Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Asks Appeals Court To Delay Sanctions; Appeals Court Says 'No, Try Again'

from the another-failure dept

Well, well. Some Prenda supporters (shockingly, they exist) in our comments have been arguing that Judge Otis Wright's order against Team Prenda is the sign of a rogue judge who will get overturned. Of course, similar actions underway in other district courts suggest otherwise. On top of that, it would appear that the 9th Circuit appeals court doesn't seem too concerned about Judge Wright's order on a first pass either. Late last week, Paul Hansmeier, one of the key Prenda players, asked the appeals court to delay the requirement to pay sanctions so that he could get a proper appeal together. Of course, perhaps rather than putting together 30 pages protesting about the sanctions, Hansmeier should have been putting together a real appeal (or, as it turns out, reading how to file a stay pending appeal). The filing is certainly amusing. He whines about the lack of due process and the possible "reputational injury" this might cause.

Morgan Pietz, the lawyer who has been opposing Prenda in this matter (and, obviously, who would receive the bulk of the attorney's fees ordered), filed a very short and to the point brief saying he was actually fine with a stay on the payment, pending appeal, of course, but he wanted Hansmeier to first post a bond to show that the payment could be made. He also noted that he would have been happy to make this concession to Hansmeier if Hansmeier had just contacted him to let him know he was filing the brief requesting the stay. That's actually kind of a key point. Judges generally want the various lawyers to talk to each other about what's happening before surprise briefs are filed like this -- and so pointing out that Hansmeier filed a 30 page brief asking for the stay without even letting Pietz know about it probably won't be looked at too kindly by the court. As Pietz points out, there is very real concern about whether or not Prenda will ever actually pay up if they don't put up a bond.
The need for a substantial bond to secure payment of costs and fees from Prenda is not an idle request. Prenda Law, Inc. and its associated lawyers are an organization that is rapidly falling apart. They have dismissed the vast majority of their pending court cases across the country—cases which are their sole source of revenue. Meanwhile, as the days go by, they are increasingly being hit with new motions and orders to show cause for sanctions in various courts where they have tried, with mixed success, to escape from the consequences of their actions. Further, the lawyers and the entities involved here are likely the subject of potential criminal investigations, including an IRS investigation, flowing from the court’s formal referrals in the sanctions order below. In short, there may not be any solvent persons around to collect from for much longer. Further, as will be detailed in briefing on the merits, the lawyers’ interests in these cases (as well as their assets, one presumes) are hidden behind a web of Nevis LLC’s and mysterious offshore trusts. These are all complicated factual issues, with which the district court is already familiar, which is why the district court should set the amount and terms of the bond
Pietz also points out that the "reputational harm" argument is silly, because everyone already knows about it.

Either way, the Appeals Court wasted little time in saying "no," mainly because Paul Hansmeier, who presents himself as an accomplished lawyer, appears not to know the first thing about filing a stay pending appeal.
Appellant's emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s May 6, 2013 sanctions order is denied without prejudice to renewal, if necessary, upon the filing and disposition of such request in the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1).
The rule in question says that if you're going to ask for such a stay, you have to first ask in the district court, rather than going straight to the appeals court. I would imagine that if Hansmeier had talked to Pietz, Pietz might have made that point as well. The deadline to pay up is tomorrow, though now it seems like Hansmeier may need to go ask Judge Wright for a stay in the matter if he wants to avoid having to pay up.

Of course, that's not the only trouble Hansmeier is facing from the 9th Circuit, who now appears rather aware of Hansmeier's reputation. You may recall that Hansmeier has also been involved in the sketchy practice of protesting class action settlements in the hopes of getting paid off to go away (in one letter he directly asked for $30,000 to go away). The appeal of one of those class action settlement battles is happening in this very same 9th Circuit, and Hansmeier had applied to be admitted in the 9th Circuit, where he cannot currently practice. As pointed out by Popehat, the court has taken notice of Judge Wright's order and told Hansmeier that he needs to clear up that before it will admit him. As Ken White noted:
In other words: no, Paul, you can't have admission to the Ninth Circuit until this is cleared up, and we won't let you represent a client before us in the interim.

Actions have consequences.








Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 1:46pm

    So what the court has said to Hansmeier in their rejection of his admittance to the California bar is:

    "Welcome to the big leagues, govern yourself accordingly."

