Since I last posted a Harris case update, there has been some action. Previous Post The scheduled case management meeting (17 Dec 12) did not take place and Troll Goodhue filed the Case Management Report/Order. First I wanted to again go over Mr. Harris’ 10 Dec 12, reply and discus some aspects of it.
Mr. Harris’ Reply
On 10 Dec 12, Mr. Harris filed a Motion to Strike in reply to Troll Goodhue’s response to his motion for a security bond. Harris_Resp_02144(AZ) Harris_RespEX_02144(AZ) Mr. Harris tells the court at the time of the alleged infringement (3 Jun 12), Plaintiff did not own the copyright and thus does not have the right to sue. Now the court is going to have to address this issue of whether or not AF Holdings LLC (AKA: Prenda Shell LLC) is allowed to sue for copyright infringement that happened prior to obtaining rights to the film – “effective as of 12 Jun 11”
Mr. Harris also addresses the claim from Troll Goodhue that the motion for security bond is for “attorney’s fees.”
Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant is seeking a security bond for attorney fees is a complete fabrication, completely detached from reality. Defendant NEVER thought he was entitled to attorney’s fees, any assertion otherwise is incorrect. Defendant stated in his Motion for security, “Defendant realizes that he cannot calculate fees and costs based on lawyers compensation” ( Mot. at ¶6). Regardless of Mr. Goodhue’s opinion Defendant expects to be fully compensated for his participation in Defending himself from the Plaintiff in this frivolous suit. After all it is the attorney of record who drug me into court claiming infringement of his client’s copyright, when the copyright in question did not even belong to him and this after suing Defendant in the District of Columbia for the exact same cause of action, failing to prosecute that claim, which is now full adjudicated.
Mr. Harris goes on to tell the court that he believes the reason Troll Goodhue (Prenda Law Inc. local counsel) is pursuing these eight frivolous individual AZ cases, is to create an “affirmative defense” against defendant’s claim of “Theft by Extortion.” Mr. Harris made this claim to the Mesa AZ, Police on 1 Jun 12. According to this statue, the following sections make Prenda/Plaintiff’s actions applicable to this case because they –
4. Engage in other conduct constituting an offense. (Fraud via “Coopergate”)
5. Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone. (Copyright infringement does have a criminal side to it – 5 year statute of limitation)
6. Expose a secret or an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair the person’s credit or business. (Easy – illegal downloading/sharing a copyright protected porn movie)
7. Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action. (The AZ Federal courts is a public servant and the court action in managing this case is the action)
Note: Sections # 5-7 do not apply if action is lawfully claimed as either (1) Restitution or indemnification for harm done under circumstances to which the accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other official action relates; or (2) Compensation for property that was lawfully obtained or for lawful services. So even if the court decides Plaintiff is allowed to sue Mr. Harris, the issue of who is Alan Cooper, must be addressed. If there is no “real” Alan Cooper, CEO of AF Holdings LLC, then we have fraud on a massive scale – at least hundreds of false statements and mail/wire fraud violations. If this happens, some nice US Attorney is going to see a very easy case to prosecute and get a little fame from. I’m sure many States have similar “Theft by Extortion” laws – this looks like it may be a very good counterclaim charge to make against these Plaintiffs.
Also of note in this reply is the fact that Mr. Harris informed Troll Goodhue he had one “non-negotiable” demand for the scheduled case management meeting on 17 Dec 12. That demand was that the National Counsel for this Plaintiff, Paul Duffy, Prenda Law Inc., be in attendance. Troll Goodhue did not responds to Mr. Harris’ demand to even say Paul Duffy would or wouldn’t attend.
Case Management Report
On 21 Dec 12, Troll Goodhue filed a case management report and order (CMReport_02144(AZ) CMOrder_02144(AZ) Notice_26a_02144(AZ)), in which he reports the “meet and confer” with Mr. Harris didn’t occur on 17 Dec 12 (as agreed upon), because of Mr. Harriss’ declined to attend.
Defendant advised Plaintiff’s counsel that “your case management report is absurd,” and that he would not be attending the scheduled meet and confer, stating in part, “Until the Pending Motions before the Court is (sic) ruled upon our meeting for Monday December 17, 2012 is indefinitely postponed.” Accordingly, Plaintiff files this Case Management Order without the cooperation and participation of Defendant in the preparation of the Case Management Report.
The details in the case management report are pretty standard for a copyright infringement case, containing background information and proposed schedule of events leading up to and including a trial. It is all a bit of a joke, as Plaintiff has no intention of having this case judged on its merits. The best Prenda/Plaintiff can hope for is the judge getting upset with Mr. Harris and threatening to sanction him for not attending the case management conference. Even with the unlikely chance of sanctions, the court will still have to address the following issues –
- Plaintiff’s right to sue in this case (and the other AZ seven)
- Security bond for an out of State Plaintiff
- The apparent multi-jurisdictional mass fraud stemming from “Alan Cooper”
As this case progresses, I’m sure Mr. Harris is going to come up with some new ideas to fight back against the Trolls. Should be fun to watch. Troll Goodhue – Are you having fun yet???
DieTrollDie 🙂 “Some ships are designed to sink … others require our assistance.”