Slashdot Mirror


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.

34 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re: Good by XaXXon · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    3. Re:Good by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Good by Mikkeles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    5. Re:Good by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2

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

    6. Re: Good by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Good by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      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."

    8. Re:Good by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Good by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Good by OldPappy · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re: Good by Kythe · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      Kythe
    12. Re:Good by Ollabelle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Ibid.
    13. Re:Good by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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."

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  2. Judge has a great sense of humour/justice by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 5, Funny

    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"

    --
    [Rent This Space]
    1. Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice by Psyborgue · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice by Angeret · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!!!

    3. Re:Judge has a great sense of humour/justice by v.dog · · Score: 5, Informative
      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

      --
      Don't Panic.
  3. "Wriiiiiiighhht!" by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!" by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:"Wriiiiiiighhht!" by fredrated · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Get him on some other cases by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:Get him on some other cases by denobug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:The fact that.. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:The fact that.. by Stolpskott · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Fundraiser for statue/artwork by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    1. Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      :-)

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    2. Re:Fundraiser for statue/artwork by Dekker3D · · Score: 2

      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!

  8. The judge must be a Star Trek fan: by sageres · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. The sane judge by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:The fact that.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:The fact that.. by Stolpskott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!!