Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#32Footnote number 5 is so acidic I feel burned just by reading it. (Context: read paragraph #1 in the introduction first, summarizing the conspiracy's business model.) http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PendaSanct...
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#33popehat is great, and in spite this being one of their smaller articles, I fail to follow what it boils down to. Can someone please summarize what Prenda has to now do -- Do they serve time? Do they pay millions? Are they not allowed to practice again?
2. Judge Wright says he is referring Steele, Duffy, Hansmeier, and Gibbs to their respective state bars and federal bars. They can very well be debarred from practicing law, there will be a very thorough bar investigation. This is what lawyer's nightmare are made of.
3. He is referring the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for RICO (Racketeer act) and the IRS. This is what Hells Angels/Mafia nightmares are made of.
4. All judges that have pending cases with these lawyers will be notified of the above (and most likely more).
Worse case scenario: More attorney fee x2 (how many cases did they prosecute?) , debarred, send to jail for racketeering.
tl;dr the Judge fined them 2x and then set 3 organizations you don't want to mess with on their asses, and told everyone about it.
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#34popehat is great, and in spite this being one of their smaller articles, I fail to follow what it boils down to. Can someone please summarize what Prenda has to now do -- Do they serve time? Do they pay millions? Are they not allowed to practice again?
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#35Confused -- Why all the rigamarole, instead of going RIAA-style after the thousands-to-millions of actual porn copyright-infringers?
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#36Think about how he characterizes the lawyers and their conduct: (1) they were lawyers with failed practices; (2) they figured a way to shake down victims out of an aggregate of millions of dollars; (3) they did this by threatening to expose them as downloaders of pornographic material via the filing of lawsuits ostensibly asserting copyright violations; (4) yet, the people asserting the claims did not have any good evidence actually proving any form of violation in any given case; (5) and, when someone offered any real resistance, the case was dropped; (6) and when the ostensible holders of the claims needed to be real holders of the copyrights in question, shell entities were set up (controlled and dominated by the lawyers) in order to create a false appearance that this requirement was met; (7) and when the federal court's procedural rules specifically required the lawyer bringing the case to identify all known related cases so that the court can understand the true party relationships, the lawyer suppresses all the known facts about the relationships in order to deceive the court; (8) and when a formal assignment of copyright is needed to meet the legal requirement of standing, the lawyers set up a dummy name and forge the person's signature in order to meet the requirement; (9) and when the scheme turns on a fishing expedition by which the lawyers hunt out a list of IP addresses and then ask the court for the right to subpoena the ISP to get the names associated with those addresses, and the judge issues a discovery order saying, in effect, "hold on, you can't do this here," and yet the lawyers still proceed to serve the subpoenas on the ISPs in order to keep generating opportunities to extort settlements from even more victims; (10) and when the court finds out that the lawyers are deliberately flouting the court's orders and authority, the lawyers refuse to appear until forced to and, when they do appear, refuse to account honestly for their conduct.
Summing up and paraphrasing what the judge concluded based on these findings: This is not lawyering. It is naked extortion covered by a thin veneer of lawyering. Rules don't matter. Honesty doesn't matter. Decency doesn't matter. Whatever it takes to keep the scheme going, right or wrong, fair or foul, justified or not.
The result: not a severe money sanction, which would have been but a slap on the wrist when many millions had been gathered under the lawyers' scheme, and apparently gathered tax free to boot. Instead, something much worse, to wit, a clear conclusion that the lawyers had engaged in acts of moral turpitude, justifying referral to the state bar of every jurisdiction in which they are authorized to practice, and likely eventual disbarment; a criminal referral to the U.S. attorneys' office for possible RICO violations; a referral to the tax authorities; and an order that this devastating order be served and filed in every single legal action that has been filed by these attorneys anywhere in the nation.
This, to put it mildly, amounts to evisceration. This judge got mad. This judge had guts. This judge is smart. And that, for these lawyers, is a lethal combination.
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#37While I sympathize with the disdain everyone has for these guys, this judgement is the result of some lawyers that took several possibly illegal shortcuts. This case sets no precedents about the viability of copyright trolling going forward, and in fact the judge's obvious bias may serve as grounds for a successful appeal in this case. So, while this makes for amusing reading, at the end of the day it won't mean much…
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#38No sympathy for Prenda but damn if this line didn't remind me of Aaron Swartz: "Federal grand jury investigations are very slow, but represent experienced practitioners bringing almost unlimited resources to bear against their targets."
I wonder if there was ever a movie in which the Cavalry came calling to the rescue, but went after the wrong target? I seem to recall a Twilight Zone episode (or maybe it was a Stephen King Short Story) in which an infantry platoon razed a village, only to discover that it was actually their own hometown, somehow masqueraded as some foreign land. I willing to wager that if we looked at it with objective perspective,…
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#39page 10 line 21: "Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage."
I have never had more fun reading a decision from a judge. It is heartening as well as entertaining.
Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order
#40Is there now any way that Judge Wright might turn his eye (and hopefully his hammer) on patent trolling? The arguments he makes against Prenda's process in general - not the illegal parts, but the intent and procedure - is pretty much what the patent trolling industry does. If he sees something that he pass commentary on in a legal capacity, then I'm sure courts can and should take note that they're being played in t…
> I. INTRODUCTION > Plaintiffs1 have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the > nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable > defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally > downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be > > just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individu…