Motion To Delay Sanctions Against Prenda Lawyers Denied

rudy_wayne writes with news that the Prenda lawyers recently sanctioned by a federal judge are starting to face consequences. From the article: "On Friday, Paul Hansmeier, a Minnesota attorney who has been pointed to as one of the masterminds of the Prenda copyright-trolling scheme, filed an emergency motion to stay the $81,000 sanctions order while he and his colleagues could mount an appeal. Today the appeals court flatly denied his motion. Two appellate judges signed this order, and it gives Hansmeier the option to make a plea for delay with the district court judge. That would be U.S. District Judge Otis Wright, the judge who sanctioned Hansmeier in the first place. Hansmeier is also getting kicked off a case he was working on that was totally unrelated to Prenda's scheme of making copyright accusations over alleged pornography downloads. On Friday, the 9th Circuit Commissioner ordered Hansmeier, in no uncertain terms, to withdraw from a case involving Groupon since he has been referred to the Minnesota State Bar for investigation. The commissioner has delayed Hansmeier's admission to the 9th Circuit because of Wright's order, which refers to Wright's finding of 'moral turpitude.'"

Comments

Separate issues

[girlintraining]

Okay, first, the Judge who originally told Prenda to shove it has come under fire for pornography downloads. So we have a company who makes a living off getting people's internet download history now trying to weasel out of it, and coincidentally the Judge behind it finds his download history being made public. How coincidentally is left as an excercise for the reader to determine.

So, because the judiciary is very conservative, his appointment is being suspended until the allegations are cleared. Now here's the kicker -- moral "turpitude" isn't a crime, but it is a reason to deny a judge an appointment. Out of an abundance of caution, the judge is also being asked to drop some cases from his roster where the involved parties are obviously looking for appeals and dragging out the legal process and they don't want the judge's "moral turpitude" to come under fire in those select cases as a reason to further either parties' political or legal maneuvering. That's fair.

It's especially fair when you consider Prenda tried exploiting this very thing in their own litigation. Obviously, the appeals court saw right through this and said not just no, but "Hell no." So they've managed to make the judge's life difficult by trafficking in sleeze. But what do you expect from a business that depends on sleeze for its profits?