    Nice.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 2:38pm

    Paul Hansmeier is an idiot. As an attorney, he should be very familiar with the fact that no court in this country will allow him to proceed, whether it's criminal law or whether it's a lawsuit, as long as he's being investigated by state or Federal agencies.

    Not only does it create a conflict but it opens things up for any client of theirs to demand a new trial based on their attorney's predicament with an ongoing criminal investigation, especially when that attorney is the subject or a criminal investigation.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 2:42pm

    Paul Hansmeier to the Court

    Can I has extension please?

    Nope

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Well I guess when your earnings take a hit from the Copyright Troll game, it's always nice to have another way to make some quick cash, and apparently being an objector in a class action is a good way to make up those much need funds.

    I guess one scheme is as good as another when your looking to score some easy cash. The fact that they got hung out to dry in the one instance I am where of was when they were looking for a 30k donation ( and I used the word donation loosely ) to drop their objection to another class settlement and the lawyer involved on the other side called them out for it as did the Judge over seeing that case as well.

    Much like the Prenda saga, these guys seem to have all sorts schemes to get easy cash, and even though they have been chastised in class actions and in the copyright trolling cases they show no real signs of stopping any of their activities, of course this is my opinion but sure seems like an accurate perception of things.

    Does Hansmeier have any objector to a class action that isn't related to anyone involved with Prenda law.

    Padraigin Browne is his wife. She is his so called "client" in the Objector filing on the Groupon class action settlement, and his client (collusion at it's finest!)

    How long they have been Objectors in the class action lawsuit game. I have a funnt feeling this is not just the second one, and they may have been doing this for sometime (of course this is just my opinion)

    The gall these guys have to keep on participating in activities that in my opinion are questionable seems to know no bounds, and it seems that the more you peel the onion back the more it stinks.

    If I also recall right wasn't Gibbs involved in that earlier class action with the 30k demand as well? I could swear I read that.

    Why does it seem the usual cast of characters keep popping up in these various cases, as much as they all seem to say, "well I know nothing of this", and "don't know that person" or "have any history with such and such", it always seems to be that no matter where you look they are all entangled together in some capacity.

    I really do have to wonder just how many class action suits they have been Objectors in when they involve large settlements. There must be a way to find out through some filing or through the filed documents to the payees of class action settlements.

    I would suffice to guess in my opinion that this little money making venture has been going on quite a while and that they have been using this objector status to ring up some quick cash to not file an objection.

    Of course this is a little bit speculation and opinion on my part but I wouldn't doubt the class action settlement objector and the copyright troll game have been their only avenues of money generation, I am sure there are more that we aren't aware of just yet.

    I am amazed the way these guys operate, it almost seems like they know every way possible to make a quick buck..my opinion of course

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 2:55pm

    So I see in a comment at Popehat that Padraigin Browne is Paul Hansmeierís wife: ( the proposed client who Paul Hansmeier was trying to file a notice of objection in the Groupon settlement which is what this story is about )

    http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/tag/padraigin-browne/


    And is that special .she's a patent attorney! http://www.ssiplaw.com/professionals.php?ID=95

    Irony much? Just when you thought you had seen it all with these guys



    Thanks out to Vivian Darkbloom & Mike, commentators at Popehat for the info on Paul's wife!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 7:56pm

      Re:

      Like attracts like... I think I just vomited in my mouth a little.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 3:42am

      Re:

      Anyone think that maybe Paul just used his wife's name ( as well as the other names used in his classaction shakedown scam )without her permission

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    I would guess that was an attempt to not have to take their appeal before Judge Wright in the District Court, I am sure they knew then weren't going to have any success with it before him

    Although in my hypothetical scenario of them trying to appeal before him for a stay, Judge Wright falls out of his chair and starts rolling around on the floor laughing hysterically along with everyone in the gallery and then after the 10 minutes of hilarity he slams his gavel down and say's "DENIED"

    Of course we then see the Prenda gang out front of the court house hats in hand asking people for spare change!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 4:04pm

    Still not shocked at the actions.
    What would be shocking is a certified check showing up.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 4:57pm

      Re:

      What would be shocking(though pleasantly so), would be if the legal system actually got it right this time and did something soon about the Prenda gang, so they are no longer able to keep sending out shakedown letters to people to keep funding this fraud on the courts.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 5:19pm

    horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      horse with no name, May 20th, 2013 @ 6:28pm

      Re:

      Actually, I love due process. I am looking forward to the judge enjoying a little of it as well. Reaching outside of a case and outside of his district to pull people in for lecture and punishment without trial sort of violates due process, don't you think?

