Peter Hansmeier Denies Connection To Prenda Cases Via Document That Shows He's Connected To The Cases

from the no-one-said-you-had-to-be-smart dept

And the latest story in As The Prenda Turns... comes (once again) from Ken over at Popehat. As you may recall, Judge Otis Wright hosted a big hearing in which he ordered pretty much everyone associated with Prenda Law to appear. We had talked about how there was a filing from some of the key players seeking to get out of the lawsuit. John Steele, Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier and Angela van den Hemel had hired a lawyer, Heather Rosing, who filed a notice on their behalf arguing that they shouldn't have to appear. She also showed up in court when they did not. Except, those four people, while closely linked together, were not everyone that Wright had ordered to show up. Among the others were Paul Hansmeier's brother, Peter Hansmeier and Mark Lutz. I was a bit surprised that the judge didn't seem to comment on the fact that neither seemed to file anything or to have a representative in court.

Well, it turns out that at least Peter Hansmeier tried to take things into his own hands and tried (and failed) to file a similar document pro se (representing himself) asking out of having to show up, arguing both that there was no jurisdiction over him and that he had nothing to do with anything. This document was filed back on March 8th, the same day as the Rosing filing for the reset of Team Prenda, but was only just recently put into PACER. There are a number of nutty things about this. First, the fact that Peter is filing pro se, rather than teaming up with his brother and his brother's partners. As Ken opines:
You know, if I got my brother involved in an enterprise that culminated in a furious federal judge demanding that he fly across the country to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned, I think I'd step up and represent my brother, or ask my attorney to represent my brother, or hire a separate attorney for my brother.
But, instead, Peter was apparently hung out to dry. And, because of that he made some mistakes. Some small, some big, but together they're pretty damning. The biggest is that he claims to have nothing to do with any of this... but he claims that he's representing Livewire Holdings LLC -- one of the key entities involved in this whole mess, which Judge Wright has already made clear he believes is really a big part of the likely Prenda fraud. Ken goes all quickmeme on the matter:
There's also the fact that he claims he's in Minnesota, while claiming to be representing Livewire and giving its DC address. Oh, and the fact that you can't pro se for a corporation, but only for yourself. And then there's the other part which helped Judge Wright easily brush aside this request since, procedurally, he was required to give notice to the other parties in the case that he was making this motion, and he failed to do so. All combined, Ken points out that connecting yourself to an entity at the center of this while denying any connection is "a blunder of epic proportions." If only Peter could have found an actual lawyer to prevent him from making such mistakes...
Maybe if someone had referred Peter to a competent lawyer, or even hired one for him, he might have avoided such a blunder. Instead, it appears that the lawyers who got him into this mess — including his own brother — let him appear pro se and effectively incriminate himself.

That's some cold shit, yo.
Of course, some of that presumes that Paul Hansmeier is "a competent lawyer," and I think we can reserve judgment on that one...

Filed Under: john steele, otis wright, paul hansmeier, peter hansmeier, prenda
Companies: livewire holdings, prenda, prenda law


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    special-interesting (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 11:33pm

    Re: Time for some well deserved schadenfreude

    It seems there is some pent up emotions about the subject of copyright lawyers using antiquated laws updated and pushed by (desperate?) media monopolies protecting ancient business models. Sponsoring legislation making civil copyright affairs into federal crime enforcement might just cross the line into unacceptable corporate behavior. Oh, sweet irony is rare.

    Possibly it's based on the innate unfairness that new computer and Internet technologies have wrought on the public at large unable to wrest the popular support such lawmaking requires. If there was any fairness to law it will not make illegal things which your children can do on their phones and still try to expand the functionality of such devices also. (not just DRM them out of existence)

    Haven't heard much in mainstream media (Not a surprise its possible that even reporters don't want to follow up on porn chasing lawyers?) but it would be nice if this would become a focal point for public support of antiquated copyright laws.

    What we want is for society to grow up with technology not become a breakpoint/choke-point. Rallying publicly funded political backing takes longer than Hollywood special interest action so there is a disparity of political forces. Public backlash for such abuse of power is not unprecedented.

    So far all this is a... distraction! Evasions from the real issuers of cultural sharing and building a society based on such free flow of information. There are many players who want to control the flow of information and revise history itself. (Classic nationalistic behavior of winner/dominator writes history.)

    If a wish was granted some path tying, the not so far fetched possibility of, Prendaa and associates to the alleged seeding of a honey pot for the entrapment of a likely very vulnerable social group. Such a link would allow for pointed questions on the stand to either get the truth (or lies) or at least elicit telltale 5th amendment pleas. Such behavior may not be unique and should be examined and if proof can be established it might prove explosive to highlighting copyright law shame.

    Have not stopped reading books by no means but some time on the 2nd is definitely reserved. Will stock up on consumables if only to throw some at the screen. It should be a thrill and there are bound to be the most outrageous statements and preposterous claims ever.

    Blast! Another huge essay for just a word or two originally wanted to say. No Lincoln addresses for me. (worlds, almost, shortest political speech)

Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.