Transcript Of The 12 Minute 'We're Done' Prenda Hearing Released

from the read-it-during-a-coffee-break dept

We had Ken White's awesome analysis of what happened at the Prenda Law hearing earlier this week, but now the full transcript of the hearing has been released so you can read along (or figure out how to incorporate it into the necessary movie script). Here's just a snippet, though the full thing is at the link above and embedded below.
THE COURT: Can you tell me, for example, who directs the litigation here in California? Who makes the decision as to whether or not cases are dismissed or settled for how much money? Can you tell me that?

MS. ROSING: Your Honor, I can't testify.

THE COURT: "Yes" or "no", please. Because we need to move through this. Can you tell me that?

MS. ROSING: I personally cannot tell you that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Do you know whether or not there is another Alan Cooper other than the one that was here at the last hearing?

MS. ROSING: I am not aware of another Alan Cooper, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Good. What happens to the settlement money?

MS. ROSING: Your Honor, obviously, I represent Mr. Duffy and Ms. Van Den Hemel. I don't have personal knowledge of any of this.

THE COURT: Why weren't notices of related cases filed? Who made the decision to hide from the court the fact that all of these cases were related.

MS. ROSING: I do have a judicially noticeable document on that, your Honor, where the Northern District declined to relate the cases.

THE COURT: That is a different thing. That is consolidating them.

MS. ROSING: It is actually an order declining to relate them.

THE COURT: Same plaintiff, same film, same causes of action, and they are not related? Excuse me? Okay. Tell me this. Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?

MS. ROSING: Your Honor, there is no evidence before this court at all that the law firm or any, well, certainly, my clients, Paul Duffy or Angela Van Den Hemel, have any financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Did you read Hansmeier's deposition?

MS. ROSING: Yes, I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: And then you make the statement you just made?
That is one (quite reasonably) unhappy judge...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 12:54pm

    That's the kind of banter I heard in school between teachers and jocks caught giving "pressed fruit bowls" to passersby.

    Rosing should have just answered "What??" to every question from the judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 12:57pm

    not that satisfying

    Sadly, the transcript isn't as exciting as I had hoped.

    Needs more suspense and drama, riddled with anger and violence. Also, it's too short.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    I think the Judge called time before he exploded, as that would have defeated his ability to do anything in this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:13pm

    considering what these try to do to so-called 'defendants' that are 'accused of wrong doing, with nothing usually for proof other than an IP address', i think it would be only fitting if at a minimum, the same fate was bestowed on to them.

    no one appreciates what a punishment is like until the same punishment is bestowed on them. that's why i keep hoping on hope that someone as rich and powerful as Google grows a set and goes against the entertainment industries!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:26pm

    The most telling exchange, which points out how the Prenda team intended to use legal wrangling rather than actual facts to get out of this case is here:

    Ms. Rosing: Well, your honor, what I would like to argue because my clients are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, we weren't allowed...

    The Court: Excuse me? They are giving up their right to be heard. (continues)

    This less then a page after being directly told by the court the entire purpose of the day was for them to be given an opportunity to say their piece.

    Pretty ballsy of that Lawyer if you ask me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 2:53pm

      Re:

      No, it's consistent with their usual legal shenanigans. See, while they wanted(and in fact had) the right to be heard, what they were objecting to was the right to be questioned.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 8:34pm

        Re: Re:

        Hilarious! Do they really expect to get it both ways? They can say whatever the hell they want without having to answer a single question?
        What do they do when they have to go grocery shopping? Do they claim they have the right to pay for what they want and not have to go through the register?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 11:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, actually they probably do expect it both ways.

          This is one of the reasons copyright trolls like them almost always drop any case where their target is willing to take them to court over it, because they really don't like having to answer questions put to them, or being forced to present their 'evidence'.

          Unfortunately for Prenda(and fortunately for everyone else), this time they ran right into a judge unwilling to just accept them at their word, which explains the blanket silence, incredibly vague answers when they have to say something, and the crazy lengths they've gone to to avoid even having to show up at all.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Paul Renault (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:34pm

    Court transcripts as Paranoia dialogue...

    I used to GM (gamemaster) Paranoia every once in a while.

    The poor, hapless clones (the other people role-playhing) always thought that if they phrase the question just the right way, they'll get the information they need to, er, survive to the end of the game.

    One of my main jobs as GM was to invent, usually on the fly, all sorts of reasons why "that information is above your security clearance".

    That Prenda Hearing dialogue sounded like half the games I ran... Good times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    The judge needs to make them give clear responses that indicate the reason for not giving up information, even in their 'I dunno' responses.

    It needs to be clear whether the representing attorney 'can't say' because of attorney client privileges or because they do not actually have the information. The ambiguous phrases like 'I can't say' are quite maddening. The judge should not have to pull each little detail for every question. Are they really trying to force him into questioning every detail of a reply? Such as every time Rosing responds, ask every time: 'can you 'not say' because you are the representing lawyer?', 'can you 'not say' because you do not actually know the information being asked?', 'if you do not know the information, do you know whether it exists or not', 'if you do not know the information, do you know whether your client knows if it exists or not'

    Then enforce the 'Yes or No' response. Hell, just state 'I can't say' will be taken as having knowledge of the information and not being able to respond while 'I do not know' will be taken as not having any knowledge of the subject of the question. Define the ambiguous statements they are trying to hide behind, then hold them accountable for their statements when you finally dig up the truth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 1:39pm

    Just too entertaining...

