Copyright Trolls Skip Court Hearing

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's funny how copyright trolls don't feel like they have to show up to court like everyone else. I guess the rules don't apply to them at all. :rolleyes:

The copyright trolls of Prenda Law have kicked back against a judge who ordered them to appear before a Los Angeles court this coming Monday. The hearing has the potential to lead to prison for some of those involved but not if Prenda have their way. In a letter sent to the court, Prenda argues several points for canceling the hearing including that the judge lacks jurisdiction, they haven’t been given enough notice, and arrangements haven’t been made for them to get paid. The hole is getting bigger but they keep on digging.
 
How did these people become members of the bar?

The United States is one of the only countries that gives shyster's the ability to issue subpoenas on their own. In other countries, one has to go through a judge to issue a subpoena.
 
It's funny how copyright trolls don't feel like they have to show up to court like everyone else. I guess the rules don't apply to them at all. :rolleyes:

After reading the article, I'm guessing they're going to soon find out just how wrong they are. ;)
 
And I hope they get their just desserts in jail for contempt of court, and get disbarred.
 
They also complain that they are entitled to get paid for attending but the court order makes no mention of who will foot the bill.

If you're supposed to get paid for going to court then I think that's between you and who you are representing. You don't demand that just someone pay for your appearance; that's not how court works in the US. Sounds like a scam; have judges allowed these plaintiffs to be absent in the past? Doesn't being absent from a hearing pretty much immediately allow the court to rule in favor of the party in attendance? This screams of "scam" and I really hope that this was never allowed in the past although I won't get my hopes too high.
 
If you're supposed to get paid for going to court then I think that's between you and who you are representing. You don't demand that just someone pay for your appearance; that's not how court works in the US. Sounds like a scam; have judges allowed these plaintiffs to be absent in the past? Doesn't being absent from a hearing pretty much immediately allow the court to rule in favor of the party in attendance? This screams of "scam" and I really hope that this was never allowed in the past although I won't get my hopes too high.

The judge was quite clear in the order :

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Brett L. Gibbs, TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for the following:

In AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.filed Aug. 1, 2012), violating the Court’s October 19, 2012 Order instructing AF Holdings to cease its discovery efforts based on information obtained through any earlier-issued subpoenas;

In AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating the Court’s October 19, 2012 Order instructing AF Holdings to cease its discovery efforts based on information obtained through any earlier-issued subpoenas;

In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating Rule 11(b)(2) by: alleging copyright infringement based on a snapshot of Internet activity, without conducting a reasonable inquiry; or, alleging that Benjamin Wagar is the infringer, without conducting a reasonable inquiry;

In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating Rule 11(b)(2) by: alleging copyright infringement based on a snapshot of Internet activity, without conducting a reasonable inquiry; or, alleging that Mayon Denton is the infringer, without conducting a reasonable inquiry;

In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.filed Sept. 27, 2012), perpetrating fraud on the Court by misappropriating the identity of Alan Cooper and filing lawsuits based on an invalid copyright assignment.

This order to show cause is scheduled for hearing on March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., to provide Mr. Gibbs the opportunity to justify his conduct. Based on the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court invites Morgan E. Pietz to present evidence concerning the conduct outlined in this order.

The Court declines to sanction Plaintiffs AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC at this time for two reasons:
(1) Mr. Gibbs appears to be closely related to or have a fiduciary interest in Plaintiffs;and;
(2) it is likely Plaintiffs are devoid of assets.

If Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Pietz so desire, they each may file by February 19, 2013, a brief discussing this matter. The Court will also welcome the appearance of Alan Cooper—to either confirm or refute the fraud allegations.Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench warrant for contempt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 7, 2012
 
Looks like these lawyers may just be even more sleazy than their clients. Failure to show should equal forfeiture. Especially when they cop an attitude and give BS reasons for not showing. I won a workers comp case by forfeit when the employer failed to show.

Sure this firm's name isn't actually "Pretenda Law"?
 
Clearly, they don't recognize the authority of a judge that they have not paid off yet. This judge has gone rogue and is not representing the justice system properly!

;)
 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...porn-trolls-someone-has-an-awful-lot-to-hide/

2nd part of Ars article.

BTW what i posted is that they kinda showed up, but late, and now this is the continuation of that saga.


TLDR: Judge is pissed, and is obvious that what these guys are doing isn't legal and he will bring it to light.

It is not the only case where they have been pulling shenanigans. There is one in Florida where a motion on sanctions is currently pending where they got caught paying someone to act as a witness.

