John Steele To Court: You Have No Evidence That I've Done Anything Wrong

from the oh yeah? dept

And, the next filing in the big Prenda showdown has been filed, and it’s John Steele’s response to the Order to Show Cause (OSC) for why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for a variety of misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Steele builds on the previous filings from Paul Hansmeier and from Paul Duffy and Prenda Law. But the crux of his argument: “Judge, you’ve got nothing on me. There’s no evidence I did anything wrong.”

Ridiculously, he argues that there’s no jurisdiction over him, because despite Brett Gibbs’ detailed testimony of how Steele (and Hansmeier) basically ran the entire litigation campaign, that Gibbs’ testimony: “lacks specificity regarding Steele’s involvement in the subject cases or
any California cases, and is otherwise inconsistent or contradicted by others.” Amazingly, in support of this, he points to lawyer Jason Sweet’s “Perry Mason moment” during the March 11th hearing, in which Sweet noted that Gibbs had claimed to be counsel for AF Holdings. This is really throwing Gibbs under the bus. Sweet’s statements were not meant as an exoneration of Steele or Hansmeier (by any means), but rather to show that Gibbs wasn’t completely a puppet, but a willing participant in a scheme that was mostly managed by Steele and Hansmeier. Steele goes on to take other Gibbs’ comments completely out of context to pretend that Steele had nothing to do with the case (or other cases).


For example, although Gibbs claimed he was supervised by Steele and Hansmeier at Prenda Law, when pressed for specifics about the degree of supervision he received, Gibbs only offered that Steele and Hansmeier gave him authority to file certain cases here. See Dkt 108-5, at 77:8-24. Gibbs’ further testimony has revealed he had significant autonomy in handling the cases. See Dkt 108-5, at 77:25-78:4 (claiming Steele and
Hansmeier “gave me certain parameters [pursuant to] which I could settle the case myself.”);

First of all, that is not the “only” thing Gibbs “offered.” He also noted that Steele had the ability to use his email address and made it pretty clear that Steele was calling the shots. As for the “certain parameters” claim, that was Gibbs noting that Steele and Hansmeier gave Gibbs very limited autonomy within the context of controlling pretty much everything else. That’s so obvious from the context that it’s almost amazing Steele would try to bullshit a judge who clearly knows better.

On various other points, Steele dumps the blame on Gibbs (and a little on Hansmeier). And then we get to the Alan Cooper question. On that point, everyone has been consistent: Steele was the guy who got Cooper’s signature. So how does Steele try to avoid being blamed for “fraud on the court” over that? First, he repeats the statement made by others that Cooper’s signature is meaningless, since the copyright holder wanted to assign the copyrights, no matter who signed on behalf of AF Holdings. And then he completely avoids the question of whether or not he faked Cooper’s signature, by saying, basically, it doesn’t matter because it’s not a sanctionable offense anyway (what….?) and then takes a dig at Cooper’s “credibility.” Uh, yeah.


The Court stated: “First, with an invalid assignment, Plaintiff has no standing in these cases.” Dkt 48, at 9:8. Apparently re-articulating the same concern, the Court added: “Second, by bringing these cases, Plaintiff’s conduct can be considered vexatious, as these cases were filed for a
facially improper purpose.” Dkt 48, at 9:9-10. As both Gibbs and Prenda/Duffy/ Van Den Hemel noted in their Responses To The OSC, the Court is mistaken about the law in this regard; the signature of the assignee is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment, so long as the assignor signs. See Dkt 49, at 25:9-26:19; Dkt 108, at 11:24-12:9.; see also 17 U.S.C. 204(a). Lastly, the Court stated: “the Courtm will not idle while Plaintiff defrauds this institution.”; Dkt 48, at 9:10-11. However, even if the Court were to discount the evidence submitted impugning Cooper’s credibility and blame Steele for this “fraud,”; it hardly rises to the level of fraud upon the court recognized by the Ninth Circuit, i.e., “a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 926 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1991).

Regarding any other alleged fraud the Court may consider, as Section III above makes clear, except in rare circumstances not present here, this Court is not empowered to sanction Steele or anyone else based on conduct occurring entirely outside of the subject cases and the Central District. Based on its prior statements, the Court may have erroneously felt otherwise before.

I’m sorry, but if anyone believes that the evidence to date impugns Cooper’s credibility more than Steele’s credibility, they haven’t been paying attention. At all.

On the question of hiding the ownership of various shell companies, Steele, amazingly, argues that “the evidence” shows that the Court is wrong to suggest that the folks from Team Prenda own/control the various shell companies:


Disturbingly, the Court’s apparent conclusions about the relationships between the persons and entities named in the March 14, 2013
OSC wholly ignores evidence to the contrary. Compare, e.g., Dkt. 69-1, pp. 21:18-2, 38:22-39:15, 40:8-12 (regarding who owns AF Holdings) with Dkt 108-5, at 114:5-8 (I do have the picture, and I know who the client is. We have talked about the client, and the client has been running everything. Yeah, I know who the client is”); see also Dkt 108-5at 19:15-18 (suggesting Prenda law is “controlled by Mr. Steele.”)

