, 2012. That is obviously not the date the document was done, since it references events that happened after that. It also is the wrong month and day, to be just a typo on the year. Is that date something to do when an actual signature was filed to allow the use of the electronic signing? I’m confused.

    (Granted confused is my normal state.)

  3. There are also two sentences on page 4 that look hastily written.
    First sentence of paragraph 2: “Based on the findings of Judge Wright and Chen, it is clear that continued representation of Plantiff in this matter puts counsel AND A COMPROMISED RISK.” Should that be “at risk of being compromised” ?

    Last sentence of paragraph 3: “With the amount of information” — which information, what are the implications of that amount of information?

  4. I would suspect that after the Judge Wright and Judge Chen and the Judge in the Minnesota case Ruggerio isn’t wanting to get sanctioned and isn’t wanting any part of the huge penalties that are coming about for Prenda and those lawyers who worked for them.

    I too agree with SJD that this isn’t someone who all of a sudden think ooops, I would believe maybe Ruggerio is aware there could be some blowback coming his way and he wants to get out of the path before it hits. It will be interesting to see and read what the real reason is behind this sudden change of heart.

  5. Wow he basically said they are up to no good and i want out Judge. Fraud is bad mkay.

    Interesting to see what the judge has to say.

  6. The part where Ruggiero failed to show up to a court-ordered hearing and sent an email indicating he intended to withdraw and did not oppose the motions against his client is interesting, too.

    From the docket:

  7. The part where Ruggiero failed to show up to a court-ordered hearing and sent an email indicating he intended to withdraw and did not oppose the motions against his client is interesting, too.

    From the docket: http://ia601604.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.mad.147719/gov.uscourts.mad.147719.docket.html

    Item 17: 2013-06-17 17 0 Motion Hearing ELECTRONIC Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge Joseph L. Tauro: Motion Hearing held on 6/17/2013 re [8] MOTION to Strike [7] Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim filed by AF Holdings, LLC, [9] MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by AF Holdings, LLC, [11] MOTION for Bond for Costs filed by Sandipan Chowdhury. Plaintif fails to appear, whereupon Clerk Lovett called him and left message inquiring as to his whereabouts. Atty Ruggiero returned the call and advised he would not be appearing and sent an e-mail with explanation. (Court Reporter: Carol Scott at 617-330-1377.)(Attorneys present: No-show,pltf; Sweet, Booth,deft.) (Lovett, Zita)

    And then more detail subsequently:

    Item 20: 2013-06-19 20 0 Order on Motion to Strike Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. On June 17, 2013, this court held a hearing on all outstanding motions. Plaintiff failed to appear. The court clerk then called Plaintiff, who returned the call and informed the clerk thatPlaintiff did not intend to appear. Plaintiffs counsel emailed the clerk with additional explanation, indicating that he had no objection to Defendants Motion for Bond [11] and planned to file both a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims and a motion to withdraw as counsel. Upon receipt of thisemail, the court proceeded with the hearing as scheduled. After considering the parties filings and Defendants arguments at the hearing, this courthereby orders that : Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants Counterclaims [8] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants Counterclaims [9] is DENIED for failure to appear to press its objections. Defendants Motion Requiring Plaintiff to Post Bond for Costs [11] isALLOWED as unopposed in light of Plaintiffs email to the court. This court construes [18] Plaintiffs email as a Motion to Dismiss its claims against Defendant. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

    And the email itself is docketed too, but it is pretty terse. item 18 is a PDF of it, but basically its just:
    I have no objection to the motion for bond. I will be filing a motion to
    dismiss plaintiffs claims against defendant shortly as well as a motion to
    withdraw. Please confirm receipt. Thank you.
    Sent from my iPhone
    So please excuse typos

    (sorry for the double-post)

  8. I actually wrote a letter (anonymously) to Ruggiero last year shortly after he threatened to sue me. I warned him about Lutz and Steele and the whole Prenda crew. I also pointed him to this and other sites if he wanted to learm more. I have no idea if he believed me, but he was definitely aware of the allegations against Prenda a long time ago.

    • What what double double post post???

      I wonder if and how you could do the good deed of getting that letter in front of the judge…this guy is just a little smarter than the average crook, and I would love to be wrong about him escaping unsanctioned….

      There be bus wheels rolling around, and ruggiero is clearly trying to get out of the way.

  9. Hey, Nazaire! Are you going to request this document sealed and file charges against Ruggiero for realizing you were a complete and utter moron?

  10. It’s clear that Ruggiero knew long ago, perhaps from the beginning, that this was an extortion scheme. And willingly participated.

    My guess: the only reason for the sudden panic is that he realizes that he’s not going to be paid, and the cases might actually cost him money.

    Is there a Latin phrase for “I only realized my client was guilty when the check didn’t clear”?

  11. Didn’t it seem like from the get go that Daniel Goldschmidt Ruggiero was a run of the mill, possibly even a struggling, Attorney? Seemed like he was casting a big line for such a little guy? Now he went caught something he can’t land.

  12. Let’s get real.

    Two fucking years ago I received a notice from my ISP than (then) Steele | Hansmeier, PLLC had subpoenaed my subscriber information.

    That same night I found this site, Rob Cashman’s blog, and DTD.

    Two years ago it was that quick and that easy.

    Based on Ruggiero’s bar admission dates he is apparently young enough that he should be fluent in the Internet. He is not some 65+ guy who can plausibly claim he’s never used a computer.

    So he was able to find this information and almost certainly did know all about Prenda’s shenanigans going in. Even if he didn’t on day one, it has surely been brought to his attention frequently enough since then for him to have figured it out a long time ago.

    He was almost certainly a willing and probably an enthusiastic participant as long as he was getting paid and staying out of trouble. Now we see that he is just an opportunist, a cowardly fair-weather extortionist who can’t even bow out gracefully and quietly but has to sing like a canary.

    Trolls never fail to lower the bar for attorney conduct.

    • Ruggiero’s protestations of innocence sound just as genuine as those of OJ Simpson or Keith Alexander (see techdirt) right now…but a judge needs to be slapped in the face with that fact.

      Therefore, anyone who told or notified ruggiero about Prenda and is willing to de-cloak, please make contact with SJD…to help with the sanctions….

  13. Here is a good troll repellant reference, as valuably noted in AlanCooperGhost’s tweet:

    “The Seventh Circuit recognized that the misuse of copyright doctrine applies to circumstances similar to those alleged in Defendant’s counterclaims:

    ‘The argument for applying copyright misuse beyond the bounds of antitrust, besides the fact that confined to antitrust the doctrine would be redundant, is that for a copyright owner to use an infringement suit to obtain property protection. . . that copyright law clearly does not confer, hoping to force a settlement or even achieve an outright victory over an opponent that may lack the resources or the legal sophistication to resist
    effectively, is an abuse of process. Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2003).’

    This analysis indicates that Defendant’s allegations concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s previous copyright infringement litigation and the nearly identical complaints against many other individuals may be relevant to his copyright misuse counterclaim. By alleging a pattern of unsubstantiated, virtually identical suits followed by Plaintiff’s solicitation of settlement (id.¶¶ 7, 33, 37, Def.’s Opp. at 3–4), Defendant asserts facts that may support a copyright misuse claim.”

    -from Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton’s 8/16/23 ruling on Daniel G. Ruggiero/Prendaaka Steele-Hansmeier/Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Strike.

    http://ia801507.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.98605/gov.uscourts.ctd.98605.32.0.pdf

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