The hearing on this matter was held on November 27, 2012. Mr. Wasinger did not appear for the hearing as directed by the Court and despite the Court’s clear Order that it would address his motion for leave to withdraw at the hearing. He subsequently claimed he failed to appear because he mistakenly thought Mr. Torres was substituted as counsel. Mr. Torres requested and was granted leave to appear for the hearing by telephone from Orlando. (Dkt. 24; Dkt. 25.) A Mr. Mark Lutz also appeared as a “corporate representative” for Sunlust Pictures. However, following questioning of Mr. Lutz by the Court, he admitted he was not an officer or director of Sunlust Pictures; he had no authority to speak on behalf of Sunlust Pictures or bind it in any way; he did not know any of the officials of Sunlust Pictures, he did not know the company’s business address; he did not even know who signs his checks. (Hear. Trans., pp. 14-18.) As he understood it, his sole duty was to appear in Court and to claim he was the company’s corporate representative. (Id., p. 17.) He claimed he is paid about $1,000.00 a month for his services in this and other cases. (Id.)

...

The district court may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Florida Mowing and Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009). A district court also has inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Hyler v. Reynolds Metal Co., 434 f.2d 1064, 1065 (5th Cir. 1970) (district court did not abuse discretion where it dismissed case for counsel’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference). Here, both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel violated this Court’s Order when they failed to appear at the hearing set by this Court. The parties all received proper notice of the hearing. Although Mr. Wasinger claims he did not attend the hearing because he was under the impression that Mr. Torres substituted him as counsel, this Court’s Order entered on November 13, 2012, unequivocally states that Mr. Wasinger’s motion to withdraw as counsel would be addressed at the hearing and that Plaintiff’s counsel was still required to attend the hearing. See (Dkt. 22.) Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff itself failed to comply with this Court’s Order and attempted to deceive this Court when it sent Mr. Lutz, who had no knowledge of the company and had no authority to speak on behalf of the company, to pose as its “corporate representative.” Finally, the Court finds that Prenda Law, the law firm both counsel stated retained them to serve as local counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, misrepresented its role in the case and relationship to the Plaintiff.

For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth at the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED;
2. This matter is hereby DISMISSED;
 
Alright, now please no one tear my head off. But I'm not a legal dude, and I haven't been covering this at all. Can someone give me the TL:DR version? :D
 
Lawyer fresh out of law school thought that he was a genius and he could devise a Get Rich Quick scam, with the DMCA as basis and people's innate desire to not want to be publicly shamed.

He would try to sniff alleged file sharers of porn movies and try to strong arm them into "settling" out of court.

To try and cover his ass the new guy had joined a more experienced lawyer, they did a couple shadow companies to try and distribute the different demands around the country, and in at least one of the companies they added a person, Allan Cooper, that existed but had nothing to do with the cases, in other words, they stole his identity.

Someone decided to stand up against them and fight them in court, somehow the real Allan Cooper finds out that they apparently stole his identity, and the shenanigans land in the hands of a Federal Judge that was older, smarter and meaner than the main Prenda guys

From that time to now it has been a constant comedy of artistic ways in which Prenda has thrown feces to a fan, angering the judge :)


i'm sure that i skipped a couple things and simplified it too much, but that is the gist of it.
 
How were they abusing this Alan Cooper to their advantage if you can explain that part?
 
Well, they had stolen his identity and made him the boss of the shadow companies, so they were kinda setting him up to be a fall guy.

The real Alan Cooper was just a house sitter for one of them, and was NOT tech savvy, when they found out that he knew and had brought legal counsel they even left threatening voicemail for him even though knowing that he had legal representation this meant that they were doing even more illegal actions.
 
Btw the "setting up to be a fall guy" isn't that far fetched seeing one of the latest fuckups, the brother of the "young lawyer" tried to excuse himself as someone that didn't have anything to do with the case, using the exact same template that the main lawyers were using.

But his papers had a mistake that theirs didn't, in the form that next to his name they stated that he was indeed part of one company involved in the cases. The actual lawyers where also a part of said company, but none had that mistake, which made Popehat wonder if it had been an actual mistake for his form, or if it had been intentional so he couldn't get away...

Seriously the case stinks to high heaven, and they must already know that a proper Federal investigation has a high chance of showing up in their near future. Whatever happens, the younger brothers will most surely end up as cautionary tales on law schools.
 
Back
Top