Mark Lutz Claims He Signed 'On Behalf Of Salt Marsh' But No One Seems To Know Where The Original Is

from the of-course-not dept

You may remember last month that yet another court investigating the actions of Team Prenda (this time in Northern California) had ordered Prenda's Paul Duffy (who is representing AF Holdings in the case as a recent replacement for Brett Gibbs) to produce the original version of a document filed last year in the case, which was supposedly "signed" by "Salt Marsh."
This is kind of important, because everyone is now claiming that "Salt Marsh" is a trust that owns AF Holdings, but a trust can't sign anything. The court granted some extra time, but both Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz have submitted declarations on the matter. First up, Mark Lutz, in which he claims that the "Salt Marsh" signature is his own, sorta:
Mr. Gibbs also from time to time sent me certifications to sign on behalf of AF Holdings stating that I am familiar with ADR policies. My practice was to sign those certifications on behalf of the Salt Marsh Trust and return them to Mr. Gibbs.
That's about all that's in there. Of course, I'm not sure if this means he "signed" the name Salt Marsh or he signed his own name on behalf of Salt Marsh, or if nobody signed a damn thing and a document was sloppily submitted with a claimed signature of Salt Marsh. Note that Lutz does not produce the actual signed document.

So, moving on to Paul Duffy, he claims that since he came onto the case after all this happened, he doesn't have the document, and he has no reason to have the document. It's the "what? that's not my problem!" defense:
Due to the date of my appearance in this matter, I have no knowledge of the filings of AF Holdings, LLC's ADR certification in this matter.
Duffy also notes that since he and Gibbs are both subject to Judge Wright's order down in Southern California, he reached out to Gibbs via their respect attorneys to see if Gibbs had the document:
Philip W. Vineyard, my attorney... was advised by Andrew Waxler, attorney for Mr. Gibbs.. that Mr. Gibbs states that he does not have possession of the signed ADR certification.
So, Lutz doesn't have it. Duffy doesn't have it. Gibbs doesn't have it. Of course not. Duffy then points out that whoever did the filing is responsible for it:
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(c)(4), the ECF user, rather than the user's law firm, retains full responsibility for any document filed through the ECF filer's user ID and password.
This seems like it's Duffy (again) throwing Gibbs under the bus, since Gibbs filed the actual documents. Let's see how the court reacts to all of this.



Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:13am

    First! OMG, I'm so evil, paying for early access to the articles so I can comment first. Mike is so evil for profiting off of this. Because I commented first, it means the heroic champions of copyright are automatically beaten.

    /sarc

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 3:40am

    You know, I've always wanted to dig to China. I think I'll hire these guys.

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

  • identicon
    Nobody, 14 May 2013 @ 4:35am

    This may be an attempt to win a battle, but Duffy is not thinking about the war (surprise, surprise). Gibbs does not appear to be the mastermind behind this operation. The Feds will be tempted to use Gibbs in order to go over the more culpable parties. Lutz and Duffy have made it MUCH more tempting for Gibbs to turn on them. Not smart at all!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 4:41am

    This whole story seems to be a bit brackish.

    This comment was posted on behalf of River Delta

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

  • identicon
    bob, 14 May 2013 @ 4:49am

    Wonder how soon out_of the blue will turn up and let off more garbage.

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

  • icon
    RyanNerd (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 4:58am

    Button button... Who's got the button?

    I thought this game was only played by kindergartners.
    Guess I was wrong.

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

  • identicon
    MrPendent, 14 May 2013 @ 6:43am

    This is all I think about whenever I read posts about "Salt Marsh":

    http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=45492

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

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 6:55am

    Here we go again!

    Well what do you know, another story different court case same cast of crooks involved. I have to laugh that they won't produce the document.

    I think everyone knew they were not going to do this, because there is no Salt Marsh much like there is no Alan Cooper.

    I am starting to wonder if Alan Cooper & Salt Marsh were some of Steele's invisible friends from his childhood...maybe someone should wake Steele up and tell him he is a grown up and he has to stop trying to think he is popular by making up all these invisible friends that he works with.

    This is just another instance of fraud upon the court, lets juts hope that Judge Chen takes similar steps to what Judge Wright did and add to Prenda's woes.

    I wonder if the rest of the courts are going to start picking up on all these shenanigans and start admonishing and fining Prenda and their various enities and start dismissing these cases.

    More and more you can see the elements of RICO in Prenda and everyone associated with them, the conspiracy to defraud the courts and the public is long and dedicated to the copyright troll scheme.

    I sure hope that the state and federal AG's are looking at the various cases and courts and taking the actions and antics carried out in them and making that case for RICO.

    As much as I miss the laughs the Prenda gang has given me, I think these guys need to do some serious time for the crimes they have and are continuing to perpetrate in my opinion.

    It's kind of amazing to see that these guys will lie thru their teeth to try and populate the myth of how they are on the up and up and no one is connected with this or that but yet it is always the same names coming up in these cases and yet no one knows what is going on with these cases or the people involved in them.

    I hope Judge Chen once again sanctions and refers this to the state bar and to the state and federal AG's much like Judge Wright did. I believe this will continue on till they are behind bars, and then I am sure they will just run it from their cells!

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

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:17am

    Lesson learned

    Duffy then points out that whoever did the filing is responsible for it


    Although this is obviously a case of Gibbs being thrown under the bus, it's exactly correct, and a good indication that Gibbs is an idiot.

    If you are certifying something to be true, on behalf of your employer or not, it's a good idea to be able to show what you're certifying is actually true. He should never have submitted this without at least having a notarized copy of the signatures.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Josh Gree, 14 May 2013 @ 9:46am

    During the time that I have used DNS Services, (on behalf of a client), I never had any issues with them. Their support team is quick to answer questions and the DNS service itself is bulletproof.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Gee this story is cool and everything, except Gibbs admitted he gave Team Prenda access to his ECF credentials.
    One wonders if there are logs of where the logins came from.

    It seems that Gibbs was not the only local counsel to make this idiotic mistake... CFAA violations anyone? Maybe a really broken law can stop rampant extortion by officers of the court who were found to be involved in fraud upon the court and yet STILL can avail themselves of that same court system.

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

  • icon
    Laroquod (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 7:43am

    Salt Marsh

    "I'm not sure if this means he "signed" the name Salt Marsh or he signed his own name on behalf of Salt Marsh, or if nobody signed a damn thing and a document was sloppily submitted with a claimed signature of Salt Marsh."

    Sounds like there may be some sinister secret at play here!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sinister_Secret_of_Saltmarsh

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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.