    I seriously want to just put some Phoenix Wright music to this and watch it as a YouTube vid...

    And I might just do it along with the previous "who's on first" that Prenda did last time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sorrykb (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 2:02pm

    MR. BAKER:
    May I take the podium, your Honor?

    THE COURT:
    Well, we don't have one, but we do have a lectern and you are free to use it.

    I love this judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 2:13pm

    I haven't seen Mike this excited in a long time. They're LAWYERS who enforce COPYRIGHT and they're (ostensibly) DIRTBAGS! OMG! Best thing ever!

    Snore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

      Re:

      Funny, this is the most fun I've had legally in a long time. And at zero cost, to boot!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 3:30pm

      Re:

      Man, it must suck to have your heroes be exposed as the scum they actually are, so I can understand why you'd be so angry at the continued coverage of the Prenda circus, but no matter how much you flail about, trying to make is all seem insignificant, the curtain has been pulled back, and now everyone is getting to enjoy the song and dance Prenda are putting on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 5:47pm

      Re:

      Aha! the Real Alan Cooper

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DP, Apr 6th, 2013 @ 11:37am

      Re:

      The throw-away fact (in your eyes, at least) that they appear to be extortionists, also appearing to be operating outside of existing law, seems to have escaped your attention. I suppose you would want a return to the lawless wild west and send out lynching parties to people merely accused of a crime and the posse to bend every fact to suit themselves. I despair of an outright troll as you. Get a life.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Some Guy, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 2:48pm

    I admit to having a man-crush on Ken White. He's truly doing the Lord's work :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RoyalPITA (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 5:54pm

    A 12 minute court case.

    Too bad this judge can't give lessons to other judges on how to run a case that quick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Adam V, Apr 8th, 2013 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      To be fair, this is 12 masterful minutes that were the culmination of month after month of Prenda handing the judge all the rope they needed to hang themselves.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 6:10pm

    And so the house of cards constructed by the heroes of average joe and out_of_the_blue comes crashing down. The rest of the city will follow while you writhe in your corner, squawking away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    special-interesting (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 6:23pm

    Is nice to see the judge focusing on matters not totally foreseen by me. Like that good kind of surprise and want to hang with Judge Wright cuz I might accidentally learn something. Oops!

    The judge was clear in mentioning fraud going further to state that this hearing was about “,attorney misconduct such misconduct which I think brings discredit to the profession.”

    What did delightfully surprise me was the judges determined recognition that all of the shell firms were one and the same with Prendaa. More surprising was using such recognition to point out that “,notices of related cases,” have not been filed throughout the Prendaa universe of shell firm lawsuits. Sounds like reasonable charges to me.

    More seemingly binding was the comment “Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?” Financial interest is quite an important link.

    As a layperson it would totally piss me off if the firms represented by a legal firm were themselves owned by that same legal firm. The term fleecing comes to mind. It also is a clear motive to anyone without a minimum of scruples might want it covered up.

    Its kind of hilarious that they would be able to get another court to not recognize such a cozy arrangement. A lot filings are just taken for granted without any high level of proof other than what is submitted. Makes one wonder what was transcribed or not during such a filing. Possibly submitted in between a dozen or so other more normal pieces of paperwork during a busy moment? Who knows? Just another example of funny paperwork? Might even be used as evidence of willful misdirection.

    The event was not without some good old fashioned follow the money detective work in trying a bit to untangle the complex network of shell firms and which one gets the money. (wonder if off shore accounts are used?)

    Without direct testimony the judge must piece together the Prendaa puzzle with his own staff. Is hard to see progress without a search warrant or subpoena issued to a lot of funky shell firms. Bank records, corporate officers, assets, etc.

    And all this is in addition to what was discussed earlier. The story unfolds as the mysteries are explored and as in all real life drama the plot is a thing of past tense revealed only after the fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 6:44pm

    To me it is very telling the answers Mrs. Rosing give. There can not be but one of two reasons. Either the clients did not inform Mrs. Rosing or they did and she can't answer without making it worse.

    I once heard a saying that goes like this...

    When the law is on your side, you pound on the law.
    When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts.
    When you have neither, you pound on the table.

    This all boils down to table pounding through the whole mess. Now that they have the chance to speak for themselves, suddenly it's the 5th. It screams louder to me than an air horn what is going on. I am sure the judge, having been on these cases from the start is better informed than I.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Apr 5th, 2013 @ 10:14pm

      Re:

      "To me it is very telling the answers Mrs. Rosing give. There can not be but one of two reasons. Either the clients did not inform Mrs. Rosing or they did and she can't answer without making it worse."

      Well it seems to be both. She gotten no information concerning the ring leader or who it is among them, and she's the one who has to answer to the judge because the assholes are leaving her out to dry. Clearly by her tone she was doing her best to defend them, but in the end I think she realized there was no way to. As a defense lawyer will tell you, Ms. Rosing was legally bound to defend her clients as beat she could. Unfortunately for her, Prenda won't give her the information she needs to defend them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Apr 7th, 2013 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      "To me it is very telling the answers Mrs. Rosing give."

      I find it very telling when lawyers bringing a case to the courts need lawyers to say they won't answer any questions. What happened to their original case?

      Was this on SNL years ago or something? Seems almost original! Do we have to wait until season 2 to find out about Alan Mony & Salt Marsh?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2013 @ 1:05pm

    I would, totally, buy movie tickets (and Popcorn) should they decide to make a movie about this. DIRTY HARRY as the judge, anyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This