Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Judge Calls Prenda an "Ingenious Crooked Extortionate Operation"

Posted by timothy on from the bad-actor-seems-a-fair-description dept.

ktetch-pirate ("pirate politician" Andrew Norton) writes with this news from his blog: [Monday] was the long-awaited appeals court hearing in the ongoing Prenda copyright troll saga. Almost exactly two years after Judge Otis Wright went sci-fi on Prenda and its principles, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held an appeals hearing requested by Prenda on the sanctions, and it was not a pretty day for Prenda. Highlights included Senior Judge Pregerson calling Prenda's operation an "Ingenious Crooked Extortionate Operation" after describing in detail how they operate.

Prenda also astonished the judges by welcoming the idea of a criminal contempt hearing, which Legal blog Popehat thinks is likely to happen, on top of the sanctions being sustained.

50 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean "Disingenuous"?

    1. Re:Correction by monkeyzoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WTF does "went sci-fi" even mean in this context?

      I wondered the same thing.

      Anyway, should I be feeling guilty about my schadenfreude in this case?

    2. Re:Correction by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it is like "going medieval" but with lasers.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Correction by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1, Informative
      Fair use from the original order

      Asevidence materialized, it turned out that Gibbs was just a redshirt

      I guess going sci-fi means saying someone is just a redshirt.

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

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Going sci-fi" refers to the Star Trek references THROUGHOUT the entire order. Starting with a quote from Spock from the Wrath of Khan.

    5. Re:Correction by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative
      Judge Wright Tells Team Prenda To Pay $80k, Refers Their Activity To State Bars, Feds & IRS

      The hearings, as you may recall, did not go well for Team Prenda and all its associated players. While Wright may be somewhat limited in what he can do to Prenda, it appears he's doing his best to throw whatever book he can at them, randomly using as many Star Trek references as he can cram into the tight 11 page order.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Correction by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 5, Informative
      The district judge's order in this case was littered with star trek references.

      Here's one three-line example:

      "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."

      That's 5 references in 2 sentences.

    7. Re:Correction by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

      nope, My bad on a typo (I'm gonna blame a mixture of allergy and Bronchitis medication) but it should have been Ingenious.

    8. Re:Correction by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      It was likely just a spelling error you're blowing out of proportion.

    9. Re:Correction by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

      I typo'd, I have posted a correction, and fixed it. I also clipped the video and included it on the piece so you can see for yourself exactly what he said. Not my intent to deceive anyone.

    10. Re:Correction by mjm1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps a lawyer needs to boldly go and inform this court that they now need to waste taxpayer money translating the sci-fi bullshit presented as a legal argument. You know, for the rest of the planet that doesn't know what a Tribble is.

      To an average English speaker who has never heard of Star Trek, the text quoted is far more understandable than the average legal document. Who should pay for the usually required translation from legalese?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    11. Re:Correction by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 3, Informative

      True but the link points to another slashdot story, the summary of which says nothing about Star Trek. The link should have pointed directly to the Ars Technica article.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    12. Re:Correction by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wouldn't matter what criminal charges I was facing, I would be boldly laughing in the face of this moron who feels the need to go all "sci-fi" while at work, as if the Star Trek embellishments somehow helped here.

      Are you suggesting that a court which listened to Prenda's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, operating under the name 'Lightspeed Media Corporation', argue that Court ordered sanctions don't apply to them because they don't feel like paying, is still somehow dignified and above making references to something as banal as Skiffy? That a defendant who is considered an embarrassment to the entire legal profession cannot ever be subjected to ridicule?

      More to the point, did you know that Prendateer John Steel already tried calling a district judge a moron and laughing in his face in his own courtroom, with predictable results.

      If anybody has offended the dignity of the courts and running up the bill for the State of California before running off without paying, it was John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Mark Lutz.

      Perhaps after you have spent six years in law school, nine years in the Marine Corps, served as a county sheriff for eleven years and then put in twenty-five years as a practising lawyer before being appointed to sit in county and state courts, you too will be able to write legal decisions any way you like. Until then, there's always complaining on the Internet.

    13. Re:Correction by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      You know, if Prenda is going to present complete fiction for their justification for their illegal bullshit ... I think it's highly appropriate the court does something similar.

