Judge Refers Prenda Copyright Trolls To Criminal Investigators

SternisheFan tipped us to news that the infamous copyright trolls Prenda Law are in a bit of trouble with the law. Today, U.S. District Court judge Otis Wright issued sanctions against Prenda. He recommends that the lawyers involved be disbarred and fined, granted court and lawyer fees to the defendants (doubled for punishment), and has referred them for criminal prosecution. Among the findings of fact are that they set up dozens of shell companies to disguise the true owners, actually committed identity theft, dodged taxes on settlement money, lied to the court, and abused the court by setting settlements on flimsy charges just below the cost of a defense.

Comments

Good

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Everywhere needs more judges like this. All too often people involved with the legal process or shielded by large beaurocracies feel they can act with impunity and are somehow above the law. Criminal prosecutions are just the thing to remedy that attitude.

Re:Good

[bloodhawk]

like most professions it is the few bad eggs you hear about that really do tarnish everyone. There really are quite a lot of good judges that really are only interested in doing what's right (within the confines of the law) and though it feels untasteful for me to say even most lawyers are for the most part honest.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

like most professions it is the few bad eggs you hear about that really do tarnish everyone.

Is it the same thing when it comes to lawyers? I guess Shakespeare's little ditty was only about a few bad apples?

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So we are going to judge a profession by what a 16th/17th century playwrights personal opinion of them was now? that is a new low even for Slashdot.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

'twas the often misread opinion of Mr. S that to destroy society one must kill all the lawyers, so said the anarchist, for the fabric of the social contract is woven by rule of law and in its absence might governs - which acted in favour of the said anarchist.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree when they prosecute Microsoft and Apple for extortion.

Re: Good

[XaXXon]

You know this is a common misinterpretation, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html

Basically the rebellion knows that lawyers maintain order in society and in order to throw it into chaos they need to get rid of the lawyers.

Also,

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Re:Good

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, (at least in cases analogous to this one), it isn't so much about bad judges; but about not enough good ones.

Prenda's undoing came about, in no small part, because a Serious Judge(Federal District Judge, lifetime-appointment-by-the-president-confirmed-by-the-senate, etc.) became very, very, very displeased with how they were messing with the court and refused to either rubber-stamp them or let them drop the case and quietly run away to a safer venue.

Wright appears to have put nontrivial time and effort into familiarizing himself with the case, asking the requisite hard questions, calling parties in for serious beatdowns, and so on. Given the (relatively) small scale of Prenda's scamming business, compared to some of the other shenanigans that end up in federal court, they probably got substantially more attention than they could have expected going in, or that most of their slimy little peers get(though hopefully this case will serve to raise the profile of such piracy-extortion operations).

The trouble isn't that other judges are cackling evilly and conspiring with Prenda types, it's just that Prenda's "push hard against the weak, quietly drop the case and walk away if resistance is met" strategy merely requires a judge with a full docket to not follow up on them too closely. In this case, they were screwed because the judge didn't accept their surrender, and chose to take a significant personal role in chasing them down.

Re: Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

Yes, lawyers play an important part in perpetuating the State mechanism.

lawyers maintain order in society and in order to throw it into chaos they need to get rid of the lawyers.

Only if you accept that the State represents order rather than being the primary source of chaos, preventing just regulatory mechanisms from replacing its role. Indeed, peaceful regulation of society would be revolutionary.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this is a common misinterpretation, right?

How about you go to read the play yourself. It's there at Project Gutenberg. There's nothing in the play to even suggest that the rebels think lawyers as pillars of stability that have to be removed.

For starters, Cade is talking about what the society will be after he is made the king: "There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny; the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer. All the realm shall be in common, and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass. And when I am king snip there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord."

At this point Dick makes the suggestion of killing all lawyers. Cade's response to that is to agree and the justification is that it is a lamentable thing that a scribbled lambskin can destroy a man.

The next scene is the trial of the clerk during which Cade asks him whether he writes his name or is he a honest man who draws a mark, instead.

The thing is clear: to the rebels lawyers and those who can write in general are crooks that are standing on the way of utopia.

Re:Good

[Mikkeles]

If it were just a few bad eggs, you might be right. However, it always seems that when they are discovered, (most of) the rest of the group closes ranks and attempts to shield them from facing the music. This applies to lawyers, doctors, police, military, the church, government bureaucracy, corporations, etc.

In my view, this makes (most of) them all equally culpable.

Re:Good

[Joey Vegetables]

The ruling is also quite hilarious, peppered with ridicule, Star Trek references, and such. Not what one would expect from the typical judge.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were just a few bad eggs, you might be right. However, it always seems that when they are discovered, (most of) the rest of the group closes ranks and attempts to shield them from facing the music. This applies to lawyers, doctors, police, military, the church, government bureaucracy, corporations, etc.