      Oh wait, you only want due process for pirates, not for anyone else. Got it.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Anon E. Mous (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 7:06pm

        Re: Re:

        So then you just happen to think due process is one sided then? Only for Team Prenda?

        What about the people that Prenda sued in this case, they should be treated with same courtesy should they not?

        Team Prenda ought to have been sure of there facts when they decided to bring this suit to court. Most Lawyers when they are filing a lawsuit for a client at least try to make sure the filings they are submitting to the court are true.

        How do you explain that Gibbs put forth a sworn document of his investigation of the IP address involved and stated that the house tied to this address was a big gated property with a few building on it, but no other residences close by?

        But when Judge Wright looked at the same area he found Gibbs finding to be totally inconsistent with his diligence when he looked at the same address through google maps and saw a totally different aspect of what Gibbs reported.

        Shouldn't Prenda's investigation have at least some truth to the facts they put forward to the court.

        Also when Judge Wright ordered them not to use the information gleaned from the ISP's and they were ordered to tell the ISP's of that order and they were told not to contact and of the subscribers who's information was turned over to them, should they have not followed the Judges order and not contacted the ISP subscribers?

        Did the does not deserve to have any settlement letters and phone calls stopped as that was the order of the court, which Prenda did not follow and ignored.

        You make it seem like Prenda can not play by the rules and not follow the law and should be afforded all considerations, and the does should have to suffer the consequences of Prenda not following the law and the courts directive.

        You are obviously one of the Prenda gang who are still is denial that the law applies to everyone including them. Prenda et all have found themselves in the very wrath of the public, courts and fellow Lawyers simply due to their own ability to follow the rules of law and the rules of court.

        If the Prenda gang was adapt at following the rules and making sure what they have submitted to the court was honest and factual in their lawsuits maybe they would be ahead of the game.

        The mere fact that they seem to find antiquated and obscure statues of case law to file lawsuits in various states shows they are smart, but there comes a time when you cross the line between which side of the law you are on.

        The antics in the various states and court rooms and various lawsuits and the trouble Prenda has encountered show they have gone to the far side of the equation in their quest for the money reaped from settlements.

        As the class action lawsuits show, the copyright lawsuit game isn't the only time their tactics have been called into question.


        When Judges sanction you and scold you in various rulings and you still fail to follow the courts orders and directives, then you have brought the weight of the law and courts upon yourself, and deservedly so.

        So please if you want absolution for Prenda, you better find a good Priest.. because your not going to get it from most of the folks who are aware of their tactics in court rooms and cases across the country

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          horse with no name, May 20th, 2013 @ 10:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So then you just happen to think due process is one sided then? Only for Team Prenda?

          What about the people that Prenda sued in this case, they should be treated with same courtesy should they not?


          I think that there is real issue in law right now that creates a space where people can hide behind their ISP, and commit illegal acts with impunity. I think that this gets in the way of due process, as it's almost impossible to get proper identification for someone to bring them to court.

          Essentially, it's great for the pirates who get to hide out and thumb their nose at the law, but bad for rights holders who are left facing legal stonewalling from ISPs.

          Prenda makes it worse with all sort of stupid shit, they are total idiots. They are no better at this point that the Tenenbaums and Thomas on the piracy side, helping to set precedents that will be bad for the supporter of their side.

          Prenda's case however does show however that there are serious issues regarding identifying people online, and that it creates both an obstruction of justice and sadly a hole where scammers (such as Prenda appear to be) can exploit for profit. It does neither side any good.

          When Judges sanction you and scold you in various rulings and you still fail to follow the courts orders and directives, then you have brought the weight of the law and courts upon yourself, and deservedly so.

          I agree. But the judge in this case went above and beyond, calling in people who were not directly party to the case, calling people in from outside of the district, and essentially putting them on trial without the benefits of time to build a defense. At that point, the judge is no better than those he judges harshly, he either abused his power or came incredibly close to the line, and he should count himself lucky not to find himself facing his own issues in the matter.

          Due process isn't just for pirates, that's important to remember.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 10:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm confused how the people asked to come to court were not directly involved in the case. All of those people were named representatives or lawyers for that case, or the claimants.

            You seem to be blatantly misrepresenting what happened in the course of this trial. You're saying they were not given time to make a defence, but they were not being accused of a single thing.

