Appeals Judge Calls Prenda an "Ingenious Crooked Extortionate Operation" 71
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.
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.
Correction (Score:1)
Don't you mean "Disingenuous"?
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess going sci-fi means saying someone is just a redshirt.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139843902/Prenda-Sanctions-Order
Re: (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.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
On behalf of the rest of the Slashdot readership, I humbly invite you to bite me.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't speak for me. ST wasn't even space opera. It was god damn court drama/western/soap opera.
Terrible shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, according to its creator, it was "Horatio Hornblower In Space".
Still managed to win a Hugo award, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... uh... double bite-me on you!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Here's one three-line example:
That's 5 references in 2 sentences.
Re:Correction (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2, 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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 do
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, fortnight [google.com] 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. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, fortnight [google.com] 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 lite
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Correction (Score:5, 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 [arstechnica.com], 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 [popehat.com] 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 [popehat.com], 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 [wikia.com].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [arstechnica.com], 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 [popehat.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [popehat.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 hi
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF does "went sci-fi" even mean in this context?
Was that not a link when you read it? Because how this hypertext thing works is that you click the link for more information.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was likely just a spelling error you're blowing out of proportion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The hearing is brilliant. (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
Re: (Score:1)
Defiliation? He really said that?
"The denial or lack of a male child"?
"The abstraction of a child from its parents"?
Nope, lost me there.
Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
TL;DR (Score:5, Funny)
Rave reviews for Prenda:
"Ingenious" - Senior Judge Pregerson
Re:TL;DR (Score:5, Funny)
You work for Sony Pictures, don't you?
Re: (Score:1)
Hahaha, brilliant! :D
Re: (Score:2)
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
Still not understanding... (Score:2)
Reasons I can think of:
Re:Still not understanding... (Score:5, 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.
so if they had been aboveboard about ownership... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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, i
Re: (Score:2)
No. It came out earlier that their "evidence" was nowhere near sufficient to show infringement. It was a straight up extortion play.
Re: (Score:2)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the likely embarrassing nature of the titles is in itself a further extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
The Patel case in Georgia shows that perfectly. They Doe-sued in DC (in the court of former RIAA lawyer
So Genius.... (Score:1)