Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#61

Post by SEMW »

cstross wrote: post #58
haberman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to me that the judge lets so much raw contempt show. I am more accustomed to judges presenting a dispassionate attitude; I always figured that this was an important part of their role of making impartial rulings in an adversarial system. Would showing this much unmasked disgust towards one party leave a ruling more vulnerable to accusations of bias on appeal (presuming this can even be appealed)?

I suspect the turning point was the Prenda Law people turning up in court and taking the fifth. By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime. At which point, the judge can see the smoke, and though he may not be allowed to investigate the ignition source he can certainly point the DOJ in the general direction…

> By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime

I'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US. But surely, if courts can draw adverse inferences from someone 'taking the fifth', that makes it a pretty pointless right, no? It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself. Can someone from the US clarify whether that's really how it's interpreted?

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#62

Post by JonnieCache »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #60

The Star Trek references in the judgement are rather strange and (to me) diminish the judge's credibility. Is it normal practice for judges in the US to use popular culture references in their written judgements? Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind this?

Presumably he knows the internet is watching. Perhaps he's playing to the gallery a bit.

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#63

Post by parfe »

downandout wrote: post #45
bickfordb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the judge's bias?

A good appellate lawyer would likely argue that the judge's over-the-top reaction, along with his written commentary showing clear disdain for the business model of the plaintiffs and the attorneys, shows that the judge was unfairly biased against them from the outset of the case. I don't know if they would ultimately prevail on appeal, but the judge certainly opened the door for it.

Are you a lawyer?

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#65

Post by justinlink »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #60

The Star Trek references in the judgement are rather strange and (to me) diminish the judge's credibility. Is it normal practice for judges in the US to use popular culture references in their written judgements? Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind this?

It's not uncommon, for example here's a recent double-entendre ruling about a strip club:

http://www.woai.com/media/lib/12/5/9/5/59511ba8-415b-4b2e-a7...

The lawyers out there speculated he did it as yet another smack down to Prenda law. This will always be known in law circles as the "Star Trek Order". It'll be more widely read, and the shame will always follow them.

His findings of law are correct, a little toying with them outside of his findings is quite enjoyable.

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#66

Post by kolodny »

SEMW wrote: post #61
cstross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the turning point was the Prenda Law people turning up in court and taking the fifth. By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime. At which point, the judge can see the smoke, and though he may not be allowed to investigate the ignition source he can certainly point the DOJ in the general direction…

> By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime I'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US. But surely, if courts can draw adverse inferences from someone 'taking the fifth', that makes it a pretty pointless right, no? It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself. Ca…

I think this video explains the how and why of the fifth amendment (it's also something every American should watch): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Video description: [A] law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

Although lawers mid-trial taking the fifth may be different.

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#67

Post by justinlink »

downandout wrote: post #21

While 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…

FYI, Prenda already argued that the Judge was biased in this case. The issue went before another judge, and was denied.

Source: http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.54...

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#68

Post by jweese »

SEMW wrote: post #61
cstross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the turning point was the Prenda Law people turning up in court and taking the fifth. By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime. At which point, the judge can see the smoke, and though he may not be allowed to investigate the ignition source he can certainly point the DOJ in the general direction…

> By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime I'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US. But surely, if courts can draw adverse inferences from someone 'taking the fifth', that makes it a pretty pointless right, no? It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself. Ca…

I'm not a lawyer, but I am from the US. The Judge's order includes the following footnote:

"Even if their refusal was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court still may draw adverse inferences against them in this civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)"

The way I read it (again, not a lawyer) is that you can't convict someone based on their refusal to testify, but this isn't a criminal proceeding. In civil matters the rules are different.

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#69

Post by justinlink »

haberman wrote: post #44
grellas wrote: post #36

Judge Wright took tremendous offense to the idea of lawyer-sharpie types trying to use his court (among others) as home base for a naked scheme of extortion. Think 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 o…

It's interesting to me that the judge lets so much raw contempt show. I am more accustomed to judges presenting a dispassionate attitude; I always figured that this was an important part of their role of making impartial rulings in an adversarial system. Would showing this much unmasked disgust towards one party leave a ruling more vulnerable to accusations of bias on appeal (presuming this can even be appealed)?

They already argued he was biased, and lost.

Source: http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.54...

As for appeal, he set the monetary awards at a figure just below the cost of a successfully appeal. So they may appeal, but they will not reap any benefits.

They can't appeal the fact that he's going to report them to the IRS CID and the feds.

Re: Judge Wright issues Prenda Law order

#70

Post by Natsu »

grellas wrote: post #36

Judge Wright took tremendous offense to the idea of lawyer-sharpie types trying to use his court (among others) as home base for a naked scheme of extortion. Think 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 o…

Judge Wright definitely had phasers set to kill here. But these guys aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Steele (AKA "BittorrentBull") was mocking Judge Wright on Twitter over a news article about his bankruptcy not very long ago. I've never seen a smart lawyer do anything like that.

In the order, I note that Judge Wright used all the most devastating magic words. In addition to discussing their "moral turpitude," as you mentioned, he also said they "defrauded the Court." Ken predicted that might happen and wrote about how important that may be later:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/02/prenda-laws-attorneys-take...

"The fraud issue is of such huge importance because there is an exception to the attorney-client privilege from discovery and testimony in cases in which the attorney is alleged to be a participant in the fraud. Even the attorney work product exception from discovery falls by the wayside in such cases."

So this order is devastating not because of the small monetary sanction. Rather, Judge Wright methodically destroyed all of their defenses, threw them to the wolves, and then rounded up every other carnivore in the country to join the wolves in taking a bite out of them.

Post reply on HN