            The Judge repeatedly requested the most basic of information, like who was the person behind a signature, who was the owner of a company, etc. And when no one gave him that information, he requested it from people who supposedly could. And when every single claimant and every single legal representative directly involved with this case could not answer a single question, the judge imposed legal sanctions.

            Once again, these sanctions were not for committing a crime. They were for obstructing the legal process.

            Piracy is irrelevant to this.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              horse with no name, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The Judge repeatedly requested the most basic of information, like who was the person behind a signature, who was the owner of a company, etc. And when no one gave him that information, he requested it from people who supposedly could.

              Is this the judge's job? Or is this the job of the defense? If the judge felt there was fraud here, should he have not referred it to the police or other authorities to look into?

              Dragging people not named in the case into court to give them a dressing down - and punishment - without due process is incredibly over the top. It's the same sort of thing you guys would whine about if a pirate was on the hook.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 4:03am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Not named"? There was an entire deposition from Paul Hansmeier after Gibbs had named him, along with Prenda's top dogs. Your insistence that they were "not named" isn't working. It's looking like you refuse to be informed on the case so you can rant in defence of pornographers suing grandmothers.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                DannyB (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > If the judge felt there was fraud here, should he have not
                > referred it to the police or other authorities to look into?

                Isn't that what he did? Isn't that what you are complaining about?

                And lawyers engaging in fraud before the court should have to pay the defense's attorney's fees.

                And Prenda did get due process. All kinds of due process. They had plenty of opportunity to show that they were not engaging in fraud and to rebut the defense accusations of fraud. But instead of embarrass the defense by showing their actions were legitimate, they engaged in hand waving and silence. The judge and defense rightfully concluded, based on the available evidence, that Prenda and gang are engaged in fraud.

                So what's the problem exactly?

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 10:03am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Is this the judge's job?

                At a hearing to show cause? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:33pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yes, it is the Judge's job, especially in a civil court. A judge does not just accept any evidence and testimony that is brought to trial, they have to review everything and accept its validity.

                And again, you keep trying to portray this as punishment for a crime. They were not found guilty of fraud, they were being punished for stonewalling and refusing to allow the legal process to move forward.

                If they had said "Sorry, this evidence is invalid, we'll withdraw it" there would have been no punishment. If they'd said "Sorry, the person named here was incorrectly included in party with the claimants", there would have been no punishment.

                Would they be charged with fraud if they admitted to falsifying documents? Probably. But they would not have been sanctioned by this Judge in this court room.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Matthew Cline (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 2:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Is this the judge's job? Or is this the job of the defense? If the judge felt there was fraud here,"

                Lawyers are officers of the court. It's the judge's job to investigate if he thinks that the lawyers aren't behaving as officers of the court should, and to impose sanctions if he thinks they broke the rules. In this case, the fraud involved lying to the court, so it's exactly the sort of fraud the judge should be concerned with.

                 

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

          •  
            identicon
            A. Commenter, May 20th, 2013 @ 11:44pm

            The law according to - LOOK! SQUIRREL!

            I will grant that stealing a penny is still theft. I will grant that re-publishing a copyrighted work is illegal.

            What I do not grant, given the "Home Recording Act" that simply downloading a copyrighted work without compensation is harmful. Study after study shows that the top people downing without purchase invariably purchase IP they deem worthy.

            Put another way...

            If I were interested in a movie, I might view it first to see if it's worth my hard earned money. If so, I'll go to any of a plethora of legal sites and pay to purchase it in high quality. If I think it's trash, I've not expended any money, only my (to me) valuable time to review it.

            How many times have you viewed a riveting trailer only to find that the entire movie's worth was in that trailer? I've lost count. It's in the thousands for me. Why should I generously shell out the geetius for garbage? Because it's protected by the "most holy" copyright act? Elephant dung thrown on canvas is protected by copyright. That doesn't give it any intrinsic or extrinsic worth to me. It's still excrement smeared on canvas.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              horse with no name, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:59am

              Re: The law according to - LOOK! SQUIRREL!

              If I were interested in a movie, I might view it first to see if it's worth my hard earned money. If so, I'll go to any of a plethora of legal sites and pay to purchase it in high quality.

              So you want to entirely enjoy the product, in it's complete form, and then decide if you might want to tip them? What you are suggesting here is very dangerous, that you should be allowed to obtain your side of the bargain (entertainment) without risk, and that they should provide it to you at 100% risk - and only one of you invested time, effort, and money to produce it.