However, Steele cannot be sanctioned for any of these alleged misrepresentations made to this Court regarding the relationships among the parties and entities named in the Court’s March 14 OSC because Steele has taken no actions nor made any representations to this Court of any kind, nor is there any evidence before this Court that he acted or was otherwise involved in anyone else’s alleged misrepresentations to this Court.

This part strikes as the most incredible part of it all. The entire purpose of the April 2 hearing was to answer questions about this very point. And Steele chose not to respond to any questions. And now, in this filing, he’s basically claiming “nope, I had nothing to do with it” without presenting any evidence to the contrary. Incredible.

I get the feeling that Judge Wright is not going to react well to this particular filing, which (like Hansmeier’s before it) makes statements that clearly are at odds with what nearly all of the evidence has suggested is happening, without providing any actual evidence to support their claims.

Meanwhile, despite not being willing to talk to the court, Steele apparently has no problem talking to some in the press, and has told Xbiz that he “never even heard of the case” until two months ago. That seems rather difficult to believe given Gibbs’ statements concerning Steele’s involvement in his cases. I would imagine that someone involved in the case will quickly make Judge Wright of Steele’s sudden willingness to “talk” and the details of his statements.



Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “John Steele To Court: You Have No Evidence That I've Done Anything Wrong”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
34 Comments
That One Guysays:

This isn't going to go over well

I really hope the judge throws the book at him over this. Steele had his chance to defend his actions in court, and chose not to take it, and now he’s trying to plead his case via legal filings, where he can’t be questioned?

Yeah, hope the judge tells him flat out ‘You had your chance to explain yourself, you chose not to, you’re out of luck’.

anonymousesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Does the judge not have the right to ask for an investigator to dig through all the evidence for him , seize documents on his behalf and provide a report on all the questions he has asked. Seems like the steele and hammershite that were supposed to answer via fillings have not done so.

Anonymoussays:

I tend to think that this will have little effect on Judge Wright’s ruling at the end of the day. I believe it’s too little, too late, other than to maybe tee the judge off that much more.

I agree that it looks like this is a setup for appeal and little else. If clearing the books with ‘I’m innocent’ was the thought, it should have been done in court when the judge offered it. Now it looks just like what it appears to be, an attempt to weasel out of the results of the Prenda team’s actions. Actions that pretty much everyone involved with Prenda internally say Steele is one of the two heads. It is further compounded by being out of court where cross examination can’t take place, truth finding won’t occur, and lies have no penalty.

You’ll pardon that I remain extremely sceptical under the circumstances.

Look what this evil weasel said in that Xbiz interview

“I am very confident that once the facts are reviewed by Judge Wright, or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if necessary, this latest effort funded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to stop anti-piracy litigation will fail,” he told XBIZ.”

In other words, he’s trying to make it out like this is all the doing of the Electronic Frontier Foundation persecuting him for doing God’s Work instead of his own lying to the court about conflict of interest and operation of a large-scale criminal enterprise.

I find this quote fascinating because in this, there’s nothing especially different about an outright criminal like John Steele that can tell him apart from other protectionist scum like Copyhype: they view themselves not as criminals but as people enforcing the law and beseiged by organized conspiracies funded by “Big Tech.”

Look in the mirror, trolls. This guy is you.

Anonymoussays:

[sic]
Yes your Honor. Your right. Your entirely wrong. Oh. You actually read my filings… Of course they addressed all of your questions if only you’d read them again theres a lot more said between the lines, but its all good. [/sic]

Steele’s responses seems to be ?Nyann, nya, nyaa, nyaaaan. Ya can’t catch meeeeee! And besides it’s everybody else’s fault anyway. I didn’t say anything so what difference dose it make especially since everyone who did say anything are on drugs or wrong anyway.?

Its not over by a long shot but… The cracks within Prendaa are beginning to show. If a few of the associates or partners would step up and testify they might get some respect for being caught up in an classic money making scheme as hapless followers.

Since the Prendaa ship has breached its only a matter of time when the rest discover that the lifeboats have been confiscated by upper management and everyone must fend for themselves. Classic animal behavior very common in parasitic office/corporate environments. Its likely a few were working for some false/imaginary promise of future promise/payoff/hint-of-riches anyway. (thats right my boy/girl… stick with us and you’ll be sitting pretty for sure!)

Would be painful to watch if one did not understand the horrible nature of copyright law. Which is enough to nail the figurative coffin all by itself but there is the obvious added nature of Prendaa capitalizing off of vulnerable social groups. (only sex?)

No sympathy will be wasted on these probable rodents.

http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PatelExhibitP.pdf

The longer one looks at this very compelling chart the more murky and shady this AF Holdings seems. Apparently an off shore ‘undefined beneficiary trust’ based in Nevis. (where in hell is Nevis anyway??) Rally. What honest law firm operates an off shore account?

Why would they need such an operation unless they expected legal challenge to questionable/shady operations. By the structure of the shell firms all pointing to a mysterious foreign account/trust it could be a further indication/evidence that the creators/operators/litigators knew of illegal operations?

Again, it is hard to see progress unless some warrants or subpoenas are issued. No testimony has been given so its the only way for facts to be collected. This may take a bit longer.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow