Prenda Law / AF Holdings LLC OSC Hearing, 11:15AM, AZ District Court (2:12-cv-02144)

In a few hours, the scheduled Show Cause hearing should be starting (11:15AM AZ time – 19 Jul 13). Attorney Stephen Goodhue (Prenda/AF Holdings LLC) is going to be asked some very tough questions by Judge Snow.

OSC_Questions1The tough part for Goodhue is going to be how to avoid sanctions based on what the Prenda Law crew is telling him (actually it is what they are NOT telling him).  I’m sure Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, and John Steele are feeding him the same type of BS that they gave to Brett Gibbs in CA.  Judge Snow likely already knows this and just seeing if Prenda will slip the rope around their neck.  Goodhue knows this also, but he has yet to try to remove himself from the mess that is bound hurt him.  Maybe the CEO of AF Holdings LLC (AKA: Mark Lutz) will show up to save the day.  That or get arrested for having an outstanding warrant.

Attorney Goodhue – Please take notice of how Prenda treated Brett Gibbs and that you are in the same boat.  The view from under the bus isn’t a pretty one.  Prenda would like nothing better for you to take the hit and act as the their shield.  It is time to remove yourself from this mess and do the right thing.

DieTrollDie 🙂

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 -
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Prenda Law / AF Holdings LLC OSC Hearing, 11:15AM, AZ District Court (2:12-cv-02144)

  1. IPP German Spy says:

    I can hear the rats scurrying about preparing to abandon the pirate ship Prenda.

  2. Pingback: Politics & P2P | LIVEBLOG Prenda in Arizona – Who Will Go Arpaio?

  3. Inquiring Minds Want to Know says:

    Goodhue can’t be in the same boat as Gibbs since he is already under the bus. You can’t mix your metaphors like that unless you want Goodhue to get thrown under the boat, in which case “keelhaul” is the choice of term. Unless you want to throw him overboard and run over him with the propellers several times.

    All good outcomes.

  4. DieTrollDie says:

    Arstechnica Article “Another judge has “serious question” about Prenda porn trolls” – Talking signatures, spoliation—and possibly sanctions—in an SF Prenda case.

  5. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    Did anyone actually attend the hearing who can tell us what happened?

  6. Anon.E.Mous says:

    I cant wait to see what went on in his hearing today… It should be interesting to see what Troll Goodhue will have to answer Judge Snow with since all those questions are basically on the Prenda gang. And if this goes anything like Hansmeier’s deposition or the Prenda gang all taking the 5th and refusing to answer, it ought to be some laughs for all of us, but they are in the deep end of the pool in this one.

    Have to love Mr Harris, the man may not get much for tact points but he makes up for it in tenacity

  7. John says:

    Can we discuss in further the document from here

    That document seems extremely broad. Is it typical for MM cases? Or unique to that specific case? What are the arguments/motions against it?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      This document is important and it shows how a Plaintiff with deep pockets can bully a Doe to settle or at least pressure them to “walk-away” from a case (pay their own fees/costs) and let MM move on to the next Doe. The scope of the search is extremely broad and there is no provisions to try an safe-guard any of the Doe’s personal information on the system. As written, Plaintiff has free reign to the content of the digital devices and no limitation on searches or use of information. This is a point where a Doe’s attorney would seek to limit the scope to the relevant information to show that the Doe was the infringer – Movies(s), BT software, torrent files, OS reloads, etc. Such a search is extremely simple to conduct with modern forensic tools (EnCase, FTK, etc.). Now Plaintiff will likely claim that a Doe destroyed evidence, as it has been so long – but the time-length to reach this point is due to the Plaintiff dragging it out in hopes of a settlement.

      For most MM cases, it never reaches this point. For this particular case, it was used to try to scare the Doe to walk away because the costs would add up. Even with an innocent party, the costs/fees are not 100% guaranteed.

