HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

John Steele Keeps Playing Games With Judge Wright

from the probably-not-a-good-idea dept

When your credibility is already in serious question in a courtroom situation, in part because of a long series of games you played with the court, where the court has made it clear that it believes those games were intended to fraudulently deceive the court, anyone with a few brain cells would recognize that it's probably best not to continue playing games with that court. But, then there's John Steele. Steele appears to be unable to resist trying to play more games with Judge Wright's court. The latest is that, back on Tuesday July 2nd, Judge Wright had scheduled a hearing for Friday July 12th in the Prenda case. John Steele has continued to pretend that he is unaware of filings in the case -- a somewhat unbelievable stance and which, if true, would only suggest that Steele himself failed to abide by court rules that require him to provide an updated email address, which would be an acceptable means of service. The rules are pretty clear:
However, Steele filed a motion on July 8th, claiming that he had only just heard about the hearing on July 12th, saying it was delivered by mail, and claiming that it would be impossible for him to attend the hearing in person.
On July 2, 2013, the Court issued a notice (ECF No. 200) scheduling a hearing for July 12, 2013, on the undersigned's motion for reconsideration. The undersigned resides in Florida and just received notice on July 8, 2013 via U.S. Mail. The undersigned has a previously scheduled family matter that prohibits his in-person attendance at the July 12, 2013 hearing. Further, nine days' notice--over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, in particular--is a prohibitively narrow window of time for to receive notice of a hearing via U.S. Mail, and schedule travel arrangements to appear cross-country. Finally, attending a hearing in California is an extremely expensive proposition as it requires plane fare, a hotel room and other incidental expenses.
Of course, as noted above, the court's rules have already made it clear that electronic notification is sufficient here, and Steele therefore should have received notice on the 2nd, not the 8th, and if he did not, it would be his own fault for not having the correct information in the system (and, honestly, does anyone actually believe that Steele is not paying attention to the details of this case, when he's been shown to pay very close attention in the past?).

Separately, the "oh it's so expensive" excuse is somewhat amusing, considering this is the same Steele who has claimed to have made millions from copyright trolling, and bragged to his critics about how he's about to go buy an expensive luxury sports car (with list prices around $100,000) with all the money he's making. That was just a few months ago. Seems fairly incredible to plead poverty months later...

It shouldn't be that surprising, then, to see that Judge Wright denied Steele's request very quickly, while also noting that Steele appears to have lied in his motion. In the original motion, Steele claimed that a Court clerk told him that he "would have to file a motion if he wished to participate in the hearing telephonically." However, in the denial of the request, Wright notes: "Mr. Steele was advised by telephone on July 8, 2013 by the clerk, that his request for a telephonic appearance regarding his motion set July 12th is denied, and did NOT advise him to file such motion as stated in his motion."

So after already being told such a request was denied, Steele files the motion claiming that the clerk told him to file a motion, which the clerk did not. Did Steele not think that the clerk would talk to Judge Wright? So, what are the odds that Steele actually shows up on Friday?


Filed Under: ecf, john steele, otis wright, pacer, service
Companies: prenda, prenda law


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Who Cares (profile), 11 Jul 2013 @ 3:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    IIRC she already asked if she could stop representing them. Was denied unless they could find a lawyer to take over.

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
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

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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