In my view, this makes (most of) them all equally culpable.

Internet GED and all that, but I think the phrase is "accessories after the fact" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Re:Good

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Based on the descriptions of the in-court hearings, the judge is completely and utterly ripshit with Prenda, so I can only imagine that he had one hell of a good time writing that ruling, once it became clear just how much hanging-yourself rope Prenda had voluntarily allocated themselves.

Re:Good

[sl4shd0rk]

Criminal prosecutions are just the thing to remedy that attitude.

That works really well until there is a political body in power which passes legislation to enable large bureaucracies to legally be above the law.

Re: Good

[Somebody Is Using My]

Alternately:
Shakespeare was making a lawyer joke

Some highlights from that article:

Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS".

and

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

Re:Good

[interkin3tic]

It sounds like he's simply enforcing the numerous laws these guys broke. Good on him, but it sounds like he's doing the full extent of his job. I can't see the use in having a judge that wouldn't do this. So "Everywhere needs more judges like this," seems wrong, I'd suggest "Everywhere needs ONLY judges like this."

Re:Good

[Rich0]

I think this points to there needing to be a LOT more money spent on the courts.

Courts should have the time/money to give real attention to each case, and lawyers should almost be unnecessary. If your lawyer doesn't bring up a defense it should be the duty of the court to do so for you, and so on. Courts should also have a duty to obtain all the evidence they can, even if not brought forward by either party. By all means dump those costs on the loser in the end. Trails should be about finding the truth and dispensing justice and equity. They should not be a debate club where you reward the person with the best argument and data presentation.

Sure, it would cost more money to run the courts, but it can't be more expensive than bombers. And every trial would get down to root cause. If the root cause is that some sociopath has a job in some industry then the solution is to bar them from working in that industry, or putting them in jail, even if the only matter brought to the court was a lawsuit over some file sharing or whatever. When you go to the court, you'll get justice, and not necessarily the justice you're looking for. That will make people think twice about wasting the court's time.

Re:Good

[interkin3tic]

I agree, it applies to pretty much everyone who identifies with a profession. They see the rules they have in place, or at least a process to regulate whatever problem arose, and see no need for other oversight, as that's just (in their opinion) going to make life difficult for them, the innocent ones, and do nothing to stop the ones who are guilty who already avoided the process.

For example, me, scientist. When I hear about scientific misconduct, I grit my teeth when I see suggestions for changes in oversight. We have peer review which is experts reviewing their peers. It's not 100% effective. Obviously. Obviously no system is going to be 100% effective at catching greed or misconduct. From my perspective, peer review is the best way to catch misconduct though. And we already do it. I can't think of a better system, so any change is probably going to be for the worse, both for science and for me. Witness Lamar Smith and the terrible cabal of assholes (I'm guessing the Koch bros) who are attempting to control scientific funding to attempt to silence studies they don't like. If there were a big scientific misconduct case in the news right now, that would be the best shot at such people getting control of science: they'd argue changes needed to be made to scientific oversight, that the system wasn't working and they could do it better.

Even if there weren't a conspiracy to neuter science, changes imposed on us from non-scientists are unlikely to be any good from my perspective (and probably from any perspective.) I'm biased of course, but I don't think I'm wrong. Other professions obviously feel the same way, and they might not be wrong either. The financial sector, for example, we have good reason to distrust everything they say, but they might be accurate that ending too-big-to-fail in the ways that are being discussed could cause major economic problems. I certainly know less about the economy than most of them do.

Bottom line, it's not simple to make positive changes to fix professional misconduct. There are good reasons to not trust insiders: they are biased in favor of nothing changing. And there are good reasons to not trust outsiders: they are generally less informed than insiders and might mess things up.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...it is the rest 95% that give lawyers bad name...

Re:Good

[OldPappy]

For some reason, as I read another article on the judge's comments, all I could think of was that court room scene in Ghostbuster's II.

Re:Good

[L4t3r4lu5]

I agree, but the way in which he did it could be better. Head over to the Popehat article and read about the judge littering his order with Star Trek puns. Nerd joy? Yes. Appropriate in the courtroom? Hell no. Dude needs to take his job seriously.

Re:Good

[rudy_wayne]

like most professions it is the few bad eggs you hear about that really do tarnish everyone. There really are quite a lot of good judges that really are only interested in doing what's right

Sadly, this is not true. If it was, there would be many more cases like this one. When you see the rulings by the judge in this case, it makes you realize just how corrupt and incompetent most other judges are.

To bad Judge Wright wasn't in charge of the SCO vs IBM case. The whole thing could have been wrapped up in a fraction of the time.

Re: Good

[Kythe]

Ah, yes, the eternal vision of all utopian fantasies: everything would be peaceful and perfect if everyone would just behave in a certain way. Well, DUH.

