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.










Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 12:43am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 1:01am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 1:25am

    Sometimes this reads like they have to know just how much bullshit they're pulling... and that they are actually trying to help the side they pretend to fight. By being martyrs.


    //straight from the yeah-right,-as-if department//

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 1:42am

    Re: Re:

    *stares*
    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)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:14am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:25am

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:27am

    Re:

    oops... advance *his* career and financial goals

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:33am

    Curious...

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:34am

    Re:

    They spend much time attempting to say no look over there, that other guy is doing bad things!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:51am

    Re: Curious...

    They are calling it criminal because the Judge used the word fraud, and to help support their position he can't do anything about it or get them to answer any questions under those conditions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:11am

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:13am

    Re:

    With all the shoes dropping, I'm wondering who got the commission at the shoestore for the damn centipede...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:35am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:53am

    Re: Re: Re: 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Curious...

    It would need to be officially filed as criminal charges before a criminal case begins when before that it is only an investigation as part of an existing civil case.

    After all while it is likely that the Judge will file criminal charges that has not yet been decided and the Judge may yet rule against it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 3:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Curious...

    It's probably just a Freudian slip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:03am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:16am

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:37am

    Re: Achievements of this case

    Heh you missed one...
    Pissing off the wrong Does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:37am

    it says stuff we don't like very much, which hurts our credibility.

    Do they have any credibility left?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Someone's poisoned the waterhole."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:48am

    Re: Achievements of this case

    I wonder who will be the first to earn the "oops I dropped my soap" achievement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 4:52am

    How is it that you can plead the Fifth Amendment, but still produce filings?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 5:16am

    Re:

    its a jedi mind trick. it lets you make statements and not have to back them up because if challenged you just plead the 5th again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Jerky, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 6:28am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 6:34am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    stryx, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 6:54am

    SCO Dogs

    I would have never thought that I would see a legal drama as convoluted and as full of flimflammery as the SCO case, but these jokers are giving it a good try.

    Plus, now it seems like we're entering the Reservoir Dogs phase of the drama.

    There's not enough popcorn in the world...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 7:16am

    Keep squawking, Chicken Joe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re: Achievements of this case

    "Bambi is back... and this time he wants vengeance!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    The Baker, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 7:47am

    Re: Ms Rosing

    I'm sure that Ms Rosing is doing what she is told to do by the ringleaders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 7:59am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    tqk (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:01am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:13am

    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. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Noah Callaway, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 9:08am

    I think we have to put odds on the closing line "Judge Wright simply doesn't believe anything coming out of Team Prenda these days." showing up at some point during an appeal of Judge Wright's eventual ruling. 2:1?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:18pm

    Re:

    That was Mike's line not the Judges.

    The only thing coming out of Team Prenda is we plead the 5th.

    Their lawyers are making claims about everyone else being naughty, but still are unwilling to answer simple questions about what should be clear facts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This