Team Prenda Tries To Flip The Story Of John Steele's Mother-in-Law To Make Alan Cooper Look Bad

from the also:-eff-is-pure-evil dept

When we last left Team Prenda, they were dealing with the fallout from the Perry Mason-like moment in court in which Alan Cooper -- who has accused Prenda's John Steele of forging his name/identity on multiple occasions -- revealed that he first found out about his signature on copyright assignment documents from John Steele's mother-in-law, Kim Eckenrode. In response, the best that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier could say in response was (1) she's "religious" and (2) she spends a lot of time reading the popular anti-troll websites DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls. Late last week, Hansmeier filed a declaration from Eckenrode along with a memorandum that tries to support Team Prenda's position and to (once again) attack Alan Cooper's credibility. Unfortunately, as with so many Prenda filings, once you get past the surface story, everything else falls apart. Quickly.

First off, they claim that Cooper has been trying to hide the involvement of Eckenrode, because this would somehow undermine Cooper's argument:
There is a very simple reason why Mr. Cooper, his financial benefactors at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and his putative attorney, Paul Godfread, fought to avoid revealing Ms. Eckenrode’s identity. They knew that the moment Mr. Cooper revealed Ms. Eckenrode’s identity, Ms. Eckenrode would be contacted by Plaintiff to learn her side of the story.
Well, yes. But, uh, considering that Eckenrode is Steele's mother-in-law and supposedly reads all those sites, um, then wouldn't she have mentioned to Steele at some earlier point how she had texted Cooper about his signature? In all that time, she never brought it up? Really? That seems difficult to believe.

Either way, the filing suggests that Eckenrode's affidavit undermines Cooper's claims, but that doesn't appear to be true. In it, she claims that she didn't just text Cooper out of the blue, but rather she had seen a mention of Cooper on one of the sites (DTD or FCT, though she doesn't specify which...) and had told her own husband about it. Sooner after, Cooper had called her husband to discuss having shot a deer (they apparently spoke a few times about hunting). The husband mentioned Ms. Eckenrode's comments to Cooper, who asked to be sent the articles:
On or about November 15, 2012 Alan called and spoke to my husband about a deer he had shot on John's property the week before. My husband told Alan that I read a recent article in one of the above-mentioned websites and noticed that the name Alan Cooper was used in conjunction with a company called AF Holdings. Alan asked me to send what I had seen on those websites to him, and I did.
That still doesn't change the fact that this is how Cooper first found out about the documents where his signature appears to have been forged (and which courts have ruled were forged). And, in fact, later in the affidavit, Cooper appears to respond to Eckenrode to say that it's "not my signature."
On September 30, 2013, I learned that Alan had testified before the Honorable Judge Noel in Minnesota that I had sent Alan a text for the purpose of notifying Alan that his name was being used in connection with adult content companies. This is not accurate. I sent the text to notify Alan that I had discovered a document online signed 'Alan Cooper', and to ask if he thought it could possibly be the one he had discussed with my husband when we were in Minnesota. Alan indicated "That's me" and "not my signature."
That still doesn't seem to contradict the story, so I'm not entirely clear why Hansmeier appears to be doing some sort of victory dance about how this changes everything. Again, it's difficult to believe that nowhere in the past year since Cooper first went public with this that Eckenrode never bothered to mention this exchange to Steele if Cooper was supposedly completely misrepresenting things. Also, in the memorandum, Hansmeier claims that Cooper confirmed that the documents were the ones he had discussed in the past. But that's not what Eckenrode's affidavit says. It says he said "that's me" and "not my signature." By which he could certainly mean that it's obviously "him" that is supposedly signing the documents, but it wasn't his signature. In short: it would support his story. He recognizes that someone at Prenda is trying to use his identity (hence: "that's me") to forge his signature ("not my signature"). Yet in the filing, Hansmeier instead claims that "The purpose of the text message was to ask Mr. Cooper if the documents referenced on the blogs were the ones he had referenced in Minnesota. Mr. Cooper confirmed that they were." Except it's not clear he really did that.

