7 Dec 12 Update – Yesterday the court gave Troll Gibbs (Prenda Law Inc.) their answer to the request to file a motion to reconsider the $48K security bond – DENIED. Thank you for forwarding the order to me. 🙂 Denied_Reconsid_02393(CA) The order is short and sweet. The court (Judge Breyer) said the only basis for reconsideration was due to Plaintiff’s claim that the court made an error, “but fails to identify any unconsidered material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” The court reiterates “Plaintiff’s current evidence of infringement is weak,” and not mentioning “contributory” doesn’t change this fact. The court also tell Troll Gibbs that the “negligence” claim is just as weak and flawed. The court ends the order by telling Plaintiff that a security bond in only “inconvenient” and
… Plaintiff’s doomsday predictions about the fate of commerce in California, see Mot. at 9 (“many organizations might simply choose to exclude California residents from accessing their businesses”) strain its credibility.
Strain its credibility??? How about no credibility? Tick-Tock – time is running out.
On 6 Dec 12, I decided to check PACER and see if AF Holdings LLC (Prenda Law Inc.,) posted the required $48,000 security bond. Previous posting No surprise the docket is still empty on that issue. 6Dec12_Docket_02393(CA) Thirty days from the court order is 9 Dec 12 (Sunday), so I will wait until 11 Dec 12, to see if anything comes through. I don’t really think AF Holding LLC will post the bond. The bond issue will actually allow Prenda to slink away with its tails between its legs. They would like to end this case as easily and cheaply as possible. That way, all they have to do is fight against the pending motion for fees and costs. It may cost them money, but it still protects them from having disclose all their dirty little secrets, such as –
- Who is AF Holdings LLC?
- Who is Alan Cooper?
- Who actually owns the copyright for the movie in question (Popular Demand)?
- What is the business agreement between AF Holdings LLC and Prenda Law Inc.?
- What is the business agreement between Prenda Law Inc., and 6881 Forensics LLC?
- What are the details on the proprietary software used by 6881 Forensics LLC?
Depositions of –
Heartbreaker Productions personnel
As you can see, even “one” disclosure in one of these areas/personnel is going to kill this case and start an avalanche of trouble for Plaintiff/Prenda Law. This whole operation is akin to a nuclear reactor working its way to a melt-down. It is going to come down to who feels threatened enough to try to help themselves out of this mess. John Steele isn’t going to do this, as he is in too deep. John knows this and also knows that there are others in the operation that knows the various secrets. John Steele is good at keeping his personnel under wraps, but failure is only a matter of time.
Once the “Alan Cooper”/AF Holding LLC issue comes out, the reactor will go critical. Godfread_Cooper_02687(MN) Here is the simplistic and sad response from Michael Dugas, Alpha Law Firm LLC, concerning the “Alan Cooper” issue and attorney Paul Godfread’s claim that AF Holdings LLC is a sham company. AlphaRespon_02687(MN) What is interesting about this response is –
- The letter is from the Alpha Law Firm LLC (AKA: Paul Hansmeier), who was/is partnered with John Steele. – Can’t get rid of that stink!
- How little is says – two paragraphs to say Mr. Godfread is wrong and “By way of separate action, Plaintiff will address Attorney Godfread’s egregious behavior.”
Take a look at the joint case management statement filed on 30 Nov 12. CMC_Statement_02393(CA) Prenda has nothing but the tired claim that because they recorded a public IP address belonging to Mr. Trihn (ISP subscriber), he is responsible for the infringement and/or negligence on his part. The negligence issue is a lost cost to Prenda in this district, but they still hold onto it for some reason.
The next case management conference is scheduled for 11 Jan 13, but I believe the case will be over by then. After the case is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to make the bond, Mr. Ranallo will request the court order the case to be adjudged on its merits (in favor of Mr. Trinh), due to Plaintiff dismissing it twice. He will then motion the court for fees and costs. Besides the obvious costs and fees they will have to pay, other attorneys and Pro Se defendants will see AF Holdings LLC/Prenda will back down when faced with having to post a security bond. Mr. Harris (Pro Se defendant in AZ) will be watching this closely. 🙂
Here you go Troll Gibbs – Maybe you can sprinkle it on Mr. Ranallo next time you see him. You need all the help you can get. 😉