If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   The copyright Trolls known as Prenda say that since California allows gay marriage, that the Judges Federal ruling against them should not apply in the Confederacy(Georgia)   (techdirt.com) divider line 54
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

3639 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 May 2013 at 2:29 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-10 02:33:45 PM
Nazaire then tries to argue, incredibly, that there is no "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-10 02:36:23 PM
Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.
 
2013-05-10 02:39:24 PM

red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.


Yep.  And they were already on bad terms with Judge Wright.  This is not going to end well.
 
2013-05-10 02:40:16 PM
FFS.

"You are all in contempt. Go directly to gitmo. We'll figure out what to do with you once we get a new copyright law passed."

All that needs to be done.
 
2013-05-10 02:40:37 PM

red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.


Hey now, no need to go all histrionic and make a big federal case out of this!
 
2013-05-10 02:41:34 PM
In asserting that the filing in question is late and not authorized by local rules, Nazaire has a point.

Then things go a little sideways...

But! There's this:

19. Defendant also argues that plaintiff's counsel should have made reasonable inquiry of the signature. Prior to filing the document, the undersigned contacted Prenda Law to find out whether or not Mr. Cooper would be available to testify at trial but was advised that they could not locate Mr. Cooper. The undersigned was advised that Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier would be available to testify as witnesses. Had the undersigned realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was hanging with Mr. Cooper, he would have been able to track down Mr. Cooper and questioned him about the documents.

That's genuinely amusing.
 
2013-05-10 02:42:54 PM
I don't understand this. A federal judge has just publicly biatch slapped the company you work for in a high profile case and you're going to try and pull this? And lie, to boot? I guess there could be a more passive-aggressive way to get disbarred, but I can't come up with one.

And, as a judge, how can you read something like that and not say, "Are you f*cking kidding me?"
 
2013-05-10 02:51:25 PM

Flab: red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.

Yep.  And they were already on bad terms with Judge Wright.  This is not going to end well.


Keep digging, Prenda morons. The grave for your careers is just getting deeper.
 
2013-05-10 02:53:03 PM
I believe the primary lawyers in the case are already under threat of being disbarred by the trial judge (Wright). If you're about to go down- then by hell you better go down swinging.

/The judge is recommending the bar review the lawyers because of the outright fraud they attempted to pass on the court.
 
2013-05-10 02:55:27 PM
Didn't the judge make the fine just under the cost to appeal the ruling? That must sting to have your own tactics used against yo.
 
2013-05-10 03:06:48 PM
He should have dug deeper and provided precedent from the Federation law.
 
2013-05-10 03:06:58 PM

Carth: Didn't the judge make the fine just under the cost to appeal the ruling? That must sting to have your own tactics used against yo.


"This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal."

http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/06/does-prenda-believe-in-no-win-scen ar ios-because-judge-wright-just-gave-them-one/
 
2013-05-10 03:10:45 PM
You all do remember that California does NOT allow Gay Marriages, Yet...


It just a matter of time  :)
 
2013-05-10 03:17:29 PM

Summercat: red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.

Hey now, no need to go all histrionic and make a big federal case out of this!


Uh, Judge Wright's ruling did happen to be in Federal Court.
 
2013-05-10 03:23:15 PM
I'm trying to picture the guy while he wrote all that nonsense.  I keep coming up with this

img.fark.net
 
2013-05-10 03:24:13 PM
Chewbacca offense?
 
2013-05-10 03:27:01 PM
Maybe in the next filing he can cite Admiralty Law and how the flags in Wright's courtroom had fringe on them.
 
2013-05-10 03:27:30 PM

Flab: red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.

Yep.  And they were already on bad terms with Judge Wright.  This is not going to end well.


KierzanDax: I don't understand this. A federal judge has just publicly biatch slapped the company you work for in a high profile case and you're going to try and pull this? And lie, to boot? I guess there could be a more passive-aggressive way to get disbarred, but I can't come up with one.

And, as a judge, how can you read something like that and not say, "Are you f*cking kidding me?"


This is a different case, before a different judge, in a different state.

And he's technically not wrong - Wright's findings in California are not binding on this case, and the Georgia judge could disagree or disregard them...

... but let's be honest. He won't. :D
 
2013-05-10 03:28:00 PM

Carth: Didn't the judge make the fine just under the cost to appeal the ruling? That must sting to have your own tactics used against yo.


When the Judge is trolling you, you know you're screwed.
 
2013-05-10 03:29:56 PM
It is bribery if the taxpayers vote this guy a raise? Because I want more rulings like that.
 
2013-05-10 03:43:04 PM
Geeze, I don't know why people waste so much time on this.
 
2013-05-10 03:46:34 PM
Utter reading comprehension fail. Techdirt is creating a controversy where there actually is none. This is the argument from Prenda:

FTA: While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

That actually has nothing to do with same sex marriage, per se. Same sex marriage is merely an example of the difference between state courts. The difference from state to state is what a counterargument must address.

Techdirt, you are not helping.
 
2013-05-10 03:49:26 PM

Ken at Popehat: Geeze, I don't know why people waste so much time on this.


i1341.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-10 03:49:41 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Utter reading comprehension fail. Techdirt is creating a controversy where there actually is none. This is the argument from Prenda:

FTA: While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

That actually has nothing to do with same sex marriage, per se. Same sex marriage is merely an example of the difference between state courts. The difference from state to state is what a counterargument must address.

Techdirt, you are not helping.


Which might matter if this wasn't in federal court.  Georgia doesn't live under different federal laws than California
 
2013-05-10 03:50:48 PM
Given what I'm reading here, it looks like this case will be used as a reference in every other instance of prenda law.

But i'm ok with this. They keep digging. I hope other copyright/patent trolls get the picture here and finally back off.
 
2013-05-10 03:51:05 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Utter reading comprehension fail. Techdirt is creating a controversy where there actually is none. This is the argument from Prenda:

FTA: While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

That actually has nothing to do with same sex marriage, per se. Same sex marriage is merely an example of the difference between state courts. The difference from state to state is what a counterargument must address.

Techdirt, you are not helping.


Since the ruling in question is a finding of fact about federal law, the differences between state laws is immaterial. Additionally, the filing is not an order to the Georgia court; it's information that may be relevant to the proceedings there.
 
2013-05-10 03:52:11 PM

Bennie Crabtree: The difference from state to state


It's federal law. There is no difference from state to state.
The point is that decisions or findings in a California district court or even the 9th Circuit are not binding on a Georgia district court, they're merely persuasive. But of course, (i) they're highly persuasive in this case, and (ii) attempting to school the judge on first year civil procedure is a good way to piss him off.
 
2013-05-10 03:59:12 PM

Theaetetus: ... but let's be honest. He won't. :D


The whole lying, evading, running a RICO enterprise thing is not something any judge is gonna look at and go "Eh, whatever". Also the bozos from Prenda are gonna file more suits next week apparently. Yes, new copyright suits. No I'm not kidding, one of the head bozos, Steele, said the other day that next week they're going to file new lawsuits next week. Your gonna make me buy drinks if we ever meet to make up for you having to ponder that aren't you? ;)
 
2013-05-10 04:00:55 PM

Theaetetus: But of course, (i) they're highly persuasive in this case, and (ii) attempting to school the judge on first year civil procedure is a good way to piss him off


Also in light of recent developments it's a good way to end up having the state bar look at you very very closely.
 
2013-05-10 04:16:55 PM

imashark: Summercat: red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.

Hey now, no need to go all histrionic and make a big federal case out of this!

Uh, Judge Wright's ruling did happen to be in Federal Court.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-10 04:19:50 PM
These guys are lawyers?
 
2013-05-10 04:25:57 PM

Ken at Popehat: Geeze, I don't know why people waste so much time on this.


This reminds me, I haven't been at Popehat to read about this in over a week.

/To the Popemobile!!
 
2013-05-10 04:28:53 PM

Theaetetus: Bennie Crabtree: The difference from state to state

It's federal law. There is no difference from state to state.
The point is that decisions or findings in a California district court or even the 9th Circuit are not binding on a Georgia district court, they're merely persuasive. But of course, (i) they're highly persuasive in this case, and (ii) attempting to school the judge on first year civil procedure is a good way to piss him off.


