Prenda’s Jacques Nazaire requests a nonsensical “sanction hearing by a jury”
No matter how this phrase is banal and overused, it will be repeated many more times, guaranteed. Because… Prenda is a gift that keeps on giving. At different times different clowns appeared in the farce; today it was Jacques Nazaire’s turn to take the stage. For those who don’t remember, Nazaire is a Georgia Craigslist lawyer who entertained us in the past by telling the court that Judge Wrights’ famous order is irrelevant in Georgia because California recognizes gay marriage, and because Anonymous attacked PayPal. He called the EFF “terrorists organization” and his “your momma” email to me prompted so many laughs…
In the aftermath of the November 20, 2014 hearing in the AF Holdings v Patel (GAND 12-cv-00262), motions and notices by both sides continued to pour into the swollen docket. For example,
- Plaintiff’s Paul Duffy reiterated once again that because the assignee’s signature is not required by law, forging it is an-OK¹;
- Defense’s Blair Chintella dug deeper into the copyright assignment, questioned not only Alan Cooper’s signature, but also the validity of the Raymond Rogers’s (the purported original rights holder) affidavit;
- Jack Nazaire: “Look, Judge: the defendant has all the licorice and I’ve got none. Unfair!”;
- Jack Nazaire filed 59 pages of tweets — to prove God knows what;
- Jack Nazaire tried to make a big deal that Chintella was helped by other attorneys, Mark Randazza in particular. Randazza denied it, but why would it be a big deal if someone helped the defense anyway?
But one particular Jacques Nazaire’s filing left my face burning from an involuntary facepalm:
First of all, there is no such thing as a post-dismissal sanctions hearing by a jury. This isn’t going anywhere, period. The case was dismissed. What “trial” for God’s sake? We really need the Twenty Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, which addresses the problem with attorneys who embarrass themselves and the legal profession: those comedians should be banned from the courtroom.
But, if for the sake of argument we assume this childish act has a quantum of merit, I think that when Nazaire wrote
[…] listen to the factual [non-legal] issues of this case […],
he mixed up the “factual” and “legal” terms. The questions derived from the “factual issues” are pretty damning:
- whether Prenda seeded its smut to entrap file-sharers;
- whether Prenda forged the signature on the copyright assignment;
- whether the “client” AF Holdings exists at all;
- whether former Prenda’s paralegal, John Steele’s drinking buddy and a fugitive from justice Mark Lutz, is really a principal of a sham corporation AF Holdings;
The list can go on and on, and some of the “factual issues” have already become “facts” — Judge O’Kelley has adopted Judge Wrights’ findings in full.
When facts are not on your side, the only way to get away with scams is to juggle legal [non-factual] issues. That’s how all the copyright troll cockroaches (Keith Lipscomb, Michael Hierl et al) avoid justice today and continue plundering citizens with impunity — by exploring the cracks in the legal system while playing fast and lose with facts.
Here is our advice, Jacques: stop digging. Humbly accept the sanctions that Judge O’Kelley will most likely impose on you. All your temper tantrums will only worsen your situation. Don’t embarrass yourself any longer, fade into obscurity: even though you took orders from the con artists (who, I hope, will end up in jail soon), your shenanigans were relatively minor, and I bet that Prenda’s victims are willing to forget them if you stop disturbing the past over and over again.
¹ Note that Duffy continues deceiving the court by signing his missives as “Duffy Law Group” — an entity that was involuntarily dissolved a long time ago.
17 responses to ‘Prenda’s Jacques Nazaire requests a nonsensical “sanction hearing by a jury”’
There are some unanswered questions still out there…
Why did the tour end so early?
What does the Uniform Code have to say about lawyers sanctioned by courts in private life?
Cause if a Federal Judge flat out called you a liar, ala Judge Wright about Prenda, that pretty much would call into question your ability to litigate anymore.
Sometimes the military demands more ethics than bars.
Something something lets look at the IP logs for access to an ECF login geographically.
Then made up lawfirm names, nothing new, but at what point will a Federal circuit finally say enough and rain-down brimstone on lawyers who are actively lying to them and the world.
So J’Nizzle are you still asking how did you lose?
You made me look reliable. I have every earmark of being a bad actor up to no good, and yet people believe me more than you. You imagine me so evil, yet you made yourself worse than me.
I guess the difference is, I never sold my morals out for a check.
Its the 11th hour – the question is will you fall upon your sword for redemption by admitting the unflattering truth that you sold out (ex Brett Gibbs) or will you file more batshit insane filings trying to get something to stick to the wall to save you. Look around, the light from screwed will not reach you for 500 years. Anything Pretenda is telling you still is a lie, look at the DC financials and wonder how they are suddenly broke. They won’t pay court sanctions, and you think you might get paid? I thought you smarter than that, but then I guess I’m occasionally wrong. Save yourself and seek mercy.
