Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition

from the but-of-course dept

This probably will come as little surprise given his earlier objections, but Prenda Law’s Brett Gibbs has filed yet another series of “objections,” filed by his recently obtained legal representation from the law firm of Waxler, Carner, Brodsky. Like the last time around, the objections follow the same pattern, basically arguing that pretty much everything Morgan Pietz has said or filed is “irrelevant” along with a rotating cast of other objections: hearsay, lacks foundation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation, etc. Some of these objections seem obviously ridiculous. For example, he objects as “hearsay” (among other things) a statement from Pietz about Gibbs filing different versions of the same motion. This is, to put it mildly, overkill.

Not surprisingly, the objections include the use of the Paul Hansmeier deposition which got so much attention yesterday. The specific objections here: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document. The idea that the document is irrelevant is simply laughable.

It’s somewhat surprising that Gibbs and his lawyers felt this was a productive use of their time. As was covered pretty clearly in Ken “Popehat” White’s big analysis of the case, it’s quite clear that Judge Otis Wright is not buying Brett Gibbs’ story, at all. In fact, he’s taking an incredible level of interest in the details of the case, in a manner that suggests he does not trust Gibbs at all. Given that, you would think that filing a list of objections like this not only will not have the hoped for effect, but might actually do the exact opposite. It serves to highlight just how worried Gibbs is that this evidence will be used by Judge Wright in exploring the depths of Prenda’s actions. Yes, some lawyers think that you should object to everything imaginable just in case it works. But, in this case, with the Judge making it pretty damn clear that he doesn’t believe Gibbs and wants to get to the bottom of what’s going on with Prenda, taking such an aggressive stance to all of this evidence seems like it could be a pretty big miscalculation. It does fit with Gibbs’ and Prenda’s standard operating procedures, but considering how badly that’s failed in this case so far, you’d think that someone would have the sense to suggest he let up on the throttle a bit.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Ninja (profile) says:

We found the real identity of out_of_the_blue. Objects to virtually everything with no real evidence/basis.

But we can play that game, from now on I’ll adopt the “Prenda tactics”. When I see it’s the usual troll I’ll reply

you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document

out_of_the_blue says:

Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.

Gets funnier every time, Mike. Almost looks as though you’re trying to lose ranking.

Take a loopy tour of! You always end up at same place!
Prenda Law! A staple in the “At The Bench” series. Mike sez (short version): “Wow. Wow. Wow. … The story is gripping.”

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.

“Masnick puts in an appearance! — Oh, for THIS.”

If you mean, writing an article on his blog, on the website that his company owns…then yes he does put in an appearance. I can’t see anything odd or sinister with that.

Were you told to make a comment and to use a minimum of 20 or so words? Cause your comment is meaningless.

GMacGuffin says:

Makes sense ...

I can see the thinking of Gibbs’ counsel here.
1) If we don’t object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn’t reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but…)
3) We’re doing our job (true… but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What’s the worst that could happen?

Scote (profile) says:

Re: Makes sense ...

IANAL, but, yes, I believe council has to object if they want to reserve the right to appeal on those grounds. If you don’t object to something you can’t appeal it later. So, silly as it is, objecting makes good legal sense, all the more so when you know the only way you’ll get the client out of this is through a technicality, not the facts.

Anonymous Coward says:

There can’t be hero’s without villain’s….

I can only speculate that since the evil IP addresses are not enough of a villain, Prenda is setting themselves up…

Just wait for Steel’s next law firm (that he claims he doesn’t work for, from a state he isn’t authorized to practice law in) to come in as the Hero and save the day….

Okay too much fantasy, these guys are just crazy….

Anonymous Coward says:

Poor Gibbs, what a great scapegoat. I can’t wait till Steel copyright’s this story . Then the movie comes out. Then it will be pirated, and he will sue the downloaders. Simple Genius, he’ll probably even sue me for this comment. John Steele, might be the Smartest millionare ever to go down with the ship.

Scote (profile) says:

Re: Mark Lutz is the real scapegoat - wouldn't want to be him right now...

I wouldn’t want to be Mark Lutz right now. The whole Paul Hansmeier deposition is predicated on the idea of Lutz as mastermind, though even as Hansmeier spun this tale he seemed bristle at the question of whether he did whatever Lutz told him to. With everyone piling on about how Steele’s former employee Lutz is the only one who is in charge it would be a great advantage to Hansmeier and Steele for Lutz to never show up in court.

I hope Lutz stays safe and manages to make it to court on Monday. A body guard might not be a bad idea.

Ken (user link) says:

Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming


Filing objections to declarations and exhibits is good, careful lawyering. You risk waiving the objections if you don’t make them. Sometimes you can win an issue because an opponent relies on inadmissible evidence to support a crucial point. Sometimes a judge will use objections to travel where the judge wants to go.

Filing the objections is not at all remarkable; I would have. The format is not remarkable; it’s the format federal litigators use.

The part I would criticize is the scope. Some lawyers offer every remotely colorable objection to everything. I don’t. The judge’s eyes glaze over and you lose credibility. The better practice is carefully targeted objections to actually objectionable evidence — objections that actually have a chance of succeeding. If you submit, say, ten key objections on limited and specific (but arguable) grounds, the judges (and clerks) will look at them. If you object to everything on every theory, your objections likely won’t get read.

Also, at this point, objecting on the grounds of “relevance” reflects a heartbreaking level of optimism. Judge Wright has clearly determined that this line of inquiry is relevant.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...