But this isn't a matter of law (i.e. a decision on what the law says), this is the Judge ordering that all parties to current suits litigated by Prenda be aware of Prenda's less-than-honest reputation in arguing Federal cases before Federal judges. Right?

So what's the problem? A ruling by a Judge against a party in one Circuit can't be enforced against that same party by another Circuit - or "isn't automatically en force in that other Circuit"?
 
2013-05-10 04:35:52 PM
it was almost painful to read judge Wright's order if I were not also amused and entertained by it. IRS? RICO? no farking joke. I'm no law talking guy, but I could feel my testicles move up towards my body just imagining the Prenda farks reading what will come next for them. it's funny because it isn't me, but damn.

truly epic.
 
2013-05-10 04:42:09 PM
About the only part of this which surprises me is that it seems the Prenda's lawyer did not mention the confederacy in his brief.
 
2013-05-10 04:49:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: Theaetetus: Bennie Crabtree: The difference from state to state

It's federal law. There is no difference from state to state.
The point is that decisions or findings in a California district court or even the 9th Circuit are not binding on a Georgia district court, they're merely persuasive. But of course, (i) they're highly persuasive in this case, and (ii) attempting to school the judge on first year civil procedure is a good way to piss him off.

But this isn't a matter of law (i.e. a decision on what the law says), this is the Judge ordering that all parties to current suits litigated by Prenda be aware of Prenda's less-than-honest reputation in arguing Federal cases before Federal judges. Right?


Well, kinda. First, it wasn't an order, but a request of the defendant in California (which he'd gleefully agree to), since it's questionable whether the judge could really order something like that. Second, this wasn't actually filed by that defendant, but by the Georgia defendant. And third, the Georgia case technically isn't "current" since it's been dismissed.

So what's the problem? A ruling by a Judge against a party in one Circuit can't be enforced against that same party by another Circuit - or "isn't automatically en force in that other Circuit"?

Kinda - this isn't enforcing the California ruling in the Georgia case, this is an argument that the Georgia judge should decide the Georgia case in the exact same way as the California ruling.

For example, if I sue you in Mass. and win, I could go to where you are in Maryland and get a court order to enforce the Mass. ruling so that I could seize your assets. However, I couldn't separately sue you in Maryland, and then argue that I automatically win because of the Mass. ruling.

Or, more directly, if you sue me here in Mass. and lose, and you sue someone else in Maryland, that someone else can't say "he lost this other case in Mass., so therefore judge, you're required to find against him here, too." There are some areas where that's true around issue preclusion, but those are somewhat specialized cases and don't really apply here. Instead, here, the George judge can look it and consider whether Prenda is more credible and persuasive than the California judge.
And of course they aren't.
But he's not bound by law to find that.

So, technically, Prenda is right. And pragmatically, they're still boned.
 
2013-05-10 04:50:10 PM

meyerkev: Carth: Didn't the judge make the fine just under the cost to appeal the ruling? That must sting to have your own tactics used against yo.

"This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal."

http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/06/does-prenda-believe-in-no-win-scen ar ios-because-judge-wright-just-gave-them-one/


Best line in the ruling. Even better than the redshirt reference.

/yes, I did read the entire ruling
 
2013-05-10 04:52:56 PM

phalamir: Bennie Crabtree: Utter reading comprehension fail. Techdirt is creating a controversy where there actually is none. This is the argument from Prenda:

FTA: While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

That actually has nothing to do with same sex marriage, per se. Same sex marriage is merely an example of the difference between state courts. The difference from state to state is what a counterargument must address.

Techdirt, you are not helping.

Which might matter if this wasn't in federal court.  Georgia doesn't live under different federal laws than California


Well....our Supreme Court has not yet been completely tainted by the Legislature.
 
2013-05-10 04:58:42 PM
Bennie Crabtree:

That actually has nothing to do with same sex marriage, per se. Same sex marriage is merely an example of the difference between state courts. The difference from state to state is what a counterargument must address.

Techdirt, you are not helping.


Exactly. This is what I came to say. Techdirt highlights and biatches about the part of the brief that is actually correct. It is a red herring. But it legally correct.

It is slimy move on techdirt's part to draw page views by bringing up the gay issue. Shame on them.
 