Re:Good

[Ollabelle]

And that in turn might happen if the Senate would stop stonewalling every freakin' judicial appointment offered up http://atyourlibrary.org/culture/even-shortages-federal-bench-cant-get-judicial-appointments-through-congress/, and I'm not talking about up or down votes - I'm talking about a refusal to vote.

Re:Good

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I'd say he took the case more seriously then Prenda. Their entire business model stemmed from filing cases hoping they wouldn't go to trial, and dropping them if it looked like they might. I see the Star Trek references as the Judge saying, "If you're going to make a mockery of the Judicial system, then the system retains the right to mock you back."

Re:Good

[mjr167]

However, if the community wishes to regulate itself, it needs to be willing to hand over it's own. If a police office shoots and unarmed civilian, his fellow officers should hand him over for criminal proceedings. If a lawyer commits fraud, his fellow lawyers need to disbar him... The problem is when in the desire to avoid outside interference you allow misconduct to continue through a sense of comradeship.

It is not self regulation per say that people object to, but the fact that self regulation often leads to protecting your own instead of seeking justice. Justice relies on the honest and compassionate among us having a louder voice than the sociopaths. If you are honest, speak up when you see evil. If, however, your community refuses to speak up and instead hides the crimes, then the logical conclusion is that the sociopaths outnumber the honest and you cannot be trusted.

Re:Good

[Gription]

The ruling is also quite hilarious, peppered with ridicule, Star Trek references, and such. Not what one would expect from the typical judge.

The best one is from Page 2, Line 16: "As evidence materialized, it turned out that Gibbs was just a redshirt."
Someone needs to buy the judge a beer or bake him a cake. Outstanding!

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you accept that the State represents order rather than being the primary source of chaos, preventing just regulatory mechanisms from replacing its role. Indeed, peaceful regulation of society would be revolutionary.

Wow, a 'just regulatory mechanism' replacing government would be awesome! We should get together and decide on rules that would benefit everyone. Of course, the problems are large enough in a country of 300 million that we may need a number of people working on them full time. So we should get together and choose some people to set up mechanisms for regulating our society. Maybe we could even vote for them. It's awesome what you can do without government....heh.

Re: Good

[rot26]

It was bad apples talking about getting rid of the lawyers who made their criminal enterprises difficult. Keep up.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been involved in civil litigation. The plaintiff, IMHO, was an individual who, IMHO, was used to taking advantage of other people's belief that most people are sane honest people. I was worried that the judge would be sweet talked by this guy but it turns out that sane honest people do not wind up in civil litigation with the frequency they exist in the general population. In fact, there are quite a number of really awful people involved in civil litigation at any given time as both plaintiffs and defendants and judges are used to this so they have a much easier time believing that one of the parties could be something other than a sane honest person.

Re:Good

[ultranova]

However, if the community wishes to regulate itself, it needs to be willing to hand over it's own.

If a community hands over its own for outside judgement it's not regulating itself, now is it?

Re:Good

[Scutter]

>it is the few bad eggs you hear about that really do tarnish everyone

I don't think you know what the phrase "a few bad eggs" means. The actual phrase is "One bad apple spoils the bushel". It doesn't mean that if you remove the bad apple, the rest of the apples will be fine. It means corruption, left unchecked, will spread throughout all of the apples until the whole basket has to be discarded.

Prenda is a corrupt organization because the lawyers who make it up learned the behavior from somewhere else, and they in turn learned it from somewhere else. The only way to eliminate it is to remove all of the corruption, not just these bad lawyers. Severely punish those who seek to game the system. Better yet, fix the system that allowed and encouraged gaming to being with.

Re: Good

[Artifakt]

That's the difference between anarchy as "no laws' and anarchy as "no rulers". A ruling class that can pass laws solely on its behalf and pretend (or even honestly but wrongly believe) it's acting for everybody will inevitably create a great deal of chaos and blame it all on those out of power. The mere fact that the US government rammed through a bank bailout in seven days and has taken six years to partly implement health insurance reform shows the extent of the disparity in power. If that disparity is the source of social chaos, as 4333 stated, think about just how much chaos that implies. We aren't talking about a little bit of relatively harmless randomness injected into the system, a few bad administrative decisions by people who are out to protect the interests of a ruling class instead of doing what they promised to get elected - we are talking about nations being drawn into unnecessary wars with resulting millions of casualties, and similar sorts of chaos, all to fight a type of 'chaos' where it only feels like 'chaos' to the self designated ruling class. I'd love to have your "number of people working on problems" and even to vote for whom I want to tackle those problems. I would even consider paying those people a salary to deal with those problems (I'll kick in my share, not fund the whole thing). That means those people are working for me (or at least the majority), not ruling me.