      DTD 🙂

  8. I was fifteen minutes late to the hearing, I felt like a total idiot. However my presence was neither required nor welcome IMO. By the time I got there the entire thing was settled, ya all those issues in fifteen minutes. I was able to try and address the civility issue, that didn’t turn out to good, basically came down to Goodhue can call me a pirate, but I better not call him a troll. My understanding of what the outcome of the hearing is, but don’t quote me, cause it is subject to change at any time without warning, so until the order is filed I don’t believe anything I heard. That having been said. Judge snow quashed the subpoenas, dismissing Mr. Ticen’s clients, a small victory considering Prenda has all the personal information harvested from those subpoenas. Judge Snow severed all the Does in the DC Case (can he do that?) taking statutory damages off the table, leaving thirty nine ninety nine ($39.99) in total damages if Plaintiff can prove it. Plus attorney fees of coarse! Judge Snow did not consider my concern for the validity of Alan Cooper’s signature on the assignment like he said he would. Those are the highlights of the events of the hearing, at least the part that I participated in. IMO the best thing for my defence that came from this hearing is the document that Goodhue filed right before coming to court and he doesn’t even know it yet. It contains something I’ve been trying to get out of him for months, see if you can spot it. Here is a link to the doc: I will be filing a motion based on this new evidence shortly.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks. Here is the Doc in case you have problems with Scrib. AF Holdings LLC Memo.

      Here are some comments from the Prenda Law Open Thread at Popehat (

      Paul Ticen • Jul 20, 2013 @2:52 pm

      Since some are wondering what happened at the Arizona OSC hearing yesterday, I’ll give a quick run down. I represented individuals targeted by a subpoena issued earlier this year who were Mr. Harris purported co-conspirators. The Court quashed the subpoena. And the Court gutted Plaintiff’s statutory damage claim, getting Goodhue to ultimately concede that AF Holding’s claim is limited to actual damages (and therefore the case is effectively over). There were no Rule 11 or other sanctions handed down, as it was clear Judge Snow didn’t want to go down that path.

      Mark Lutz appeared, and while I was reading or writing something down, I believe Lutz stated (not under oath) during the hearing that the owner of AF Holdings is the “AF Trust.” Judge Snow repeated the name “AF Trust,” and I wrote that down. But I’ll need to see the transcript for the precise question, answer and context to be absolutely certain. If so, it appears this contradicts a declaration (based on a tech dirt post) that Lutz submitted in the ND Cal that he signed a filed document on behalf of the owner, which was the “Salt Marsh Trust.” He also submitted a declaration in this case that it was the “Salt Marsh trust.” It’s possible that Judge Snow may have said AF Trust by mistake.

      The hearing was short on fireworks but accomplished my client’s objectives and effectively ended the case and BitTorrent litigation in AZ.


      Paul Ticen • Jul 21, 2013 @8:04 am

      @ TAC – None. If they can’t prove actual damages to a reasonable certainty or Harris’ ill-gotten profits.

      The reason why statutory damages were gutted is a copyright holder is entitled to a single stat damage award against one or more persons who are jointly and severally liable for infringement of a particular work, regardless of the number of infringements. Harris was among 1,100 DOES in a DC action where his info was subpoenaed. AF Holdings sued Harris for the same identical infringement in the Arizona case. Judge Snow’s point was what authority allows a copyright holder to sue a huge group of potential defendants, essentially allege j&s, request stat damages, collect settlements and then start individual lawsuits against those individuals who didn’t settle and claim stat damages again.


      I will review and comment on Prenda’s Memo, but it looks to be the same garbage claims and confused statements we have come to expect.

      DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      The OSC hearing in Arizona is over and while we wait for the full order from Judge Snow, I wanted to go over the Memo Prenda/AF Holdings LLC submitted on the same day.

