Judge To Allow More Evidence Filed Against Team Prenda, Despite Vehement Objections From Prenda

from the judge-isn't-buying-it dept

On Wednesday, lawyer Morgan Pietz asked Judge Otis Wright if he could file some additional evidence in the big Prenda showdown case. Pietz, of course, is the lawyer who had been representing some of the anonymous Does that Prenda Law was targeting in various cases, and who was the lawyer who successfully convinced Judge Otis Wright that Prenda Law and its associated lawyers were up to highly questionable activities. The key thing was that Pietz pointed out that he had important evidence that Steele has admitted to having an “ownership interest in several of Prenda’s clients” including AF Holdings. He also wants to file a response to the ridiculous character assassination of Alan Cooper, as well as the related filings by Team Prenda.

the outrageous attacks made on the real Alan Cooper are shameful. However, they are also easily discredited, and undersigned counsel would appreciate an opportunity to do so. Similarly, the other two declarations submitted by Mr. Duffy and Prenda also have problems, which undersigned counsel would like to briefly address and refute.

Pietz also wants to dig deeper into some of the actual legal issues associated with the cases at hand that go beyond just attorney misconduct, noting that some of these are important issues that shouldn’t be lost in the focus on Prenda’s conduct.

Not surprisingly, Prenda Law / Paul Duffy very quickly shot back, with a filing telling the court, rather vehemently, that it should not allow Pietz to file such things. It notes that the case itself is now a criminal investigation (interesting…) and thus opposing attorneys from the civil case no longer have a role in the case, because they’re not “disinterested prosecutors.” It then points out that Pietz is clearly not disinterested. Basically, it argues that Pietz is biased against copyright enforcement (ha!) and is just seeking to “pad his bill.” Further, they claim that the evidence is “vague and inadmissable” (which some might interpret to mean “it says stuff we don’t like very much, which hurts our credibility.”) Very quickly after that, both Paul Hansmeier and John Steele filed “me too!” statements with the court, both saying that they “join” Prenda’s objection.

Not surprisingly, these protests went for naught as Judge Wright very quickly approved Peitz’s request to file the evidence by Tuesday April 16th. If you hadn’t figured it out by now (and unless you’ve been living under a rock, you have figured it out by now), Judge Wright simply doesn’t believe anything coming out of Team Prenda these days.

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 “Judge To Allow More Evidence Filed Against Team Prenda, Despite Vehement Objections From Prenda”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

How many more shoes need to drop in this?

I’ve been waiting for one of the **AA’s to file a motion in this circus. While they might not approve of the content, people, etc. they need to stick up for the ‘technology’ of using snapshots to prove guilt.

Six Strikes is already going to take a beating if MM gets the data to use in their cases, and a hardcore public beating of our ‘friends’ at Prenda doing something that looks awfully close to how Six Strikes operates people might loose faith in the corporate law system.

At some point I’d hope Prentenda (f’it I can’t help myself anymore) et al would give up on the magic hand wave trying to pretend the princess is in another castle.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re:

I’ve been waiting for one of the **AA’s to file a motion in this circus.

Yeah, that won?t happen because the MPAA and RIAA don?t want to toss their hats into the same ring as?

? ?pornography (remember that the Prenda cases started over porn)
? ?a spectacularly-failed copyright lawsuit that could bring down the entire ?shakedown? scheme
? ?the potential felons who ?masterminded? said failed lawsuit

I?d bet on the MPAA and RIAA sending Judge Wright a giant thank-you note before it ever stepped into this circus on the side of Prenda Law.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Trust me I am well versed in Pretenda and copyright trolling.

Defamation lawsuit x 3 – Achievement Unlocked.
Avatar and Nym in Court Records – Achievement Unlocked.
Coining the phrase Pretenda – Achievement Unlocked.

I’m also aware of the levels the **AAs will sink to, giving the family time to grieve their dead father they had sued, and then wanted to depose the rest of the family.

Not only is Pretendas splash in the media drawing attention to the tech, Malibu Media requesting 6 Strikes notices for potential does and other usage patterns will hurt.

Besides they can use CCI to try and prop up the snapshot methodology and stay removed. (well other than the whole they are on the board thing)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why waste time on a case where Prenda is going down hard?

Chances are that the final ruling will be coloured against Prenda on all accounts. It is much better to choose another case with a more “sensible hush hush” judge and a case with at least some prospect of going their way in the grand scheme.

It would be the thing of nightmares for them to risk “bad” precedence on a crappy case like this and having to buy changes to the laws to get a new chance. That is just bad business!

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Because Pretenda has broken a barrier.
After a very long time there are more ‘mainstream’ websites covering the hijinks and asking questions about the methodology used in these cases and looking at the unfairness of a $150K bludgeon being used for films that cost $20K to make.