There are some other oddities in the story as well. For example, last week in court, Steele apparently almost broke down on the stand claiming that he got out of the trolling business after seeing an image of his home, his child and a gun, with people asking what kind of bullets to use to kill Steele. That claim raised significant skepticism from multiple observers of Team Prenda's actions, because no one can recall ever seeing anything even remotely like that on a site. Eckenrode, however, claims a similar thing -- again without a single specific:
On one occasion, I saw an article on one of the above websites showing pictures of the home where John and his family lived. This was very disturbing to me. I asked the people running the website to please take that information off their website because I was afraid for my family's safety. On another occasion, the websites had posted 3 picture of my daughter and had posts slandering her. I was disturbed and hurt by the disrespect shown my family and communicated such. I also asked that to be removed.
Why would she not name the sites in question? I'm not saying this didn't happen, because it very well might have. But, it does seem odd that neither Steele nor his mother-in-law seem to state what site this actually happened on. And, if Eckenrode asked for the image to be removed, then there should be a record of that somewhere.

Also, as in the past, Team Prenda likes to claim that anti-troll blogs are "pro-piracy," which is just silly. Oh yeah, and calling Cooper's lawyer, Paul Godfread, his "putative" attorney is just really childish.

And then there's the usual ridiculous attack on the EFF, again falsely claiming that they were Cooper's "financial benefactors" merely because EFF paid for Cooper's trip to court when Judge Wright ordered him to be there. And then going off on this little anti-EFF rant:
The overriding mission of the EFF has been to shield the Internet from effective regulation--"defending it from the intrusion of territorial government." Jack L. Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World .... This mission is radical, quasi-anarchist, and intrinsically opposed to any effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. Purporting to speak on behalf of "Cyberspace," a co-founder of the EFF (who presently serves on its Board of Directors) has warned the "Governments of the Industrial World" that "[y]our legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us." John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
Quoting John Perry Barlow out of context may seem like fun, but it really just makes you look confused and silly. Also, misrepresenting EFF and trying to smear them with claims like "quasi-anarchist" may win points in certain circles, but one expects judges to see through that kind of baseless confused rhetoric. If anything, it just highlights the lack of real arguments from Hansmeier and Team Prenda. EFF is pretty well respected on these issues -- even among those who disagree with them. Launching an insult barrage against the organization only raises more questions about those raising such silly claims.




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 12:12am

    I love it when the EFF are likened to anarchists. Which is the exact opposite of what the EFF are against.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      JustMe (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 4:33am

      Re: A/C comment from 12:12am

      OK wait a second. You are saying that anarchists are the exact opposite of something that the EFF is against. The exact opposite of an anarchist is someone who is lawful and good (or lawful good, for RPG fans). This means the EFF is against lawful and good people? I knew it!

      Team Prenda was right all along. We should elect them as Knower Of All Stuffs and Bringer Of Truthiness.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 5:00am

        Re: Re: A/C comment from 12:12am

        I've always thought of anarchists as Chaotic Good.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        art guerrilla (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 8:58am

        Re: Re: A/C comment from 12:12am

        please disabuse yourself of the notion that 'anarchists' are 'bad' people who want to run around looting and killing everyone...
        you -as many are- have been successfully brainwashed about both the term's technical meaning, as well as the his story of anarchism in general...
        using 'anarchy' as a word meaning 'chaos', violence, etc, is wrong...

        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        oef

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 9:04am

          Re: Re: Re: A/C comment from 12:12am

          I was trying (and apparently failing) to be funny, but the serious kernel underneath was that they're Chaotic Good as opposed to Chaotic Evil (since the previous post said that Lawful Good was the opposite of an anarchist).

           

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

  •  
    icon
    apauld (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 12:30am

    the most disturbing thing about these recent developments is learning that another one of these clowns is breeding

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 2:07am

    Can't the EFF sue for slander?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    PRK (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 2:15am

    Bets on Signature authenticity?

    Anyone taking bets that Eckenrode did not sign the declaration?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      simality (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 6:21am

      Re: Bets on Signature authenticity?

      It seems unlikely that they would post such a empty affidavit with a forged signature. If they were in the mood to forge her signature I would expect this affidavit to line up more closely with the realtor's affidavit (i.e. "Cooper's a crazy man off his meds, and yes I did text him but I never said anything about his signature being forged," yada yada yada).

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 6:42am

      Re: Bets on Signature authenticity?