      I thought it was a little odd for the Memo to be submitted, but it actually makes sense in a Prenda-ish kind of way. Prenda knows their cases are done in AZ and is trying to skate around any possible sanctions and additional fall-out damage that may add to their troubles. They still have a small number of cases that they haven’t been able to drop. Goodhue jumped into bed with these snakes (my opinion again) and seriously regrets the choice. He likely wants nothing more than to close out this case and move on. He has an obligation to a client and cannot just scream to the world that he is sorry for supporting such low-life ^%$##@!!! (More Opinion)

      The Prenda Law crew knows that Goodhue feels this way, but they have him locked in. So to make sure he doesn’t make any” mistakes” in maintaining the crazy ever-evolving story of events, they put together this memo. The memo was also probably required because they planned to have Mark Lutz show up and he needs to keep his story straight for the court. I wouldn’t doubt it if John Steele was hiding out in the parking area waiting for Lutz to call him.

      The Memo

      Prenda starts off by explaining what a “swarm” is, as well as their belief that

      In Plaintiff’s view, a swarm is a group of users who trade a file with a given hash tag. Plaintiff does not support the use of an arbitrary time window to distinguish a swarm.

      So Prenda thinks the Hash Tag is the sole determining factor for a swarm, as long as they can make the determination of the number of Does (time frame & location) to include in the swarm. Prenda tells the court that the 71 AZ Cox Communication customers they were seeking subscriber information were part of the same swarm, but that NO overlap occur between them and Mr. Harris – or the other 1139 Does from the DC case.

      So based ONLY on the hash number, they motioned the court for subscriber information using Mr. Harris’ case and a claim that the 71 Does were joint-tortfeasors with Mr. Harris??? Wait a minute – they just said there was NO overlap between the 71 Does and Mr. Harris. How does Prenda get away with telling the court that there previous motion was a bold lie? In my opinion, this just reinforces to Prenda (and potentially others) that they can get away gross misconduct.

      Prenda goes on to tell that court that the Copyright Act does not preclude them from getting multiple statutory damage awards from groups of people they have claimed are joint and severally liable. UNBELIEVABLE. It is actually funny to read their rationalization, as they do a good job of showing why they are wrong. They even go and cite a 9th Circuit case (2011) in which goes against their position. Not that the Copyright Act was confusing on that aspect in the first place.

      This reasoning is consistent with Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Akanoc Solutions, 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011), in which the Ninth Circuit stated that a plaintiff may receive a single statutory award for all infringements of any one copyrighted work from either (1) any one defendant, where that defendant is separately liable or (2) multiple defendants, where those defendants are jointly and severally liable. Id. at 946 (My emphasis added).

      Now since Prenda already claimed in the DC case that all the defendants were jointly and severally liable, they are prevented from changing their claim. As they have also made the claim that the 71 Cox Communication customers are part of the same swarm, then they are also jointly and severally liable. The demented logic that comes out of these fools is always a surprise to me.

      Prenda goes on to address the Alan Cooper issue and states that he has never had a financial interest in AF Holdings LLC. I assume they are talking about the real Alan Cooper who lives in MN. They claim he simply acted as a shield to maintain the privacy of Mr. Lutz (Plaintiff’s manager and the seeds of future offspring and trust beneficiary).

      I truly wish Judge Snow would have gutted Prenda, but he has killed on these types of mass-Doe cases in AZ. Single Doe cases may arise, but as the hash number is the central point of these cases, it raises the question (at least in AZ) of who else had the same hash number and has Plaintiff filed cases against them for statutory damages??? The more I think about this, the more I think it may has some long-range effects on the single doe cases – Watch out Malibu Media/Lipscomb.

      Take a read and tell me what you think.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

    • Scytale says:

      Judge Chen follows on from Judge Wright lays out the problems with Prenda’s cases …

      … settles for the Defendant and awards fees & expenses. Well worth reading in detail.

  9. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is the TechDirt post –

    The claim against Navasca “was not based on an adequate factual investigation.” Chen points out how ridiculous it is that Prenda claimed Navasca was the likely culprit because he worked in tech support, noting “one does not need to be tech savvy in order to download information from a computer.”

    “the Court grants Mr. Navasca’s motion for fees and costs and awards fees in the amount of $19,420.38 and costs in the amount of $3,111.55. The total award is $22,531.93.”

    DTD 🙂

  10. Pingback: Motion For Attorney Fees ($16K) Against AF Holdings/Prenda, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) – HARRIS | DieTrollDie

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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