Rulings will hurt, but putting into the discussion that the methods that were used don’t meet a legal standard will harm how 6 Strikes operates in the public perception. It is a perception game and no one at CCI wants a public asking pointed questions about how their system can’t even meet basic legal requirements to be legitimate.

Pretendas business model poisoned the well, and that poison is spreading. I live in the hope that I can warn more people to stop drinking the water.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Achievements of this case

Copyright Troll Achievement – Because trolling just ain’t worth it until you unlock this achievement

Judgement Day – Because nothing is worse than making a federal judge your worst enemy…

Identity theft – Because your legacy in history is assured when you have to rely on federal crimes to move forward.

Created here

Hosted here

Violated (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Had the MPAA/RIAA wanted to get involved they would do this in a narrow capacity in only one or key aspects in this much larger case. To link up with Prenda would be an extremely bad idea but they could both criticise Prenda and the Judge’s key rulings against them.

I hope not but the Copyright side stand to make a lot of losses here as Judge Otis Wright has already made clear by tossing out all tracking as not identifying the infringer.

tqk says:

Re: Re:

Sometimes this reads like they have to know just how much bullshit they’re pulling…

Same here. I thought they might have gained a modicum of clue when they plead the Fifth, as stupid as that move was. Now, they’re just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and handing the judge more and more ammo (or is it rope?).

Prenda, the slo-mo train wreck that just keeps on giving. Quite a show.

Good on Pietz for failing to let go.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Though Ms Rosing is doing exactly what anyone would expect of counsel and doing it extremely well, and truthfully it’s about time that Prenda had competent and intelligent counse,l her conclusion is treading on some extremely troubling areas in that one could assume from her statement that she alleges that Pietz’s only goal is to “advance and career and financial goals” (page 11 at 14) thereby implying that Pietz should be the one facing sanctions also (or at minimum as well). That is not the best way to conclude a reply is mostly concerned with sanctions, criminality (that’s a stretch) and her own clients actions.

Well that’s my informed reading of the reply anyway

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Ms Rosing

Actually, I’ve gotta give props to Duffy’s counsel here. She’s using a Rovian technique to deflect from her client’s troubles. And I would expect that any competent consel could do that.

The thing is, however, that her clients keep trying to add an extra “SHOCK!” twist to each action.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Ms Rosing

I think part of her problem is that she doesn’t represent all of the players in the game, and some of them are running their own plays that she learns about after the fact.

I’d love to see one of those, you only see it on tv and in movies, lawyer moments where she just says f’ this and resigns on the spot in court. 🙂

That One Guy (profile) says:


So I’ve got to wonder, did Prenda screw up when they called it a criminal case, or has someone dug up enough verifiable dirt on these scum-suckers that they were able to charge them with it?

I’m assuming the first, as if they were being charged with something, that would almost require a separate case to be filed, and it’s not like they haven’t screwed up and/or tried to pull a legal trick like this before.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Curious...

I know the judge had mentioned possible ‘fraud on the court’ charges, but it seems it would be up to a judge, not Prenda, to suddenly determine what is and is not a criminal case, as opposed to a civil one.

Even then though, that would seem to be a separate set of charges altogether, which would again require a separate court-case, not affecting this one.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Curious...

Testimony in this case could be introduced in any other proceeding.

Clinging to the idea that its a criminal case lets them try and eject Morgan from adding anything to the record.

It lets them argue that this court room is the improper forum to be asking any questions.

They won’t clear up any questions about who their client is, some seriously basic facts, to avoid saying anything that could be used against them.

Lots of courts and Federal acronyms have been spotted surfing not only the wise analysis posted elsewhere but FCT and DTD reading articles and docs. Bad things are coming.

Jerky says:

Re: Re:

My understanding is that they can still file legal arguments but can’t bring forth new evidence or something like that. Basically, they can say, “Pietz’s evidence is inadmissible because this is now a criminal case, not a civil one,” but they can’t, for example, present evidence that a second Allan Cooper exists after all.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh you mean like the evidence they submitted showing that the “real” Alan Cooper is mentally ill by offering the submission of a 3rd unknown party and some pictures of text messages?

Or the “evidence” of a technology expert who claims the method is perfect cause its hard for copyright holders to police those rights and they’d need 167,000 (?) investigators to do the job?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Oh you mean like the evidence they submitted showing that the “real” Alan Cooper is mentally ill by offering the submission of a 3rd unknown party and some pictures of text messages?”

If of course it is shown that the “Alan Cooper” previously in court is not mentally deficient and his identity was stolen then they will claim they were deceived, deceive they will tell the court.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

nope. because they still don’t claim he is THE Alan Cooper of AF Holdings.
They spent more time trying to point out it didn’t matter WHO or what signed the transfers because the owner signed to assign the rights and that is all that mattered.

They wanted to throw onto a court record a bunch of claims that Mr. Cooper is unbalanced so they can pull that record to show the Judge in the defamation case and the ID theft case that he has problems… its a cute little trick to muddy the waters.

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...