              It seems an incredibly unfair concept. Try that out on a hotel, rental car, train, or public transit one day. See how far it gets you.

              Study after study shows that the top people downing without purchase invariably purchase IP they deem worthy.

              The most recent study out of the UK showed that those people are such a small part of the market that the non-downloaders and even non-buying public combined spends 10 times as much as they do as a whole. There is no benefit shown to converting the large existing market into pirates (or giving them the product for your full free trial as suggested). There is little to show that they would suddenly spend more money, and ever reason to believe they would spend less.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:29am

                Re: Re: The law according to - LOOK! SQUIRREL!

                Whilst I don't 100% agree with the previous but one argument (A.Commentator), your counterargument is dreadfully weak.

                I want to buy a chair. I go see the chair. I might even sit in the chair. If I like it, I can buy it. If it's rubbish, I don't buy it. The risk that someone doesn't want to buy it is always with the seller. The way to mitigate that risk is to make a product that people want to buy.

                If I hire a car, book a hotel, or buy a train ticket I have a certain level of expectation of the quality of service that will be provided. If that service does not meet that expectation, I ask for a refund and get my money back.

                The risk is always with the seller.

                Go away and come up with a better argument.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                It really doesn't matter, May 21st, 2013 @ 3:35am

                Re: Re: The law according to - LOOK! SQUIRREL!

                The most recent study out of the UK showed that those people are such a small part of the market that the non-downloaders and even non-buying public combined spends 10 times as much as they do as a whole. There is no benefit shown to converting the large existing market into pirates (or giving them the product for your full free trial as suggested). There is little to show that they would suddenly spend more money, and ever reason to believe they would spend less.

                ahem...
                The study already shows they spend more money -

                The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers.

                Generally, the data from the survey showed that as people consumed more infringed files they also consumed more legal files, and spent more on legal content.

                Take a look - http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/deep-dive.pdf

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Dean William Barnes, May 21st, 2013 @ 6:51am

                Re: Re: The law according to - LOOK! SQUIRREL!

                @horse with no name: actually in most businesses that are brick and mortar, the risk is always 100% on the company and little if any on the consumer. Take your listed examples, the hotel build and decorates the room and takes on the staff, and offers the room, many will graciously take a credit card and bill end of stay. If there are issues, then there is check out, where all debts are settled ( a two sided process if there is an issue). Restaurants are in similar situations, customers walk in look at menu and order, meal arrives, customer either chooses to pay at end of the meal or takes up any issues with manager. If needed, the courts get involved on a case by case situation if there is disagreement. In fact, every major business model operates this way. The entertainment industry is the only industry that is at odds with the rest of the business world. Now I understand the argument about the internet and anonymity and the issues this presents, but that does not change the fact that most average people expect the same trade relationship with entertainment as they do with all other businesses.

                 

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 3:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Not directly party"? This is as good as saying that Chris Dodd shouldn't be called down to court or involved in the MPAA ever gets into a lawsuit. Wow, you're about as wilfully stupid as they come. The judge didn't coerce these people into pleading the Fifth; they chose of their own accord to say, "If we told you the truth, you'd incriminate us!"

            That you rise to Prenda's defence first as your priority is a good indication of what you think due process should be like - it allows people to set up fake companies and extort money for copyrighted works that might not even exist. Copyright's best and brightest.

            And you wonder why copyright gets no respect with shills like you fronting the public image.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Anon E. Mous (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 7:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think that there is real issue in law right now that creates a space where people can hide behind their ISP, and commit illegal acts with impunity. I think that this gets in the way of due process, as it's almost impossible to get proper identification for someone to bring them to court.

            Essentially, it's great for the pirates who get to hide out and thumb their nose at the law, but bad for rights holders who are left facing legal stonewalling from ISPs.

            Prenda makes it worse with all sort of stupid shit, they are total idiots. They are no better at this point that the Tenenbaums and Thomas on the piracy side, helping to set precedents that will be bad for the supporter of their side.

            Prenda's case however does show however that there are serious issues regarding identifying people online, and that it creates both an obstruction of justice and sadly a hole where scammers (such as Prenda appear to be) can exploit for profit. It does neither side any good.