Re: Good

[ultranova]

Indeed, peaceful regulation of society would be revolutionary.

Literally, since there wouldn't be anything stopping any warlord wannabe from simply taking power.

Re: Good

[echnaton192]

Look at his career. He is good at what he does. And when you are, you could afford jokes - nobody at prenda law is laughing now or not taking him seriously. I am from Germany. But i'll rather be at the north pole than pissing off the IRS and being inside of the USA.

He did a hell of a job. Looked into every f...ing detail. And sent them the IRS to go look up their asses. And made shure those pranks will not sue anyone anymore on every court they are now entitled to represent themselves as a lawyer. He did not only made star trek jokes. He made those and stamped them into the ground, while other judges failed to do so. Read the article and google Google News for his name.

And admire a true lawnerd. As a nerd/geek. The other judged did not look into pradas scheme. He did. And now these fuckers are up to a world of pain. The IRS is not friendly towards avoiding taxes, even Mr. Capone has learned this, IIRC...

It is epic. And I'll grab some popcorn and make some google alert. For the judge and for this firm and those guys.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that $15 million was small scale. If I walked into a bank and walked out with $15 million, I'd get 40 years.

People are all too unwilling to understand the concept of scale that results when a modest ding is applied to a vast number of targets.

Re:Good

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Remember, when they say 'crime does not pay' they mean blue collar crime. The pen may or may not be mightier than the sword; but if you can rob somebody with one, you'll do a lot less hard time.

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

The professional community has standards above those for the general public.

When in the course of their work a standards group finds evidence of crimes they hand the evidence over and cooperate with prosecution.

Police don't pass that test. Lawyers usually do, just barely, by the less then the thickness of their scales. Engineers, usually, eventually. Accountants, again eventually.

Re:Good

[hawk]

It was as if millions of cases suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced . . .

Oh, wait.

Just 400. :)

hawk, esq.

Re:Good

[poetmatt]

Sorry, no, everyone doesn't.

Not every case is it good that a judge zeroes in on it, or they can also come to the *wrong* conclusion very quickly:

bad examples - see: grokster/napster cases, the ITC, the judge in MS vs google in washington, east texas, etc.
better examples: the lawsuits/investigations as a result of the mortgage collapse, Samba vs MS, this case, SCO vs Novell.

There's no general answer to when this is good or bad. Absolutely never. It's specific to every case whether it's good or bad it gets picked up and gets more spotlight.

Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Aaron B Lingwood]

From TFA:

"... they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense."

Judge Wright then awards costs plus punitive damages totalling $81,319.72 to the victims, saying that the sum

"is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal"

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[gagol]

Are you sure the dot is not a comma?

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Opportunist]

A judge with an awesome sense of humor!

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the US, the dot is not a comma.

But what's with the Star Trek quotes in the ruling?

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Psyborgue]

No kidding. The ruling is also peppered with lots and lots of Star Trek references. He actually begins it with a quote from the Wrath of Khan.

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Angeret]

Yeah, really! An honest judge with a liking for sci-fi and a sense of humour. America is done for, done for I tell you!!!

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[v.dog]

Popehat's write up on this is even better:

Referring to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the IRS's CID is like siccing both the Klingons and the Romulans on Prenda, except that the Romulans have a somewhat better grasp of due process than IRS CID.

Prenda Law certainly won't live long and prosper

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

well... a bit of an off-topic pun here but the US DOT is actually IN a comma... have you seen some of the huge potholes in the roads around the US? /end pun :p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Transportation

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[mrbester]

Could be worse:

Now, them Prenda boys was in a whole heap o' trouble...

Justice Wright: "Well, boys, there's several kinds of shit in the world; bullshit, horseshit and pigshit, to name but three. You've given me fine examples of all of those, but now, I gotta tell you, there's a whole other type of shit. This kind don't wash off, and you're in a real big steaming pile of it."

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

In saying this, the judge said that choosing an amount just below the cost of defence is an ok thing to do.

Earlier in the article, it seemed that it wasn't when these 'bad' guys did it.

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because they are being punished in this case. It's not the same thing.

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done, you found one. *pats head*

Now go and find enough to actually run a civilisation.

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[idontgno]

Kobayashi Maru scenario, and this time the people running the scenario know exactly how the cadets cheated the system, so expect the lossage to be epic and memorable.

Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[Angeret]

Hahahahahahaha - I got modded "5, funny" (my first ever that high) but yours was better than mine. Seriously though, the USA needs more people like him - and much of the rest of the world could do with similar.

