By the way, page 10 of the mentioned twitter feed has a sub-story by its on, a story that any decent attorney would do everything to hide, a story that even prompted Popehat to wake up from his Prenda-Hiatus.
One significant (IMO) inference from the memorandum that was left out, is the very fact that Steele deleted his email account. To those who did not follow the link to my story, here is the comment by Mysterious Anonymous that elaborates this thought:
John Steele deleted his Gmail account?
One that has been used extensively in the course of his litigation activities at Steele | Hansmeier and Prenda Law, Inc., in perhaps hundreds of cases in dozens of federal district courts across the USA?
One that was used to register domain names for Prenda and their supposed clients?
One that was associated with the Alan Cooper ID theft?
After he was referred to the USAO and IRS-CI for criminal investigation?
After he was referred to state Bar associations for investigation?
Holy shit! Can you say
Wow. Wow. Wow.
What was in there that Steele is suddenly so desperate to hide?
Iím surprised Heller didnít raise the issue, seems like a huge oversight. Even though it may not be strictly relevant to the 08333 case and their response, it is surely useful as another demonstration of Prendaís bad faith and lack of ethics. Surely attorneys operate under record retention requirements that do not include ďI can delete all my f%^&king email whenever I want because I am in a panic trying to avoid service and destroy evidence!Ē
No, they are not, As a matter of fact, Mike got it wrong: while Visa accepts payments for Wikileaks, it bans VPNs. At the same time, MasterCard blocks WL, but is perfectly fine with anonymizing services.
I actually don't think that this hole of a court is "growing skeptical."
It is because of
1) all the attention the drug scandal brought to this corrupt court;
2) when there is more than a dozen attorneys from all over the state (and even out of state), and every one tells the same thing — "this case is a brazen fraud" — even the most hardbutted judge (and Gleeson is seemingly not the most hardbutted) would be cautious;
3) the IL Supreme court is keeping an eye on the Prenda developments, swinging a ruler, getting ready to slap....
So if not for all this pressure, I'm afraid that willful blindness would persist. How a judge would rule if the "plaintiff"'s counsel is a former Bar President, Kevin Hoerner, whom he knows and socializes with, and all these annoying truth seekers come and go?
Prenda and this stinking hole, St. Clair County court, have been destined to find each other.