      From everything I have seen in the coverage, Prenda is a shady bunch of douchebag lawyers who are sending out false notices for copyrights they don't own or represent, and demanding money.

      They can claim all they want to be a legitimate business, but that appears to be a complete lie.

      Honestly, unless the judge is somehow failing in his legal duties, his choice of metaphor is largely irrelevant.

      Basically Prenda is exactly what the judge says they are ... a law firm practicing extortion through misrepresentation and intimidation. I don't care if he makes Sponge Bob references and long as these clowns get shut down.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:Correction by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      It's a reference to the (IMHO unprofessional and tasteless; the Hulk should sue) title graphic that Arse Technica (sic) used for their initial story. Until this post, the only way to get to that image from here is to click the link that goes back to the previous slashdot article, and then click that link there.

    15. Re:Correction by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judges have wide lattitude in the text of their orders. As long as they cover the points of law backing their orders (otherwise it'd be appealed successfully) there's no other requirement on content. Being a judge is kinda boring, so sometimes they let off some steam by trying to distinguish the order in some way. Most don't make news, but this being a set of cases watched internationally, did.

      Other examples include a judge ordering a game of rock-scissors-paper on both counsels to decide where a deposition hearing would take place, it did its job of chastising the lawyers. And as someone who reads WAY too many legal briefs, the star trek order here was a refreshing break, as well as limited to the plain-language sections, leaving the legalese alone, for you, the purist.

    16. Re:Correction by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On behalf of the rest of the Slashdot readership, I humbly invite you to bite me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:Correction by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't speak for me. ST wasn't even space opera. It was god damn court drama/western/soap opera.

      Terrible shows.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Correction by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Is it? I actually wonder if the exact words It Is So Ordered have to be used. "Make It So" is an order, and it's clear and understandable English.

    19. Re:Correction by geekmux · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't matter what criminal charges I was facing, I would be boldly laughing in the face of this moron who feels the need to go all "sci-fi" while at work, as if the Star Trek embellishments somehow helped here.

      Are you suggesting that a court which listened to Prenda's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, operating under the name 'Lightspeed Media Corporation', argue that Court ordered sanctions don't apply to them because they don't feel like paying, is still somehow dignified and above making references to something as banal as Skiffy? That a defendant who is considered an embarrassment to the entire legal profession cannot ever be subjected to ridicule?

      No, I guess what I'm asking for here is for a person that represents our legal system at one of the highest levels to not reduce themselves down to the utter fucking stupidity that may be presented in front of them at any given time.

      But I guess asking a professional to maintain professionalism in a courtroom is simply too much to ask.

    20. Re:Correction by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, did you know that Prendateer John Steel already tried calling a district judge a moron and laughing in his face in his own courtroom, with predictable results.

      I'd be interested in more details around this. The document you cited doesn't actually speak to this. It simply says that the plaintiff wanted the judge to recuse themselves for doing their job. It doesn't actually make any mention of anything nearly so contemptuous as calling a district judge a moron in a courtroom. I'd be shocked that something like this wouldn't result in a contempt finding on the spot.

    21. Re:Correction by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Well... uh... double bite-me on you!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    22. Re:Correction by geekmux · · Score: 1, Troll

      Perhaps a lawyer needs to boldly go and inform this court that they now need to waste taxpayer money translating the sci-fi bullshit presented as a legal argument. You know, for the rest of the planet that doesn't know what a Tribble is.

      To an average English speaker who has never heard of Star Trek, the text quoted is far more understandable than the average legal document. Who should pay for the usually required translation from legalese?

      There are plenty of highly-trained resources and standing requirements around a courtroom to translate legalese.

      In contrast, there are no known requirements for anyone working in a courtroom to translate or understand what the hell a prime directive is and why it is located on a deck. Could the defendants fire up their lawyers under the what-the-fuck-are-you-trying-to-accuse-us-of defense? Likely so, simply based on principle. Again, a lawyer will want to know exactly who to speak to on deck #11 about the prime directive they allegedly are responsible for understanding, with directions on how to get there.

      As for the judge, it's called being professional. If you can't maintain this no matter what various assclowns present in your courtroom, then perhaps you should step down.

    23. Re:Correction by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Trek is Space Opera. You won't find SciFi there.

      Space Opera is a form of Science Fiction. Therefore, even if you were correct that it is Space Opera, it is still Sci-Fi.