But run a civilisation? I doubt we'll EVER do that, just look at our bloody history coupled with the increasing greed/litigation culture we live in. Civilisation... (snort)

Re: Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[echnaton192]

I need mod points and a time machine to undo the comment i made. someone else rate this AC up

Re: Judge has a great sense of humour/justice

[echnaton192]

Is it my bad english? He said it's just below an effective appeal: more and the appeal would go through. This is not the same:

1. offering to settle for something I am not entitled to by making it a tiny bit cheaper than to go to the court, even though it might be the other guy is innocent 2. giving the guy as much penalties I as a judge am entitled to until the full extend of the legal system, because of what they did. Not the same league, not the same game.

Am I wrong with this interpretation?

This just means

[lesincompetent]

They simply didn't matter enough, like a big corporation does. Not enough lobbying means you'll be judged as hard as any other citizen would be!

The fact that..

[Anonymous Coward]

it happened more than once is a travesty of the system.

Re:The fact that..

[mabhatter654]

It took this ONE judge basically collecting 5-10 other Fedral cases after putting out an order to consolidate Prenda's cases to fewer jurisdictions. It was only after getting a half dozen other circuit courts to agree, he could even read that they had been using different names and such in different courts. He broke down a lot of the corporate veil judges normally don't get to do.

It took special permissions from other courts and over a year of sorting paperwork to get ONE SET of troll lawyers. Effectively all this does its chase the trolls out of HIS court, and into courts where the judges won't catch them.

Re:The fact that..

[Stolpskott]

It took this ONE judge basically collecting 5-10 other Fedral cases after putting out an order to consolidate Prenda's cases to fewer jurisdictions. It was only after getting a half dozen other circuit courts to agree, he could even read that they had been using different names and such in different courts. He broke down a lot of the corporate veil judges normally don't get to do.

It took special permissions from other courts and over a year of sorting paperwork to get ONE SET of troll lawyers. Effectively all this does its chase the trolls out of HIS court, and into courts where the judges won't catch them.

Actually, the Judge has gone a bit further than that - he has referred all of the individuals identified as actively culpable to the Bar Associations for the districts where they are legally allowed to practice due to their lack of "moral turpitude". Given that judges have no direct control (albeit with considerable influence, but no official ability to directly rule on such matters), he is effectively telling the American Bar association to strike these guys off, take them to a quiet spot, order them to dig a ditch and climb in, ready for the ditch to be filled in.

Re:The fact that..

[PopeRatzo]

he is effectively telling the American Bar association to strike these guys off, take them to a quiet spot, order them to dig a ditch and climb in, ready for the ditch to be filled in.

From which ditch they will run their congressional campaigns.

Re:The fact that..

[Stolpskott]

From which ditch they will run their congressional campaigns.

I am not sure it would go quite that far... after all, they may be liars, cheats, bullies, shysters, conmen, and to cap it all... lawyers. But there is a long way to go from that to suggest they can make the leap to the next level of unconscionable evil and become Congressional Politicians.
Oh, damn, showing my jaundiced and cynical side there, making the overly broad generalization that all politicians are scum of the earth whose sole purpose in running for office seems to be to hop on the gravy train of lobbyists' "Campaign Contributions" and line their own pockets at the expense of the electorate and citizenry of the country they are elected to serve :)

An interesting side-question would be to ask how many competent and genuinely honest people would get into politics to do some real good, but are put off or corrupted in the face of the Gravy Train on one side, and world-weary cynics like me, seeing the worst in all politicians and condemning them without personal knowledge, on the other. Not too many, I guess... (but if you think that YOUR congressman/woman is doing a good job, don't just post about it here, send them a letter praising their performance - if enough people do that, so that they get some positivity once in a while, it might help them to make the right choice next time, too.

Oooo look, a Unicorn!!

Re:The fact that..

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: The judge didn't refer them to their local bar associations due to their LACK of "moral turpitude": He referred them to their local bar associations due to the fact he stated that "there is little doubt that Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, [and] Gibbs suffer from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming an officer of the court."

(Not trying to be a grammar n@zi, just trying to help clear up a minor error...)

Re:The fact that..

[gnasher719]

Actually, the Judge has gone a bit further than that - he has referred all of the individuals identified as actively culpable to the Bar Associations for the districts where they are legally allowed to practice due to their lack of "moral turpitude".

Actually, quite the opposite. Not for the lack of moral turpitude, but for the presence of it. Turpitude = depraved or wicked behaviour or character.

Re:The fact that..

[Anonymous Coward]

He also referred the case to the Criminal Investigations division of the IRS.
Even if the trolls get off scot-free in every remaining court case, and somehow survive the inevitable criminal charges, the tax man is going to cream them.
(captcha: circus. How apt.)

Re:The fact that..

[Daniel_Staal]

He also told the US Attorney's office to look into the possibility of racketeering, and the IRS to look at them for tax evasion. Oh, and he's sending a copy of this to every judge who has a case with them anywhere in the country.

