Prenda Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage

from the wtf? dept

So, you may recall that as a part of Judge Otis Wright’s Prenda sentencing, he ordered that a copy of the ruling be submitted in every other case involving Prenda:

For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.

In one Prenda case (involving AF Holdings again) in the Northern District of Georgia, the defendant, Rajesh Patel, and his lawyer, Blair Chintella, submitted Judge Wright’s ruling themselves to the court in the case. As pointed out by Fight Copyright Trolls, Prenda’s local counsel in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire has filed one of the most ridiculous filings we’ve ever seen yet in all of the Prenda filings. It argues that the court should not allow Judge Wright’s order to be entered into the docket because California recognizes gay marriage and Georgia does not. I’m not joking.

The defendant has filed a copy of that Order hoping that it would be viewed as a mandate by this Court. However, the defendant’s attempts to issue this mandate should fail for the following reasons.

First and foremost the undersigned respects the California decision and believes that it was rendered in the best interest of the residents of California.

Nevertheless, this instant case is pending in a Georgia District Court and it is trusted that any decision rendered, whether for or against the plaintiff, will be done so in the best interest of the residents and practitioners of Georgia.

While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

The defendant should realize that California has different laws than Georgia, a different Governor than Georgia; a different legislative body than Georgia, different business needs than Georgia and different views than Georgia and as such all of its decisions cannot serve as a mandate for Georgia.

For example the California Courts have legalized gay marriage. Perry v. Schwarzenegger 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010);Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir.); Answered 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011) Affirmed, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) Such a decision cannot serve as a mandate on Georgia Courts to legalize gay marriage as well.

It doesn’t stop there. It notes that California courts have different immigration rules and (randomly) that NY has different gun rights. Basically, it throws out every hot button issue that stereotypical conservatives might disagree with stereotypical liberals on.

Of course, all of that is meaningless. While it’s true that Judge Wright’s ruling is in no way a precedential ruling for the Georgia court, it’s still a ruling about federal law, not any specific state law. And the ruling itself is about flat out misconduct (including potential racketeering and tax evasion claims) by the plaintiff in this case, because of actions in a nearly identical case. That’s not about California having a “mandate” over Georgia. It’s about very relevant additional information that the court should know about.

Nazaire then goes on to list out a ridiculous parade of horribles that he claims would happen if the Georgia court “followed the aforesaid California Order” including that law firms wouldn’t be able to use boilerplate text any more. This makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all, the inclusion of Judge Wright’s order is not about having the Georgia court “follow” the order, but adding additional important information about the parties in this particular case. Separately, the idea that adding a California ruling into the docket suddenly means lawyers wouldn’t be able to cut and paste any more… just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Nazaire then tries to argue, incredibly, that there is no “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Alan Cooper’s signature was forged. Earth to Nazaire: that ship sailed a long, long time ago. It also leads to this completely random attack on the EFF:

Prior to filing the document, the undersigned contacted Prenda Law to find out whether or not Mr. Cooper would be available to testify at trial but was advised that they could not locate Mr. Cooper. The undersigned was advised that Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier would be available to testify as witnesses. Had the undersigned realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was hanging with Mr. Cooper, he would have been able to track down Mr. Cooper and questioned him about the documents. It turns out that Mr. Cooper was a caretaker of one of the properties of a Prenda Law member and had left said property in August, 2012.

Therefore, even if the undersigned had placed a knife to the throats of each of Prenda’s members, none would have been able to give him Mr. Cooper’s contact information at the time on November 5, 2012 when Plaintiff commenced its law suit. It is certainly not the first time a company has lost contact with an agent (or alleged agent as stated).

Wow. Honestly, this one needs no commentary. It speaks volumes (of insanity) for itself.

And Nazaire is not done. He also argues that Patel’s lawyer, Chintella, was “one of the two star witnesses in the California case” (which, um, isn’t true) and then claims that this is an ethics violation in Georgia.

This whole filing really is quite remarkable, but certainly seems to fit in to the growing pile of “Prenda crazy” filings in various cases around the country.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: af holdings, 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 Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
103 Comments
Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re:

In the interest of fairness, Prenda did not say something that ridiculous. They did not say “because Judge Wright’s order came from a state where gay marriage is recognized, it can’t be honored in Georgia, where it is not.”

What they said was that “because Judge Wright’s order came from a different state than here in Georgia, which happens to hold to some very legal precedents than Georgia does, (and here’s a list of several important ones, such as gay marriage,) it should not be honored here.”

That argument is a whole lot less ridiculous, and actually makes sense. It’s wrong, as Mike pointed out, due to it being based on matters of federal, not state, law, but it’s not crazy.

Really, these guys manage to screw things up enough on their own, frequently venturing into “truth is stranger than fiction” territory. We really don’t need to invent fictitious screwups for them.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

What they said was that “because Judge Wright’s order came from a different state than here in Georgia, which happens to hold to some very legal precedents than Georgia does, (and here’s a list of several important ones, such as gay marriage,) it should not be honored here.”