      I'm sure she signed it, but it sure reads like she was coached through writing it.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Arthur Moore (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 9:21am

        Re: Re: Bets on Signature authenticity?

        I'm wondering if team Prenda slipped some things in the document after she signed it.

        Reading the actual document, all it says is she notified Cooper, hat she has no basis to believe that Steele owned the company, and that she has no proof of anything.

        The picture of the house is sort of out there in left field. It has nothing to do with any of the other statements.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 3:07am

    On one occasion, I saw an article on one of the above websites showing pictures of the home where John and his family lived. This was very disturbing to me. I asked the people running the website to please take that information off their website because I was afraid for my family's safety.

    Really? They found an impage like this on a website and TEAM PRENDA simply asked nicely that the image be removed? Prenda? The guys that sue for EVERYTHING no mater how horrible their case is?

    I send out this message to the entire internet community. If you received a pleasent "Can you remove this, please?" from any Prenda lawyer, please let the rest of us know. In fact, start an ebay auction for it - it has to be one-of-a-kind.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 4:49am

      Re:

      My guess is that by "ask" they mean sent "vaguely-worded threat letter that includes an estimation of damages set at just below the cost of effective litigation."

       

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      It was the mother-in-law that was doing the asking, not anyone at Prenda.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 5:46pm

      Re:

      And funny... No one in the community claims to have ever seen anything like what was 'tearfully' described.

      I guess printing a message from your sent mail folder is to difficult to support claims made by people who have an apparent issue with the truth and reality.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    miatajim (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 3:28am

    "On one occasion, I saw an article on one of the above websites showing pictures of the home where John and his family lived. This was very disturbing to me. I asked the people running the website to please take that information off their website because I was afraid for my family's safety."

    Google maps???

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Peter Henry, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 3:18pm

      Re: Google Maps

      Then there's always Ms. Streisand, who wished her residence off of the internet. That worked out pretty well.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    gyffes, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 4:33am

    awww

    They're not even TRYING. This case has lost its luster: they're so intellectually vacant they can't even raise amusing points, anymore.

    *sadly puts away the popcorn*

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 5:05am

    So, did they ever find Lutz?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 5:05am

    Quoting John Perry Barlow out of context may seem like fun, but it really just makes you look confused and silly.
    Especially considering that the cited quotation was part of Mr Barlow's response to Congress' enactment of the "Computer Decency Act", which was quickly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    JustMe (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 5:07am

    Definition of anarchy

    Fair enough, although I doubt that most anarchists are looking out for the overall good of society. They mostly seem to be in it for themselves.

    an·ar·chy ˈanərkē/
    noun: anarchy
    1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 6:20am

    I love Prenda they're doing more to show just how fucked up copyright is than any pirate ever could dream of.

    For that I say thank you so much!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Raul, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 7:06am

    Strange that the notorization date is left blank: October__2013.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    jackn, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Everyone agrees, she texted him.

    Unfortunatly, it does not affect the forged document. It is still forged. Team prenda should look for an excuse that shows cooper actually signed the doc. Otherwise, its just noise.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    mcinsand, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 12:12pm

    we could use (at least one) change to copyright law

    Okay, so we need well over one change, but it would be nice to have a specific amendment to cover cases like this. Basically, if the assignor's signature is valid but the assignee's signature is not, then the work in question goes into the public domain. Owners would be free to transfer copyrights, but, among other key duties of a copyright holder, trolls like Prenda would lose any rights if those copyrights were obtained under fraudulent circumstances.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    MTwinfan, Oct 9th, 2013 @ 8:26pm

    Lock em up

    This saga has made for TV movie written all over it! Never seen a bunch of more corrupt lawyers that haven't been disbarred yet? I'm sure that it won't be long though. Can you believe that Steele even opened up a family law firm in Chicago, I wonder how much illegal stuff he's done? Sure if seine starts digging they'll find a ton of stuff. The guy he used to intimidate/ serve people he was suing got busted for selling coke to down state judges ( one of which overdosed) where steele had been filing cases!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    DDS1975, Oct 16th, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    What's going on with the case?

    I'm wondering when these " lawyers" are going to get disbarred?
    They're refusing to pay all the fines so I'm sure that they're in contempt? I wonder how many civil suits have filed by the people they pretty much extorted?

     

    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