2013-05-10 05:20:55 PM

worlddan: It is slimy move on techdirt's part to draw page views by bringing up the gay issue. Shame on them.


I don't know why we don't routinely change the links on Prenda stories to Popehat. They cover he story both more informatively and more entertainingly, and they deserve the traffic far more than techdirt.
 
2013-05-10 06:12:00 PM

phalamir: Which might matter if this wasn't in federal court.  Georgia doesn't live under different federal laws than California




Isn't the federal Shari'a law different in Georgia. That's what Prenda has asserted in most posts on freeper websites with the example that you can't gay marry your 9-year-old sister in Georgia if you're male.
 
2013-05-10 06:16:38 PM

Carth: Didn't the judge make the fine just under the cost to appeal the ruling? That must sting to have your own tactics used against yo.


I bet it was written in jest. Funny though.
 
2013-05-10 06:37:04 PM

czetie: worlddan: It is slimy move on techdirt's part to draw page views by bringing up the gay issue. Shame on them.

I don't know why we don't routinely change the links on Prenda stories to Popehat. They cover he story both more informatively and more entertainingly, and they deserve the traffic far more than techdirt.


Agreed. That's where my eyeballs go back to, when I hear third-hand reports of this awesome story.
 
2013-05-10 07:20:13 PM

Latinwolf: imashark: Summercat: red5ish: Pissing off a federal judge can have bad consequences.

Hey now, no need to go all histrionic and make a big federal case out of this!

Uh, Judge Wright's ruling did happen to be in Federal Court.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Keeeeerrrrr-yup!
 
2013-05-10 07:44:52 PM

Theaetetus: And he's technically not wrong - Wright's findings in California are not binding on this case, and the Georgia judge could disagree or disregard them...


Really? It would seem like the many many findings of fact in Wright's decision would be binding on any and all Prenda cases via collateral estoppel. Is that incorrect?
 
2013-05-10 07:48:04 PM

yyrkoon: You all do remember that California does NOT allow Gay Marriages, Yet...


[thatsthejoke.jpg]?
 
2013-05-10 08:54:52 PM
"Bailiff, please repeatedly cock punch the Prenda lawyer while the court recesses for a four hour lunch"
 
2013-05-10 09:57:43 PM
Blair Chintella

At first I read that as "Blind Chinchilla".


abb3w: About the only part of this which surprises me is that it seems the Prenda's lawyer did not mention the confederacy in his brief.


I didn't see anything about water fluoridation either.
 
2013-05-10 10:28:31 PM

czetie: worlddan: It is slimy move on techdirt's part to draw page views by bringing up the gay issue. Shame on them.

I don't know why we don't routinely change the links on Prenda stories to Popehat. They cover he story both more informatively and more entertainingly, and they deserve the traffic far more than techdirt.


Hilarious New Team Prenda Argument: Judge Wright's Order Is Irrelevant Because of Gay Marriage

That's Popehat's headline for this piece (written by Ken). Hypocritically, that's three stories up from this one, wherein Ken disses media outlets for running with the "karaoke" argument in Jesse Jackson Jr's sentencing hearing.
 
2013-05-10 10:34:20 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Theaetetus: And he's technically not wrong - Wright's findings in California are not binding on this case, and the Georgia judge could disagree or disregard them...

Really? It would seem like the many many findings of fact in Wright's decision would be binding on any and all Prenda cases via collateral estoppel. Is that incorrect?


Nope. They weren't actually issues litigated in that case. For example, Wright said that Prenda forged Cooper's signature... but the case wasn't civil liability over fraud or a criminal case for forgery. That holding is not central to the case, and therefore, collateral estoppel doesn't apply.
In fact, the California case was dismissed - Wright's findings were separate from the case, and really part of a show cause order about ethics violations and contempt. Prenda would only be estopped over issues that were actually part of the case, like ownership of the copyright, and there really isn't any question there.

Basically, estoppel is about "you've had your day in court, so you don't get to move to a new jurisdiction and get a do-over," and technically, Wright's findings were at the end as a result of a show-cause and they didn't really get their "day in court" on those specific issues. That's fine for that case, but they're not estopped from claiming elsewhere that they didn't commit forgery.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report