Prenda

Notes from the 11/20/2014 AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel hearing

The AF Holdings v Patel (GAND 12-cv-00262) Show Cause Hearing, which was abruptly interrupted by a snowstorm on the 1/28/2014 afternoon, was finally continued and concluded almost ten months later, on 11/20/2014. I was not there — Kat was, and she wrote a detailed and vivid three-part story. It doesn’t make sense to retell it in my own words: firstly, as I said, I was not there; second, Kat is simply a terrific storyteller, so pour yourself a glass of wine and read:

 

While we are waiting for the written order, the minute sheet is worth mentioning: in part because

The Court verbally adopted as part of its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Judge Wright’s Order, Central District of California, paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 11¹. (See Wright Order 2:12-cv-8333-CDW).

 

I’ll copy and paste the adopted paragraphs for your convenience:

1. Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy (“Principals”) are attorneys with shattered law practices. Seeking easy money, they conspired to operate this enterprise and formed the AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 entities (among other fungible entities) for the sole purpose of litigating copyright-infringement lawsuits. They created these entities to shield the Principals from potential liability and to give an appearance of legitimacy.

2. AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 have no assets other than several copyrights to pornographic movies. There are no official owners or officers for these two offshore entities, but the Principals are the de facto owners and officers.

3. The Principals started their copyright-enforcement crusade in about 2010, through Prenda Law, which was also owned and controlled by the Principals. Their litigation strategy consisted of monitoring BitTorrent download activity of their copyrighted pornographic movies, recording IP addresses of the computers downloading the movies, filing suit in federal court to subpoena Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) for the identity of the subscribers to these IP addresses, and sending cease-and-desist letters to the subscribers, offering to settle each copyright infringement claim for about $4,000.

4. This nationwide strategy was highly successful because of statutory copyright damages, the pornographic subject matter, and the high cost of litigation. Most defendants settled with the Principals, resulting in proceeds of millions of dollars due to the numerosity of defendants. These settlement funds resided in the Principals’ accounts and not in accounts belonging to AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13.

No taxes have been paid on this income.

5. For defendants that refused to settle, the Principals engaged in vexatious litigation designed to coerce settlement. These lawsuits were filed using boilerplate complaints based on a modicum of evidence, calculated to maximize settlement profits by minimizing costs and effort.

6. The Principals have shown little desire to proceed in these lawsuits when faced with a determined defendant. Instead of litigating, they dismiss the case. When pressed for discovery, the Principals offer only disinformation—even to the Court.

8. The Principals maintained full control over the entire copyright-litigation operation. The Principals dictated the strategy to employ in each case, ordered their hired lawyers and witnesses to provide disinformation about the cases and the nature of their operation, and possessed all financial interests in the outcome of each case.

9. The Principals stole the identity of Alan Cooper (of 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342). The Principals fraudulently signed the copyright assignment for “Popular Demand” using Alan Cooper’s signature without his authorization, holding him out to be an officer of AF Holdings. Alan Cooper is not an officer of AF Holdings and has no affiliation with Plaintiffs other than his employment as a groundskeeper for Steele. There is no other person named Alan Cooper related to AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13.

11. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their willingness to deceive not just this Court, but other courts where they have appeared. Plaintiffs’ representations about their operations, relationships, and financial interests have varied from feigned ignorance to misstatements to outright lies. But this deception was calculated so that the Court would grant Plaintiffs’ early-discovery requests, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to identify defendants and exact settlement proceeds from them. With these granted requests, Plaintiffs borrow the authority of the Court to pressure settlement.

Brett Gibbs Paul Duffy Adam Urbanczyk John Steele Paul Hansmeier Mark Lutz Yo momma...

 


¹ The paragraphs 7 and 10 deal with Brett Gibbs’s conduct, and were not adopted by Judge O’Kelley simply because they are irrelevant for this case.

wordpress counter

Discussion

11 responses to ‘Notes from the 11/20/2014 AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel hearing

  1. Great read. Thank you! My god, race had nothing to do with this. Stupidity and greed – YES. I bet Naz will be more careful on what clients he works for in the future. Happy Thanksgiving all!!!

    DTD 🙂

    • Nazaire picking up clients? I can’t imagine clients picking up Nazaire. Just look at this quote from Kat:

      “[Nazaire] said that Chintella was telling his friends [presumably me, Syfert, Oralia, and Andrew Norton] to point and laugh and say mean things about him on Twitter so that the courts would think he is a bad guy and sanction him.”

      Never mind the thing about people saying mean things, what lawyer seriously thinks that judges sanction lawyers based on bloody Twitter messages? Kat sums it up best with this footnote:

      “I swear, at times, [Nazaire’s] speech patterns reverted to that of a seven year old.”

      Jacques, Jacques, Jacques. People insulting you is the least of your worries – for goodness’s sake, you’re a lawyer; expecting people to be mean is pretty much in your job description. Your threats in emails and Techdirt have wrought you nothing but destruction. You’re going down with the ship, and you’d might want to hope that the judge throws you a life preserver that he hasn’t poked a hole in.

  2. Ah, NoseHair. He never fails to amuse. Racism, dude? Really? That ship has sailed. You know what a charge of racism means to me? It means you’ve run out of logic, and you’re just lashing out. It means you can’t get by on merits, and you are appealing to emotion. It means, sir, that you are out of options.
    I hope O’Kelley sanctions you for every penny you have.

  3. Jacques is the gift that keeps on giving. Personally, I always imagined him as a somewhat rotund, unkempt, Caucasian man that never quite got his act together in life. Now I realize that I am a racist because I failed to realized that African Americans can also aspire to reach such heights (depths?) as well.

    Oh well, another excellent bit of reporting from SJD. While I wish that certain litigants would refrain from snatching defeat from the mouth of victory, I do look forward to the final ruling. Adopting large segments of Otis W.’s findings cannot be a good start for the Prendanistas. Maybe an early Christmas present.

  4. I am going on the record all offical like…
    No one ever told me to or suggested I make fun of J’Nizzle, I did it all on my own.

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