Remember Jacques Nazaire? He's the local counsel for Prenda in a case in Georgia who was trying desperately to get the judge there to ignore Judge Wright's order in California, which lays out how Prenda's lawsuits are highly questionable, and likely against the law. He was so desperate that he said the judge should ignore the ruling in California because California recognizes gay marriage
, among other differences, despite that having nothing to do with anything related to the actual case (which covers federal
copyright laws, rather than state laws, and which was filed in the case to provide additional background, rather than as any sort of binding ruling).
Well, it appears that Nazaire seems to believe that if he just keeps telling the court crazier and crazier things, perhaps it will ignore Judge Wright's ruling. The latest filing tries, once again, to give the judge in Georgia a reason to ignore Judge Wright's ruling
, but again it doesn't make much sense. The filing is rambling and somewhat wacky, seemingly trying to argue that, even though Prenda and AF Holdings are implicated in both cases, they're completely and totally unrelated. He also seems to argue that these filings are just designed to rack up higher billing fees. Note, for example, the slightly paranoid use of capital letters:
That motion was NOT written by the undersigned; nevertheless the defense has filed it in THIS docket apparently for two reasons. 1) to bill for the same and 2) to give THIS Court the impression that either the undersigned or a friend of his drafted and filed the same.
But where it gets really wacky is when Nazaire just starts tossing in totally random claims about hackers:
Why would the defendant in this case file a copy of a motion (ECF No. 31,
Defendant’s Exhibit B) from the California case and into THIS docket when that
motion has nothing to do with this case?
The undersigned does not know the answer to that question. However, it
must be noted that defendants (not the one herein) in these types of cases, typically employ various crafty and intimidating schemes against prosecutors and plaintiff’s attorneys. A newspaper article mentioning other types of intimidation is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.
What is Exhibit A
, you ask? Why it's a random story about hackers claiming to be a part of Anonymous hacking into Paypal. What does that have to do with anything? The answer is nothing.
Here's what I find most incredible about Nazaire's line of reasoning. It is basically "please ignore this other case where the same companies
that I'm working for have been called out for fraud on the court, because that's totally unrelated, even though they're the same companies
" while at the same time saying "we can't trust anything the defense says because, hackers! And, as proof, here's a random totally unrelated story about hackers."
He goes on to suggest that these hackers are after him, because some moron sent him a stupid email.
Furthermore the undersigned has been personally harassed by these types
of defendants (not the defendant in this instant case nor the individuals listed in Exhibit A) because of THIS case alone. (Please see Plaintiff’s Exhibit B attached hereto).
is a silly email from someone using the email address "email@example.com" saying:
You are about it get justifiably screwed by the justice system.
It's nice to see.
You aren't very smart, are you?
Of course, this is a stupid email by whoever sent it, but it's hard to see how that's necessarily "harassment," nor does it show that the person who sent that email is one of "these types of defendants." It's just a stupid email from someone mocking Nazaire (the email address should have been a giveaway on that front).
Either way, if I'm the judge in this case, each of these filings only makes me more
interested in whatever must be in Judge Wright's order...