    24. Re:Correction by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand what he said, even if you have never seen nor heard of Star Trek in any form, you are not an English speaker at all.

      As for the judge, it's called being a human being. We could use more of that throughout the judicial system.

    25. Re:Correction by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to its creator, it was "Horatio Hornblower In Space".

      Still managed to win a Hugo award, though.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:Correction by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand what he said, even if you have never seen nor heard of Star Trek in any form, you are not an English speaker at all.

      As for the judge, it's called being a human being. We could use more of that throughout the judicial system.

      Understand this has nothing to do with me or anyone else understanding it easier.

      This has everything to do with the literal interpretation of what is being said, which is exactly what a lawyers job is.

      Now feel free to literally interpret what the prime directive here is, why you feel I'm failing to follow it, why it's located on a deck, and where that deck is.

      In the legal landscape that can easily define and re-define the word "or" 17 different ways when ripping apart legal directives and contracts, one does not fuck around with wordplay. This would be akin to my broker re-wording my mortgage contract in Ye Olde English just because they visited a Renaissance festival last weekend and thought it was cool. In the meantime, I'm arguing with the building contractor over what the hell a "fortnight" is on the schedule.

      And a judge (who likely used to be a lawyer), should fucking know this, beyond simply maintaining professionalism.

    27. Re:Correction by geekmux · · Score: 1

      you do realise that a functional understanding of the English language is all that's needed to decipher what prime directive is don't you?

      You do realize that a lawyers job is to rip apart each and every single word that is presented to them in a literal manner to ensure interpretation is dead accurate and loopholes cannot be exercised, don't you?

      Now as I've pointed out before, kindly tell me what a directive is, why it is considered prime, why it is exactly located eleven decks up, why it is located on a deck to begin with, and where that deck is physically located, complete with directions so that my defendants will fully understand what you are accusing them of.

      And no, this is not me defending the assclowns in this case in any way. This is me defending common sense when working in the literal landscape that is our legal system.

      And I find it incredulous that I have to remind a judge of this.

    28. Re:Correction by sjames · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, fortnight is a well defined term still in reasonably common use in many English speaking countries. There is no ambiguity.

      I suppose that's an apt analogy since the judge wrote the ruling in contemporary English as well with an equal lack of ambiguity.

      Considering the number of archaic words one finds in some legal documents, you might be hard-pressed to notice that your contract was re-written into Ye Olde English. :-)

    29. Re:Correction by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, fortnight is a well defined term still in reasonably common use in many English speaking countries. There is no ambiguity.

      I suppose that's an apt analogy since the judge wrote the ruling in contemporary English as well with an equal lack of ambiguity.

      Considering the number of archaic words one finds in some legal documents, you might be hard-pressed to notice that your contract was re-written into Ye Olde English. :-)

      You're correct and it was specifically a poor example, but there are plenty of others to be found along with plenty of reasons we don't use language like that anymore, unless we feel like channeling Shakespeare.

      Look, we can go back and forth on this all day long. At the end of the day it was a judge acting unprofessionally. Blowing off steam, adding a little variety, spicing up the paperwork are all excuses and nothing more.

      Again the dangerous part with word fuckery in a courtroom is watching lawyers literally want to rip it apart letter by letter looking for loopholes or reasons to dismiss. This case is so obvious it likely won't make a difference here, but it's stupid shit like this that allows loopholes to be found and executed and cases dismissed for BS reasons when they shouldn't have.

    30. Re:Correction by sjames · · Score: 1

      When dealing with people who will play word games with the definition of "is", and courts that will indulge them, there is literally no style of wording that will stop it.

    31. Re:Correction by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'd be shocked that something like this wouldn't result in a contempt finding on the spot.

      Then you haven't been following the Prenda case at all.

      I haven't followed it closely, but I cannot find any evidence that John Steel called a judge a moron in a courtroom. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'd say the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim that they did.

  2. The hearing is brilliant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone with the time should follow the YT link to the hearing. The whole damn thing is worth listening to, including a judge calling the companies' incorporation on Nevis a defiliation of the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton.

    captcha: infamy

  3. Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose there is some justice in the Prenda principals* living this trainwreck for years, as a sort of additional punishment before their inevitable jail sentences even start. However, I can't help but think that it shouldn't take this long. They spent years scamming people, before a court finally had the balls to actually take action against them (one somehow suspects special treatment for fellow lawyers). Now they are spending more years wasting judicial resources and time, meanwhile they may well be running some other, new scam to finance their modest lifestyles.