The next time these guys are in court, it's probably going to be as defendants.

Re:The fact that..

[Stolpskott]

Actually, quite the opposite. Not for the lack of moral turpitude, but for the presence of it. Turpitude = depraved or wicked behaviour or character.

Quite true... I was so taken with the idea of moral turpitude that I ended up in two minds about how to phrase it, and ended up doing both, shooting myself in the grammatical foot in the process... that'll teach me to get excited about turpitude :)

Re:The fact that..

[Anonymous Coward]

making the overly broad generalization that all politicians are scum of the earth whose sole purpose in running for office seems to be to hop on the gravy train of lobbyists' "Campaign Contributions" and line their own pockets at the expense of the electorate and citizenry of the country they are elected to serve

Jaundiced and cynical indeed. I'm sure for many of them it's not their sole purpose ... there's also the ability to tell people (legislate) what they can and can't do, and have that backed by force of law.

Re:The fact that..

[sconeu]

Assuming the IRS will let them. Remember, not only did he notify the Bar associations, and the AUSA, but he also sent it to the IRS.

Re: The fact that..

[echnaton192]

Mr Capone did not take the IRS seriously.

Re: The fact that..

[sconeu]

The Joker does

"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Namarrgon]

For even more geek appeal, Judge Wright also peppered his order with Star Trek references, beginning with this quote:

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
  —Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

and hammering it home towards the end:

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 strongly suspect he deliberately designed this order to get maximum publicity with the tech media.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he would have used Star Wars quotes instead if they actually had any intellectualism behind them, instead of being fancy ways of saying "Zap! Powie!".

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[JaredOfEuropa]

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Interesting quote to open with, because in court they don't.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he would have used Star Wars quotes instead if they actually had any intellectualism behind them, instead of being fancy ways of saying "Zap! Powie!".

I'm sure that you could have put a little effort in to it and come up with a few very relevant Chewbacca quotes.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Interesting quote to open with, because in court they don't.

Yes they do. The whole legal system is based on that premise. The very existence of a legal system is a protection for the many.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes and No. The legal system protects society as well as preserving the rights of individuals. In court, what matters is the law, which may have been written with the needs of the many in mind, but when applying that law, those needs are not always a consideration right then and there. If a murderer is tried, with hard evidence against him, but all evidence is ruled inadmissible on a technicality, he walks (or should walk). The needs of the many = lock up a known murderer. Needs of the few = right to a fair trial.

Of course you can argue that the right of a fair trial is also in the interest of everyone else, thus it's "the needs of the many". The point is that the ST quote implies a weighing of interests (needs), whereas the judge in many cases will not apply such weighing, only the law.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[kermidge]

"The legal system protects society as well as preserving the rights of individuals."

I'm thinking that it's:

The legal system protects society by preserving the rights of individuals.

As for the Honorable Mr. Wright, wow. I didn't think I'd live long enough to see some real justice happen in this country, the way things have been going of late. Three cheers, huzzah, and all that. Now, where's that transporter beam that can work as a replicator.... 'cuz we need a whole lot more like him. To read a ruling that's incisive, witty, and just plain fun is a great way to start the day.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[fredrated]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I always wonder why that quote doesn't make conservative SciFi readers heads assplode, it is so socialist/communist.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[drinkypoo]

The needs of the many = lock up a known murderer. Needs of the few = right to a fair trial.

You have that precisely backwards. The needs of the few == lock up a known murderer, who can only kill a handful of people (unlike a POTUS.) The needs of the many == due process.

Of course you can argue that the right of a fair trial is also in the interest of everyone else, thus it's "the needs of the many".

It's a basic human right, thus it's the needs of the many.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, we just dismiss it as mushy-headed pacifistic vegetarian Vulcan thinking. We all know they're not as logical as they pretend to be.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Nyder]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I always wonder why that quote doesn't make conservative SciFi readers heads assplode, it is so socialist/communist.

The socialism you think you know isn't the real socialism.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars... more intellectual than Star Trek? I want some of what you're smoking.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Anonymous Coward]

But thats a defense, not appropriate for a judge surely?

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[HornWumpus]

'Giant Douche' or 'Turd Sandwich'? Might as well throw in Dr. Who as a 'Used Condom Popsicle'. You could split the 'Giant Douche' vote.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[hawk]

These are not the socialists you are looking for . . .

hawk, esq.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[Fjandr]

If that were true, there would be no presumption of innocence. It would be preferable to jail the innocent by mistake than to let one single criminal go.

There would also be no 4th Amendment, as that hampers the ability of law enforcement to catch everyone they possibly can with the least amount of interference.

It could be argued, however, that the protection of the individual serves to protect society in general, but unfortunately there are a huge number of people who do not see things that way.

Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!"

