Judge Snow Asks Some Hard Questions (Order To Show Cause) – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

The Arizona AF Holdings/Prenda Law case, 2:12-cv-02144 (Harris), has shifted into high gear and Prenda Law/Troll Goodhue is about to be run over and dragged through a couple of miles of broken glass.    Archive Docket   Here is the recent activity.

Doc_69_Order_02144(AZ)   Doc_70_NPReply_02144(AZ)   Doc_71_OSC_02144(AZ)

The Court Rules on Various Issues

In document 69, Judge Snow rules on various pending motions.  Notably for me, he has stricken my Declaration/Torpedo (ECF Doc 41).  I accept this ruling and thank the court for at least hearing what I had to say.  I believe the removal of it will also prevent Prenda Law from even making any half-a$$ claims that the declaration had something to do with the any future ruling and/or sanctions.  The judge is smart enough to see what is really going on and will use his own sound judgment on all the evidence.  Saying that, I was happy to see in Doc 71, that the court seemed to also have issues/concerns with some things I brought up in my declaration.  🙂   The court also cautioned Mr. Harris that he had better behave and play nicely concerning his filings or he could be the recipient of a default judgment.  Sound Advice.  Here is some other sound advice – Mr. Harris, please comply with the court and temper your filings/actions.  Prenda Law/Troll Goodhue is now akin to a rodent cornered by a predator.  They will lash out and try to get you to do something rash.  Just smile and let this take its natural course.  I will use a Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan quote: “Ah, Kirk, my old friend. Do you know of the old Klingon proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold? It is very cold in space.”  I would say it is very cold in AZ right now.

Non-Party response to Plaintiff’s Reply (Ticen Torpedo)

In document 70, Attorney Ticen responds to Plaintiff’s reply to the court’s show cause order (Doc # 51), 17 May 13.  This is a power house response that blows away Plaintiff’s reply and casts serious doubt about its credibility, as well as what is the true motivation.  It was signed by Ticen on 4 Jun 13, but not placed on the docket until yesterday (11 Jun 13) – the same day as the following order from the court.

Judge Snow Order (AKA: ‘The Writing is on the Wall’)

BFStu1In Document 71, the court gets down to business and it isn’t pretty for Prenda Law team and Stephen Goodhue.  The court continued the show cause hearing until 21 Jun 13, at 2:00PM, due to ‘medical’ issues Troll Goodhue experienced in Denver, CO, the day before the initial hearing.  As the court granted this continuance, it decided that Plaintiff/Prenda would have to answer the following additional questions.

  • Identify the persons who signed the names “Raymond Rogers” and “Alan Cooper.”
  • Identify All personnel who hold any interest in Plaintiff (AF Holdings).
  • If the signatures (Rogers and Cooper) on the copyright assignment by are not valid, why Plaintiff AND Counsel (Goodhue) should not be sanctioned.
  • Plaintiff will identify all other suits it has filed in any worldwide jurisdiction involving the participants in the same BitTorrent swarm that is the focus of this lawsuit.
  • How many defendants and/or users has Plaintiff settled in those other suits, including the D.D.C. case, based on the same BitTorrent swarm, and what were the nature and amounts of those settlements?
  • For previously issued subpoenas for the same BitTorrent swarm, How many users on that list of IP addresses has Plaintiff previously sued as a Doe Defendant or otherwise?  With how many of those users, if any, has Plaintiff engaged in settlement discussions in relation to this lawsuit, and what are the nature and amounts of those settlements?
  • Plaintiff is ordered to identify the two assignment agreements it claims (Doc. 56 at 7.) Alan Cooper took part in during 2011, as well as the circumstances surrounding Alan Cooper’s signature on those assignments.  Plaintiff was further ordered to disclose if either of the two assignment agreements was the one attached to the Complaint in this case.
  • Plaintiff will disclose what authority Alan Cooper has or had as a corporate representative of AF Holdings and the financial interest that he has or had, if any, in AF Holdings and/or its dealings.  They are also ordered to provide any documents that demonstrate any interest held in AF Holdings by Alan Cooper prior to the date of his execution of the assignment at issue here.
  • Plaintiff will identify the representative(s) at AF Holdings from whom Plaintiff’s counsel is receiving direction as to this litigation and the nature of their involvement.
  • Based on inconsistent documentation, Troll Goodhue was ordered to provide the court (under seal) the following additional information – (a) the medical condition for which he sought treatment; (b) all documentation concerning any visits he made to medical professionals on June 6, 2013; (c) identify who cautioned Plaintiff against traveling until being evaluated by a specialist; and (d) all documentation concerning any visits he subsequently made to a specialist as a result of the medical condition for which he sought treatment on June 6, 2013.

Additional Direction by the Court

The court informed Plaintiff that concerning its discovery request for ISP subscriber information on Mr. Harris’ “co-conspirators” (71 Arizona Cox Communication customers – See Doc. 39 at 1), the Court requires Plaintiff to provide a notice (attached to the OSC), describing this case and the subscribers’ rights, to be provided to the ISP subscribers along with a copy of the Complaint.  If Plaintiff objects to the issuance of the Notice to subscribers or any language therein, it may bring such objections at the hearing to the Court’s attention.

“Luke, you switched off your targeting computer.  What’s wrong?”

It appears Judge Snow has been very busy and is none too happy with all the funny business taking place in his court.  As I write this article, Prenda Law/Troll Goodhue has Nine days to answer all these questions (or at least completely make them up).  Here is a great suggestion – Why don’t you file a motion to have Judge Snow removed from this case (sarcasm).  I wonder if Judge Snow is a fan of Star Trek.  Better yet, how about this one from Star Wars, “Evacuate in our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.”

Evac1DieTrollDie 🙂

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Paul Duffy, Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Judge Snow Asks Some Hard Questions (Order To Show Cause) – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

  1. sharp as a marble says:

    “How many defendants and/or users has Plaintiff settled in those other suits, including the D.D.C. case, based on the same BitTorrent swarm, and what were the nature and amounts of those settlements?”

    THIS, omg i want to see the answer to this!!! greatest judge ever!!!……sadly they will not answer as they will claim the records were stolen by alan cooper when he broke into their office using a chainsaw and then sold all their records to paper recyclers so that he could get some quick cash for his drug/gambling/whatever bad habit they decide to attribute to him…

    seriously though i bet they use some equally retarded excuse why they cannot produce this info.

  2. WDS says:

    I love the courts Notice to subscribers. It is highlights all the rights they have in terms almost anyone can understand. It also points out that the case against them is far from established.

  3. STGEORGE says:

    i can’t believe we got this far in this case and nobody has mentioned that the subscriber list requested of COX communications had dates associated with the IP addresses that were AFTER this lawsuit was filed. So they filed a lawsuit and waited for more IPs to add to it after it was filed. This has to be a sanctionable action.

  4. STGEORGE says:

    Ah ha! “To the extent that Plaintiff previously sought and received such discovery in the action in the other district, why should the Court re-authorize it here?”

    LOL. If Troll Goodhue were to tell the TRUTH under oath about this question I’d die. “because we’ve added more people to the list who our software found much much later, and we wanted their information so we could scare them into settling with our in-terrorem tactics.”

  5. Dot Eht says:

    “Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?”
    Classic DTD!!!

  6. Pingback: Case Actions Before OSC Hearing on 21 Jun 13 – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) | DieTrollDie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s