    * Note to editors: it's not "principles" - those are what the Prenda principals failed to live by.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      I suppose there is some justice in the Prenda principals* living this trainwreck for years, as a sort of additional punishment before their inevitable jail sentences even start.

      Who's going to jail? The lawyers? They are just hired help. The executives of Prenda? They are exempt since they hide behind the "corporation." The venture capitalists who are funding the whole thing? No, they are so above the law that it's not even funny. Maybe a few people will be disbarred. That's about it.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    2. Re:Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lawyers ARE the executives, whose corporate veil has already been pierced in several of the cases (so no hinding behind companies) and there are no VC's.

      The lawyers are representing companies they themselves own, but hiding that fact from the courts so they can sue over bittorrent downloads they themselves uploaded to TPB, while obstructing every court effort to get to the bottom of things.

      You're way off on how this case is going

    3. Re:Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lawyers themselves are accused of contempt of court for falsifying court documents amongst a few other things, fraud of the courts included. They are very much looking at heading to prison as it was their own actions in court that are the basis of the criminal accusations.

    4. Re:Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Lawyers can't use being hired help as a defense. They are officers of the court first, so it is their duty to refuse to behave unethically no matter who pays how much. Vigorous representation does not include illegal acts.

      Considering that the company listed an unwilling and unassociated person as an officer, it may well not even exist legally. No company, no protection. Beyond that, the corporate veil isn't quite blanket immunity, particularly when the company is small enough that the officers can't claim to not know about the illegal activity. There is no reason at all to not expect personal criminal liability to attach.

  4. TL;DR by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rave reviews for Prenda:

    "Ingenious" - Senior Judge Pregerson

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:TL;DR by disposable60 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You work for Sony Pictures, don't you?

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  5. Still not understanding... by fafalone · · Score: 1
    These guys are rightly being destroyed for extorting settles from people accused of infringing porn. I understand your porn habits are more embarrassing than your taste in movies and music (usually), but how exactly is this different than extorting payments for those?
    Reasons I can think of:
    1. They're getting slapped down just for insulting the judge.
    2. Most other judges are wholly owned subsidiaries of the *AA
    3. Most other judges don't want to anger their politician masters who indisputably are.
    4. (least likely) They happened upon the only judge who actually believes extorting copyright settlements is illegal.
    1. Re:Still not understanding... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but how exactly is this different than extorting payments for those?

      From what I remember about what happened 2 years ago, their scheme went something like this:

      1. Buy copyrights to porn movies using a company controlled by them (the attorneys) but nominally owned by a handyman/friend of one the attorneys, whose signature was forged on the company documents.
      2. Release those movies on torrent sites.
      3. Track who (which IP addresses) were downloading them.
      4. Sue people on behalf of the holding company from step 1.
      5. Gather spurious evidence but secure settlement payment on threat of taking the people to court and making a public assertion that they downloaded the porn movies.

      One major problem with this scheme is that the lawyers doing the suing are also the people who stand to make monetary gain on the settlements, but this relationship was never disclosed or even really proven, despite a lot of circumstantial evidence. The lawyers took great pains to conceal the fact that they would personally receive the settlement money, that it was ultimately being paid to them and not some random holding company. The court wasn't able to prove that they were behind the holding company, and when pressed the lawyers could not adequately explain the relationships between the various lawyers, Prenda Law, the holding companies, the guy who owns the holding company on paper, etc. Put simply, it was a giant fraud scheme to release their own copyrighted movies on torrent sites and then sue people allegedly downloading them, while concealing the fact that the lawyers were being directly enriched by the settlement payments.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Still not understanding... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because the likely embarrassing nature of the titles is in itself a further extortion.

    3. Re:Still not understanding... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      From what I remember about what happened 2 years ago, their scheme went something like this:..