[jmcvetta]

The whole legal system is based on that premise. The very existence of a legal system is a protection for the many.

What rock have you been living under?

Judge loves movies

[Anonymous Coward]

The order is an excellent read, the judge doesn't spare any chance to link in movie referrals. He appears to be a big fan of Star Trek!

Get him on some other cases

[Big Hairy Ian]

Do you think we can get him involved with some other cases like Apple/Google/Samsung etal it would be nice if someone stopped them from behaving like juvenile pricks.

Re:Get him on some other cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that while they're all idiots, they're all right in their own twisted way.

Re:Get him on some other cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference in the Apple Google Samsung deal is they are all sophisticated participants in the market that brought actual products to market and created many of the patents they are trying to enforce.

I can draw a legal distinction between a classical patent troll like Prenda and Apple/Google/Samsung. While there is a definite need for some sanity in the crap churned out by the USPTO, I don't think it rises to the smackdown you want.

Re:Get him on some other cases

[PopeRatzo]

Do you think we can get him involved with some other cases like Apple/Google/Samsung etal it would be nice if someone stopped them from behaving like juvenile pricks.

That's what happen when you have an economic/political system that rewards people for behaving like juvenile pricks. One judge won't change that. It'll take about 75million voters.

Re:Get him on some other cases

[Thud457]

Judge Otis Wright needs to write a book. And start a thinktank. And appear on the View. And the Daily Show. And 60 Minutes.

Re:Get him on some other cases

[denobug]

Judge Otis Wright needs to write a book. And start a thinktank. And appear on the View. And the Daily Show. And 60 Minutes.

Better yet, we need him to remain as a federal court judge. He's pretty good at what he does. We need more good judges, not more of 15 min celebrity.

Awesome quotes from an awesome judge!

[SplatMan_DK]

Here is the official filing:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139843902/Prenda-Sanctions-Order

First lines:
 

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” —Spock,
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982).

Somebody should make a status of this judge. Preferably 3D printed and with references to popular SciFi universes. He deserves no less. :-)

- Jesper

Re:Awesome quotes from an awesome judge!

[newmind]

this was the best thing i've read in ages! The fact that this is non-fiction just makes it soooo much better...

Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

In sutiations like these, everybody always talk about how cool it would be to "do something". Several people have already mentioned a statue.

Well here goes: The unofficial Otis D. Wright Statue Fundraiser

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-unofficial-otis-d-wright-ii-statue-fundraiser

Go throw a buck or five at Judge Wright. Show the world that your respect for this man reaches further that a simple forum-post :-)

- Jesper

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[Anonymous Coward]

A statue for doing one's job? Where's the fundraiser for my statue?

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

A statue for doing one's job? Where's the fundraiser for my statue?

Not quite. He went well beyond his duties (in the best possible sense). He could have simply shut the case down at an earlier point, collected his regular pay, and proceed to the next case. Instead this judge decided to use extra time and resources to do "the right thing" - as opposed to just his job.

:-)

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[Muad'Dave]

Awesome. You know it would probably sell if you put a Star Trek TOS insignia on the statue's judicial robe.

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Q's robe (at Picard's/Humanity's trial) ... ;-)

/J

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[Dekker3D]

I'm tempted to make a 3D model of him, like a bust, and upload it to Thingiverse. Thousands of statues of the guy, all over the world :D

If I link from there to the IndieGogo campaign, that'd be some extra exposure too. I hope I do get to it in time!

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

If you have access to a 3D printer, or are a 3D artist able to make the modelling involved, please get in touch with me through the IndieGoGo campaign.

If you feel you are in a position to make busts like the ones you describe, we could easily make them a Perk in the campaign and compensate you for making them.
:-)

- Jesper

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[Dekker3D]

I tried sending you a message, but it seems I can only send messages to people that I'm connected to via a project. Will just donating $5 count as "being connected to you via a project"?

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

I don't know. I actually expected IndieGoGo to have a proper procedure for contacting the owner of a campaign.

Since that does not seem to be the case, please write to: wrightfundraiser@conceptfactory.dk

I have updated the campaign description to include this email for contact information.

:-)

Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork

[SplatMan_DK]

Thanks for reaching out through the campaign; but IndieGoGo does not share any other information with your message so I am unable to get in touch with you. Please mail me on the contact address now listed in the campaign description. :-)

- Jesper

Good morning read

[hebertrich]

With a good coffee , reading this is good to the last drop , i mean line. Reading this judgment is a treat.
If you havent done so yet , make yourself a favor , read the judgment. I never enjoyed reading one as much as this one.
Better than the SCO court papers and bankruptcy filing that's for sure. Hopefully they will end up disbarred.

What a treat , thanks for posting !