That would only matter if they were saying that there’s a precedent here or that Wright’s ruling was binding on the GA court, but no one said that.

They’re just putting this into the record as a finding of fact.

So, yes, it is ridiculous. Very, very ridiculous. And crazy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

actually it looks as if he did, there are how many of these other copyright cases prenda started. with each defendant submitting the order in their case for their court to consider, I expect each court to follow the example of Judge Wright and award moderate damages.

For team preda it will be more like a pirana attack than a shark attack, at least with a shark, you might only loose a limb than a life, besides, more people wrongly accused will receive some recompense.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: The irony that kills Prenda's case in Geogia...

“It is kind of ironic that Prenda would be so worried about other lawyers of other defendants copying and pasting District Judge Wright’s”

It is kind of ironic that Prenda would be so worried about other lawyers of other defendants copying and pasting District Judge Wright’s ruling as a reference filing to Prenda’s activities…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I’ll actually disagree with you. You need to be pretty intelligent to get away with a scam like they had for as LONG as they had. Their problem is in arrogance. They’ve gotten away with it so long, and spent so long manipulating the system, they can’t ‘just stop’. Their ego and likely their lifestyle won’t allow it.

So, believing this a minor setback, they will seek to ‘correct’ the issue the same way they’ve been doing all this time. Its like all crooks. Get away with it too long, you get to feeling bulletproof.

Wally (profile) says:

Prior to filing the document, the undersigned contacted Prenda Law to find out whether or not Mr. Cooper would be available to testify at trial but was advised that they could not locate Mr. Cooper. The undersigned was advised that Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier would be available to testify as witnesses. Had the undersigned realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was hanging with Mr. Cooper, he would have been able to track down Mr. Cooper and questioned him about the documents. It turns out that Mr. Cooper was a caretaker of one of the properties of a Prenda Law member and had left said property in August, 2012.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: I've just worked out where they're going with this...

Oh man they’d have to be desperate for that. Truth be told, an insanity plea gets you locked up in the psych ward until they can evaluate you to see if you are fit to make statement with your advised counsel. If proven not mentally competent enough to take the stand, you basically have to let your defense lawyer do the work. Insanity pleas only make it easier in the sense that you can get a fair trial without fucking it up for yourself for sudden outbursts thus preventing contempt of court. It is not however a get out if jail free card.

Anonymous Coward says:

The point he is (erronously) trying to make, is that because the state legal structures of the two districts differ, it would be improper to consider the input from judge Wright, as it could very easily follow the logic of a different legal framework.

The reason his argument falls flat, is because the issues being raised are independant of any district differences between the two courts and focus on federal level infractions and concerns that are valid in ANY United States district.

Still, points for trying. If I wasn’t so disgusted that it had been working, I’d be quite impressed with the smokescreens and diversionary tactics that has lead the Prenda folk so far.

At the very least they’ll likely wind up villains in a few stories I have floating about in my head XD

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“The point he is (erronously) trying to make, is that because the state legal structures of the two districts differ, it would be improper to consider the input from judge Wright, as it could very easily follow the logic of a different legal framework.

The reason his argument falls flat, is because the issues being raised are independant of any district differences between the two courts and focus on federal level infractions and concerns that are valid in ANY United States district.”

It can certainly be used as evidence for the defense on Prenda’s tactics. And is quite admissible as such if I recall…oh and Federal District Court JUSTICE Otis D. Wright II is a federal court judge and they since he has made a ruling…precedent stands with relevancy to the case at hand…in other words the defendant’s filing against against Prenda in Georgia because the filing is known as a referral….It alerts other judges to the goings on of Prenda and how to handle the case accordingly within the law of another state’s laws and is a referential basis or alert system when admitted or filed into court by a defendant……takes a deep breath…Nazaire is only shooting himself and Prenda in the head with his filing because of the ruling by FDC JUSTICE Wright and referral which was ordered at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Which is kind of ironic because he is trying to make it so that his case against Mr. Patel look as thought it were a merely copy and paste….if you don’t get the irony I will spell it out to you….. Prenda’s case filing against Rajeesh Patel was a copy and paste filing and matched the California filing by Prenda, word for word, in California.

Andrew Norton (profile) says:

It is hillarious, although it’s really hard work too. I was speaking to Blair over the weekend and this case came up (disclosure: I’ve been assisting Blair for over a year with understanding the technical aspects of bittorrent.).

Unfortunately, I can personally torpedo some of Nazaire’s claims. I KNOW where Blair was during the last two hearings, mainly because I was speaking to him. In fact he, like many other lawyers and ‘interested parties’ took part in my liveblog during the April hearing. I’m sure she can subpoena scribblelive to get his IP address, that is the modus operandi after all.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

‘It turns out that Mr. Cooper was a caretaker of one of the properties of a Prenda Law member and had left said property in August, 2012.’

I’m confused, is thought Steele said he wasn’t with Prenda Law?

Er… that’s actually a really good point. Did one of Prenda’s lawyers just blow Steele’s (very thin) “cover”?