            --

            Well I don't buy that people can hid behind their ISP's and download or share copyrighted material with no worries. With all of the companies out there nowadays doing enforcement on behalf of copyright holders, I would say the inherent risks are tenfold from what they used to be.

            With that being said I sure wouldn't believe my ISP or any other is going to be guarded about providing my info if a order is given to them for the information.

            If anything I would disagree with you that ISP's protect the subscriber. Most ISP's are giving that info out if the court has directed it to do so, and they are also being paid a per subscriber fee to provide this information.

            ISP's do put up a fight in certain cases and situations (for instance that RIAA Former Lobbyist Judge Beryll Howell) who gave Prenda Carte Blanche to get the ISP's to turn over subscriber information for people that weren't even in the district the case was filed in.

            The only reason ISP's are fighting that order was that the scope of the ISP subscribers were scattered around the country, and did not fall in the jurisdiction of that court and its order.

            There are cases around the country were courts have ordered the ISP's to turn over subscriber info because the information before the court has met the courts threshold of proof, and the ISP has complied.

            There are always going to be those who will flaunt the laws and those who don't. That beings said though I am of the class of people who want the person brining a suit forward to make sure the facts they have said to get my information factual and most of all truthful.

            There are a lot of sites that if you download a movie or a video clip that they include a hidden unique identifier for that member/subscriber that each time they download a clip or video and let say they share it on the web, they can go back and look at that subscriber/members info and say hey you shared are clip.

            So there is a way to identify who may have shared that movie or video clip, and they can go from there to proceed with a lawsuit etc if they so choose.

            Now am I saying that is fool proof with no issues, no, I still think there is great burden to prove there that the person who subscribed is the one who sent it.

            There are always ways to get around things such as VPN's proxies, IP spoofing, using someone else's WiFi connection etc.

            But the onus is on the person who is brining the case to the courts to make sure they have the facts right, the RIAA has done this in cases, so has the MPAA. But they have also goofed on some cases as well.

            Prenda has done a shoddy job in my opinion on making sure the facts they represent have a semblance of truth to them. Their problem is they got so engrossed in the money they were making they totally forgot about the law and following it.

            ----

            When Judges sanction you and scold you in various rulings and you still fail to follow the courts orders and directives, then you have brought the weight of the law and courts upon yourself, and deservedly so.

            I agree. But the judge in this case went above and beyond, calling in people who were not directly party to the case, calling people in from outside of the district, and essentially putting them on trial without the benefits of time to build a defense. At that point, the judge is no better than those he judges harshly, he either abused his power or came incredibly close to the line, and he should count himself lucky not to find himself facing his own issues in the matter.
            ---

            I have to disagree with you on this, Peter & Paul Hansmeier are involved 6881 Forensics. 6881 Forensics supposed monitoring program was used to detect who was downloading and sharing the movie that was involved in this case. It was also their declaration to the court that these peoples IP address's were the ones involved in the sharing and downloading of the torrent file.

            So the Hansmeiers work for Prenda on behalf of AF Holdings.
            AF Holdings is represented by Gibbs who was the original lawyer for Prenda Law. Gibbs was the main lawyer on this case till Duffy tried to withdrawl the case from the court.

            Duffy is the supposed principal of Prenda Law, all affidavits and pleadings were filed on Prenda's behalf with representation from Gibbs.

            Angela Van Demel was the Para-legal who was contacting the ISP's subscribers still after the court had put through an order telling Gibbs/Prenda that they were not allowed to contact the subscribers with information gleaned from the ISP's.

            They continued despite that order. This one of the reasons which the first hearing was called for sanctions for disobeying the courts order and a sanction hearing was set.

            Mark Lutz was supposedly the representative of AF Holdings and may have signed some of the documentation and affidavits in regard to the initial start of the lawsuit.

            Steele and Hansmeier supposedly have no intrest in Prenda law but yet it was Steele Hansmeier's business that went to Prenda law.

            So as much as you seem to say these folks should have never been called into appearing and explaining their involvement in the lawsuit and the Judge over reached, I have to disagree.

            They are all so intertwined in these actions and in others around the country, that it is hard to not find they are all involved to some aspects. The Judge and defence too see this same thing.