 

Re: Good morning read

[UnknowingFool]

I think the difference in the SCO judges is that they knew the nature of SCO lawyers and didn't want to give them any room for appeal. Also they were probably more frustrated than amused by SCO as all their tactics were legal but didn't cross lines. In this case, the judge has enough evidence of the lawyer's misconduct and prior behavior that even if they appeal, the appeals court will turn away any appeal. When one court can show that you outright lied to them, other courts are not likely to find you credible.

The judge must be a Star Trek fan:

[sageres]

Quote:
Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprisethey resemble is RICO.The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage. The Court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California.

Re:The judge must be a Star Trek fan:

[sageres]

And I hope the Judge will beam these trolls out and directly into their respective prison cells where they belong.

Re:The judge must be a Star Trek fan:

[MrNemesis]

Surely exile to Ceti Alpha V is more fitting?

The sane judge

[onyxruby]

The system needs a judge like this who can plainly see what the public at large has been complaining about for well over a decade. Astronomical awards are used as nothing more than a hammer to force people to pay thousands of dollars per infraction and avoid going to court. The entire thing is a sham on the public and the court system and never intended to represent anything resembling justice.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court refused to take up the absurd statutory award that was put forward in the Jamie Thomas case despite overturning the much (smaller proportionally speaking) Exxon Valdez award. We're going to need a series of court cases like this one to bring some sanity back in the system.

Re:The sane judge

[cpghost]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court refused to take up the absurd statutory award that was put forward in the Jamie Thomas case despite overturning the much (smaller proportionally speaking) Exxon Valdez award.

If the SCOTUS thinks that those absurd statutory awards are okay, what's the use of lower courts deciding otherwise, even if it is a whole string of cases? Couldn't the rights holders simply refer to the SCOTUS decision as overriding any kind of lower jurisprudence to enforce their claims and claim carte blanche to destroy peoples' lives with the help of the judicial system?

IMHO, the whole system, where special interest groups and corporations with deep pockets can buy their own laws, laws that are then backed by the courts, is broken beyond repair and can't be fixed from within. Even decent judges like Otis Wright can't fix a problem that runs much deeper than this. Nonetheless, it is still a bright day to see a little bit of sanity light up here and there, even though I don't think it would be enough to stick.

Judge Smash!

[domatic]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/prenda-porn-trolls-clam-up-as-their-plans-crumble-in-an-la-courtroom/

The pic here is pure win.

If it's a conclusion that stood that long

[Anonymous Coward]

then maybe there's something to it, hmm?

The basic problem of Lawyers is that they make the powerful more powerful.

They also self-seed, which isn't good. Make a law that can only be understood officially by a lawyer? More money for lawyers, more work for new lawyers.

This is a factor of the first proposition, mind, since the Lawyers are powerful. And they can make themselves more powerful.

Re:If it's a conclusion that stood that long

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as a judicial system allows you to pay someone to argue your position better than you can, there will be lawyers. What would you change in our system?

Re:If it's a conclusion that stood that long

[HornWumpus]

Make it illegal for lawyers to hold public office.

However, if Prenda appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

then they can't use as a defence that it is acceptable to price a settlement just below the cost of defending against the claim.

Which means that the amount of this ruling is open to change, but the reason for a penalty was valid.

Whoopsie!

[Greyfox]

It's all fun and games until you piss off a judge. Too bad you can't sentence someone to be beaten with a baseball bat in this country. Not that he should let THAT stop him...

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

But did they show up to court this time?

MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD UP; that was very informative!

Jim Bell says "you can't do that"

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you can't sentence someone to be beaten with a baseball bat in this country.

Is that against the Kickstarter (smirk) terms of service? I'd chip in a few bucks...

Re:Jim Bell says "you can't do that"

[SplatMan_DK]

Perhaps your support to the Judge Wright Statue can act as imaginary beating? ;-)

line noise

[h8sg8s]

Prenda; giving patent trolls a bad name. Man, that's saying something..

IRS

[sconeu]

Yep. These guys are in deep shit now.

Even the Joker isn't insane enough to mess with the IRS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56VgsLfKY4

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of other companies do business this way as well. For that reason I use a white list on mail and phone. I only accept inbound from those I know and previously approved. All others are in the dark. Period.

Not all lawyers are evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought the judge deserves all of the credit being given, it seems the lawyer who actually revealed the subterfuge to the judge is being given none.

Is a Statue geek appeal enough for you?

[SplatMan_DK]

Is a Statue geek appeal enough for you?

If yes, check this journal entry: The Death of Prenda as a Statue

(Disclosure: I am the author of it)

:-)

- Jesper

Hit the front page with it?

[SplatMan_DK]

I made a /. journal entry on it. Let us see how far we can make this thing go... :-)

The Death of Prenda as a Statue

(Disclosure: I am the author of it)

:-)

- Jesper