      Judge Pregerson appears to have given a half-decent summary, that was quite succinct in the number of words spoken, and somewhat, less, succinct in the time taken to speak them. :)

    4. Re:Still not understanding... by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

      The cases you're talking about (the non-porn ones) happened many years ago. I mean Tennenbaum was 10 years ago, Thomas was about the same. However, the main difference is that instead of just straight suing, and then offering a settlement and suing, here they'll sue (john doe for ex parte discovery) then offer a settlement, but then NOT sue again. They go out of their way to not conclude the litigation.

      The Patel case in Georgia shows that perfectly. They Doe-sued in DC (in the court of former RIAA lawyer Beryll Howell) to get the info, then sent a demand to Patel here in GA. When he didn't pay up (or reply), they filed a case in Georgia. Then when he didn't respond, they filed for a default judgement which they got. However, within a week of filing for and getting the default judgement, Patel hired a lawyer, who then filed asking for consideration to litigate with a reason for the non-response. Since it was timely and courts prefer litigation over a default, it looked like the court would re-open the case. So Prenda dismissed the case before the judge could set aside the default.

      If there's one thing that get's a judge's attention, it's a case where the plaintiff's are so eager, they push for a default judgement, but when they had it and might lose it, they'll actually dismiss the case rather than risk losing. It means they knew they had absolutely no case, and judges (especially Senior (and former Chief) Judge O'Kelley don't like that at all. (He also doesn't like the internet, but that's another story, and probably related to the fact he was appointed to this court by Nixon in 1970)

      but that's why it's extortion. There's no good-faith effort to litigate to right a wrong. it's litigation purely for the purpose of identification, and to collect money from those who are apt to pay up, or who ignore it and hope it'll go away (and so get defaults). Demanding money with threats is extortion, because threats are all they have - they have no facts.

    5. Re:Still not understanding... by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

      It was indeed a great summery. I've clipped that section of video out, and will be playing it at all my future talks on this topic.

  6. so if they had been aboveboard about ownership... by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Could they have still gone after people in court?

    I mean, copyright infringement did happen. Or does the fact that they seeded the files mean that they can't go after anyone else for distributing the files?

  7. Re:so if they had been aboveboard about ownership. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    The fact that they seeded the files did raise questions about distribution and permission (on comment sites like this one, anyway), but that issue was never adjudicated. The lawyer attacking Prenda (Morgan Pietz) showed evidence that the seeder's IP address was linked to the offices of Prenda Law (the law firm nominally representing the holding company), which raised questions as to why the attorneys representing the plaintiff were distributing the plaintiff's material (they were in fact the same people, if different legal entities - although, again, never conclusively proven). The various Prenda and holding company stakeholders eventually invoked their fifth amendment rights to not incriminate themselves, which raised further eyebrows since to that point it was not a criminal proceeding against them. There were several hearings where they were all ordered to appear, but they were never all in the same place and seemed to blame whoever wasn't there, while never actually admitting that any wrongdoing had taken place.

    I'm not positive on your other question, I believe that an attorney is not ethically allowed to represent himself if he is also the beneficiary of the settlement, so they would have needed to hire a different attorney to represent them. Being attorneys themselves, they figured they would skip that step and just conceal their relationship to the court (note: courts do not appreciate this). That's what I think, anyway, it seems like if they were just able to say that they own the copyrights and be done with it then they would have done that, so I think the reason they didn't is to avoid paying fees to another attorney when they thought they could do the job themselves.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  8. Re:so if they had been aboveboard about ownership. by sjames · · Score: 1

    No. It came out earlier that their "evidence" was nowhere near sufficient to show infringement. It was a straight up extortion play.

  9. Re:Star Trek fan or plot by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

    The judge can write the text of the order any way he wants. As long as the legal points are in accord with case law, and all the correct legal references are there, it doesn't matter what manner he uses to deliver the OPINION of the court.

    Also, if they were going to go for 'nutso judge', they would have to claim that in the appeal, they didn't (and in fact not a single mention was made of the references (which means I won the twitter pool). Finally, any 'nutso judge' claim would also have to look at the hearing transcripts, which do NOT have such references.

    Finally, TV lies. Law and order is nothing like being in an actual court hearing (I've sat at the defense table for one of the other Prenda cases referenced in the hearing - Patel in Georgia). Just as CSI/NCIS is complete crap when it comes to forensics (although it seems the FBI is too) and tech in general (you don't want to know about an episode I was asked to consult on 10+years ago - it was so bad I turned it down because it would have killed my integrity and soul).