Well, this is a trick request. I quote:
Should this request, for whatever reason, be granted, Nazaire is off the hook.
Because, forsooth, a jury of his peers is not going to be found anywhere unless you look at Steele and other Alpha clowns in the Prenda merrygoround. And a jury of those peers…
Jacques, shut up. Just shut up. Either that or get yourself a bigger shovel because right now you have the worst of both worlds. I think the judge should ask him for a detailed legal memorandum on the history of the 7th amendment and its application to cases like this. That will keep him busy over the holidays.
To the question from TAC about why his tour ended early, a lot of military tours end prematurely. My daughter has served two tours in the Middle East, most recently in Afghanistan, and both times her tour ended after about six months even though her deployment was scheduled for a full year in both cases. She is not a paper pusher in a support role, but a field officer in military intelligence assigned to an infantry combat unit and works from a forward operating base. She deploys when and where her unit goes.
If Jacques’ unit came home early, he would have come home as well. The army is presently reducing the number of officers at the captain and major ranks, cleaning house with a vengeance. We can only hope that J Nizzle gets riffed.
J’Nizzle is a military lawyer who handles locals claims for compensation.
Does not strike me as any team would actually need him in the field day one.
I still would love to find out if he requested to be reactivated to attempt to walk away from this case, expecting the Judge would rule while he was not subject to that court.
Jacques might have been called up to replace a full-time military lawyer that got displaced when their unit deployed. If the unit returned early, Jacques would be relieved early.
Either way, the courts of this or any other country are safer without him!
One does have to admit his sudden departure was curious, and just happened exactly at a time when it was beneficial to him.
fo’ shizzle J’Nizzle?
*SOMEBODY* is helping Chintilla…told him to shut his trap and let Nazaire and Duffy speak for themselves. His challenge to the copyright assignment was mercifully short. Was that the judge? FCT? Kat_Anon? Patel? Patel’s *other* lawyer? Dunno, maybe doesn’t matter with Randazza thinking about helping, but it is a good thing.
and you base this upon?
Randazza has stated publicly his lack of involvement in this, but I really hope it pisses him off enough to dash off a missive to the court lambasting J’Nizzle.
Remember they have claimed at several points all of us ‘major’ players in the IHG are secretly lawyers out to destroy them. As I have stated multiple times, I do not have a JD, am not a lawyer, never pretended to be a lawyer. Each of the others have made similar statements, them wanting it to be true does not make it true. I think it scares them that ‘normal’ people dismantled their scam, and they have to think they are facing enemies who are on their level.
I base my statement about Mr Chintilla on Kat’s report, and his mercifully short filing in response to the blizzard from the Prenda side. Only Mr Chintilla knows where that brevity arose — I am only noting it and applauding. Who knows, maybe he finally got the idea on his own and is helping himself after the comments from the bench? Mr Chintilla is a SOMEBODY too! [But again, for legal purposes, it is immaterial]
Randazza’s own tweet alludes to the situation making him want to help…indeed, right after tweeting he wasn’t involved. The dragon’s tail has been stepped on and the dragon is not pleased. Bring on that tail swat! (or letter).
I’m not a lawyer either, but everyone’s sense of fairness has been offended, even passers-by like me, and a few thousand injured parties don’t hurt either.
Sure, Jacques. Why not let the jury know about how you posted on various Techdirt articles discussing Prenda cases under the pseudonym “Nora”, declaring that everyone else who posted there were thieves and pedophiles. Surely that’ll convince the jury that you’re not batshit insane.
Your suit is shooting for the moon…better to pick off one target at a time, like Pacer. The judge basically told you how to hit that target, as in a member of the public can access many MalibuMedia docs for free, but if nobody is interested in my favorite obscure and boring specialty (say, real estate settlements), I’m gonna have to spend to do my research. So similarly situated persons(interested members of the public) get treated quite differently.
What if there is sanctionable actions during the jury trial? Will there be a jury trial on that as well?
Hopefully the new sanctionable conduct is simply pointed out to the jury, which proceeds to seal the verdict of “yup, the sanctions stand”.
If there were sanctionable conduct during the trial then Prenda would countersue the jury foreman, try to obtain discovery on five of the juror’s ISP records, would depose the rest in a fishing expedition to identify those that regularly watch Judge Judy, and then assert that is was actually another law firm hired by Lutz that is harassing the jury, one that has no connection whatsoever with Steele, Hans, or Duffy.
“Plaintiff’s Paul Duffy reiterated once again that because the assignee’s signature is not required by law, forging it is an-OK¹”
Someone has probably already asked these questions but:
If the signature is not required, why bother to forge it at all?
Why risk the potential of being found guilty of forgery for something that doesn’t have to be done?
Why not just print the name of the assignee as the assignee while not making a signature?
Because they didn’t do the research necessary to make the argument that the signature wasn’t needed until they were caught having forged it, and were trying to get out of a major jam.