Mike says:

Nazaire is brilliant. He is able to remind the Court that California has a different standard for a meritorious case. Patel’s entire argument is that AF Holdings initiated a frivolous claim. Whether a claim is meritorious or not is not judged by Federal Standards, instead they are judged by State law for all of you who did not know.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s not whether it is meritorious or not. A federal judge has ordered that all other courts and matters that the attorneys who have been found lacking in candour, ethics, and other violations of their duty to the Court (be that court Federal or otherwise – it is irrelevant) are involved with be INFORMED of the above findings and should therefore take these into consideration when applying Rules and other Bench procedures to them for any matters that would sometimes be let slid.

Also it is necessary for other Courts to know that there are Bar proceedings against same Attorneys since it is highly likely based on previous history that the Attorneys at question would not have the candour to explain same to the courts as they are meant to do.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Attack of the clones...

So many ‘different’ commenters, so many identical snowflakes… Nazaire, shouldn’t you be working on climbing out of the pit of despair your actions have thrown you into, rather than trying (and failing) to make your actions look less insane via posting support from ‘multiple’ people?

I love it when people don’t realize how the snowflakes work and pretend to be different people.

Also, take a guess what state those comments come from? You only get one guess, and if you’re wrong, you really need to check your logic sensors.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Attack of the clones...

I wouldn’t take that bet Mike, as the posts on FCT were traced back to a DoD network. It was smart enough there to try and hide its tracks or dumb enough to forget it was using a DoD owned network to post.

Now I can’t say for sure that someone who throws his military experience around to try and get people to treat him differently would do something like that… but it is possible.

apauld (profile) says:

An open letter to Jacques Nazaire---

Mr. Nazaire,
I sincerely hope that your novel ?The Crown: A Tale of Blood, Women and Wine? is climbing the New York Times best seller list. Even though it seems that your novel is probably an awful piece of fiction, based on the fact that all reviews of it online were written by you; I really do hope that your self-published (iUniverse) book is a hit, because you are about to become an ex-lawyer. Pro-tip: search google news for the name ?Brett Gibbs.? Hopefully your book sales have been large enough that you can flee this country for a safe haven like North Korea. Otherwise you may find yourself wearing orange coveralls, like your new Prenda friends.
apauld.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s not quite as ridiculous as it seems, since what Prenda are saying basically boils down to a ruling in a California case not being binding on a court in Georgia. That is objectively true, Wrights’ ruling doesn’t create precedent that the Georgia ruling is required to follow. (that requires the Supreme Court) BUT courts can apply a precedent voluntarily as long as it is from a common law country. ( basically, what it amounts to is judges can choose to follow any case they like (it’s extremely rare, but UK cases can actually be referenced in US decisions, and vice-versa provided there is no biding precedent. Its’ called persuasive authority, as opposed to binding precedent)

as for the gay marriage comments, I’m guessing that Prenda is hoping to establish in the mind of the judge that California is different enough for the precedent not to apply.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

it’s not quite as ridiculous as it seems, since what Prenda are saying basically boils down to a ruling in a California case not being binding on a court in Georgia.

That’s got nothing to do with anything. There’s nothing about it being “binding.” It’s about the finding of fact being entered into the record.

No one is binding the GA court to do anything. Even suggesting that is ridiculous.

That is objectively true, Wrights’ ruling doesn’t create precedent that the Georgia ruling is required to follow.

Nor has anyone suggested otherwise.

as for the gay marriage comments, I’m guessing that Prenda is hoping to establish in the mind of the judge that California is different enough for the precedent not to apply.

This isn’t about precedent. It’s about the finding of fact.

Interesting says:

Basically what I get from this is “because California applies different standards with respect to gay marriage, etc., then Georgia should look past all the alleged misdealings indicated in Judge Wright’s order.”

Interesting. And when I say “interesting” I mean in a “I never thought I’d live long enough to see bullshit piled that high in my entire life” kind of way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Someone ought to confirm the details of Nazaire's resume

Someone ought to confirm the details of Nazaire’s resume. Some on-line sources (important: could be true, could be someone with the same name, could be a fake entry) appear to claims he is an NYU law graduate who has been awarded a Bronze Star.

Any of the obvious possible outcomes — truth, lies, forgery — are interesting.

Tom Anderson says:

Jail time please

Please, give these guys jail time. Punishment for a crime shouldn’t be a slap on the wrist. They have extorted millions of dollars from people they have accused of pornography related charges, and instead of accepting the $80K punishment, continue to pursue vapid trains of logic. Nothing will stop these guys from continuing to harangue people who never get a fair trial because they keep dropping the cases if it seems like it might be heard out in court.

Tom Anderson says:

Jail time please

Please, give these guys jail time. Punishment for a crime shouldn’t be a slap on the wrist. They have extorted millions of dollars from people they have accused of pornography related charges, and instead of accepting the $80K punishment, continue to pursue vapid trains of logic. Nothing will stop these guys from continuing to harangue people who never get a fair trial because they keep dropping the cases if it seems like it might be heard out in court.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...
Loading...