            If an appeals courts thinks Judge Wright over reached then I am sure they will remedy this, bit in my opinion I think Judge Wright included them in and rightly so based on all the connections in this case and others.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            anonymouse, May 21st, 2013 @ 7:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sorry but you seem to forget this was a civil trial before he Judge and he called in all the people that were involved in the trial, not just random people. Everyone including steele and hammershite were involved in the case in some way, he called them forward so they could answer some questions. The refused to answer any questions that could have cleared up this mess and therefore lost the chance they had to put there points forward after the questioning process. All the Judge wanted was to know who owned what , where the money was going from the trial and who was responsible for any actions taken, In the real world this should not have been a problem but in this case the people called forward have being doing illegal things and therefore refused to answer what were simple questions because they knew they would be strung up from the rafters if they answered and admitted they were trying to confuse the court.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            apauld (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You keep stating stuff like "But the judge in this case went above and beyond, calling in people who were not directly party to the case, calling people in from outside of the district, and essentially putting them on trial without the benefits of time to build a defense." but that claim is completely without merit. As it has been explained to you, numerous times with details, the judge did only what the rules of his court allowed, no more no less. If you aren't smart enough to read back over this whole saga and see it, then you are probably about to be disbarred.

             

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

      •  
        icon
        apauld (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 7:09pm

        Re: Re:

        As noted many times before, almost ad nauseum at this point; Judge Wright took his time to make sure he did everything correctly, because he knew some sort of appeal would happen. Just because you feel that he was " Reaching outside of a case and outside of his district to pull people in for lecture and punishment without trial" doesn't mean that is what happened, it wasn't. Even though Rossing and Hansmeier are now trying to paint it that way, it was still a civil matter and Judge Wright only did what any judge could do when presented with evidence of fraud taking place in his court. No more, no less. I for one find it refreshing that Hansmeier is now trying to pretend that it was/should have been a criminal case; as he's admitting he's a criminal, and a part of Prenda et.al.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 7:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Sorry, I wanted to write "John Steele". Then I realised that your name was interchangeable given the context and so I gave you the honour of substitution.

        Someone who can't keep track of the bullshit he posts really has no business talking down to anyone. But let's focus on what you've bullshitted, I mean typed, this time. Prenda was the one who brought the lawsuit, so they were involved. After their representatives shuffled their feet and refused to admit where the money or paperwork went, where else do you think the judge was going to get his information?

        You're just mad that once again, copyright enforcers proved the only way they could get anything down is by steamrolling the law. "I don't have to follow shit; stfu and let me sue people!" And you wonder why copyright gets no respect.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 8:07pm

        Re: Re:

        You'll find that Contempt of court is very much inside due process. There are very clear, very specific rules that must be followed during legal proceedings. If those rules are not followed, then the law is not being carried out in a fair and just way.

        Prenda failed to follow those rules at every step, and when questioned on their evasion, they broke even more rules. They were given ample opportunity to correct their mistakes, and received repeated warnings with no immediate punishment.

        In other words, Prenda chose to obstruct due process. That is what being held in Contempt of Court means...it's a penalty to stop people from obstructing the law within a trial.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:32am

        Re: Re:

        Prenda got all kinds of due process. They passed on their opportunities to show:
        1. that they are not engaged in fraud
        2. that the attorneys are not the plaintiffs
        3. that the copyright transfer was legitimate and real
        4. that their investigation of copyright defendants was more substantial than the defense was claiming
        5. that they were putting real attorneys in front of the judge and not just stand up guys with no power to represent or bind the plaintiffs
        . . . and other things

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), May 20th, 2013 @ 7:48pm

    Re: Absolution for Prenda.

    This comment got me thinking about possible scenarios under which Prenda might get out of this.

    I was surprised when I came up with two (actually two variations of the same thing).

    They get a jury trial and:

    1. get a jury of RIAA/MPAA groupies.
    2. get a jury of card carrying jury nullification advocates.

    As far a a good Priest granting absolution, I'm reasonably sure no good Priest would do it, but an evil Priest might.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:37am

    I laugh at Prenda's 'reputational harm'

    The 'reputational harm' is quite a laugh given that Prenda threatens people with associating them with gay pr0n before their friends, family, neighbors and coworkers.
    From the RIAA's heart I stab at thee; for the MPAA's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 9:43am

    I know how to get Prenda off all charges.

    Firstly Steele starts comparing Judge Wright to various genocidal lunatics (without naming any).

    When the Judge asks if Steele is comparing him to Hitler, Steele then invokes Godwins Law which means any argument or discussion is effectively over and Judge Wright has lost........It's probably a better strategy than any Steele has tried so far.

     

    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