Prenda Motion To Disqualify Judge Noel (AKA: Any Fraud On The Court Is Moot) – 0:12-cv-01445, AF Holdings LLC v. Doe

I will try to keep this short as my Halloween Weekend is fast approaching.  First off, there is no dark magic or trickery here.  This site (and associated email & Twitter) and my actions are NOT operated, paid for, or directed by any attorney(s).  I’m a former Doe who decided to fight back in a way that would be most effective.  I’m not an attorney, but my previous work as an investigator has given me some great knowledge and experience.

hole1Sometimes I think that the Prenda Law crew cannot dig their hole any deeper.  Well I was wrong and on 24 Oct 13, Paul Hansmeier decided to throw a “Hail Mary” of a motion into case 0:12-cv-01445, AF Holdings LLC v. Doe.   Motion_DisqJudge_01445(MN)    Docket     The motion is to remove magistrate judge Franklin Noel from this case, as they believe he is not impartial.  “Danger Danger Danger!!!”  We have seen how well this went for Prenda after they tried to have Judge Otis Wright removed.

MemoSupp_DisqJudge_01445(MN)   Declar_PHans_01445(MN)   Declar_PHans_EXA_01445(MN)   Declar_PHans_EXB_01445(MN)

The memorandum in support of motion is the main document of interest here.  It isn’t the best organized memorandum, so I will break it down.  Hansmeier claim the judge is not impartial, because he took part in a 23 Oct 13, lunch-time presentation for the Student Bar Association of the University of Minnesota Law School.  As these documents were filed immediately the day after the presentation, I expect Prenda was well aware of presentation (based off the 11 & 14 Oct 13 emails – Exhibits A & B) and drafted up the motion minus the results of the 23 Oct 13, presentation.  As they knew what the judge was going to talk about – Copyright Trolls and Prenda – they could have asked the court to not make the presentation.  Of course they didn’t do this; they were hoping to use it against the judge.  As Prenda is “securing a transcript of the audio recording,” I assume they had someone record it.  Why not release/submit the audio recording and who took it???  Anyone at the UOM has access to the attendance list for the presentation???  I bet it would be interesting.  Also note that Hansmeier states he is going to try to have the transcript filed under seal (bottom of page 4).

Hansmeier claims that the 11 & 14 Oct 13, emails and the presentation comments made by the judge clearly slow he is not impartial and has violated the code of conduct for US judges.  I’m not knowledge able in this realm, so I will defer to others and do some research.

What is really a laugh in the memorandum are the various statements trying to support their view.

  • Claims the judge said John Steele was a frequent topic of conversation “on blogs created by infringer.” Did the “judge” say I was an infringer OR is that Prenda misquoting the judge??? (Top of page 5, section C.)
  • Claims that many of the Judges’ comments echoed those found on blogs created by individuals who were caught infringing.  (Bottom of page 7)   Hansmeier, are you saying myself (DieTrollDie) and Fight Copyright Trolls are infringers??? You don’t mention us by name or our sites???
  • Claims the above mentioned blogs (assume at least & are “…alleged to be operated by attorney Paul Godfread,…”  (Footnote 3, bottom of page 7)   Wait, you just said the blogs were created by “pirates”??? Is it pirates or Godfread???
  • Claims that since the judge has read these blogs, he is taking part in off-the-record communications with Godfread.  Next maybe you can claim that Elvis speaks to you in dreams.  (Footnote 3 at the bottom of pages 7-8)
  • Claims that the judge disclosed information in sealed communications concerning settlement amounts sought by the Plaintiffs in this types of cases – settlement letters.
  • Footnote 7 (page 11) is interesting as it is an admission that for various cases where Prenda Law was NOT counsel of record, the settlements paid by Does went into Plaintiff’s trust account at Prenda Law.  You mean they went into the “Prenda Law Inc., Trust Account.” don’t you?  
  • As the copyright of the movie in question was presented for the “sole” purpose of demonstrating property transfer, and no “party” disputes the validity of it, “any fraud on the court is moot.”  (Bottom of page 12)     Did he really state that???  Yes.  Wow.  🙂
  • Agrees with the judge that this case has gained some notoriety. Also claims that the case has been featured on several pirate websites.  (page 13)   If you are talking about me, I’m not a pirate you gutless turd!  I do like Rum, swords, and submarines, but that is it.

There are many other interesting bit in the memorandum, but I need to wrap this up.  I will leave you with a quote from a good book.

“Courage is the complement of fear. A man who is fearless cannot be courageous [He is also a fool.].”   ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

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.

2 Responses to Prenda Motion To Disqualify Judge Noel (AKA: Any Fraud On The Court Is Moot) – 0:12-cv-01445, AF Holdings LLC v. Doe

  1. DonaldB says:

    You pointed out that the settlement payments were written out to Prenda itself. The unstated detail is that they went into a general operating account. They should have gone into a dedicated trust account for the client. Or at the very least, a segregated trust account used only for client funds.

    We don’t know yet what claim Prenda is going to make regarding Gibbs release of their 2012 financial transactions. They have few options. Perhaps claiming that they are entirely fake. But that would have been done within days, and is trivially proven. Certainly they will claim the records were stolen or ‘hacked’.but that’s unlikely to succeed when the issue is illegal or unethical behavior. They can bluff and claim the records show no wrongdoing. Or they can explain the transactions as legitimate despite first appearances.

    The accounts are clearly general accounts, paying for everything from newspapers to payroll. Prenda could presumably claim that client funds were recorded in a separate ledger, even if they were handled casually. But a naked claim wouldn’t have much credibility, they would have to present a ledger. And that would just move them to somewhere between negligence and sloppy accounting.

  2. Pingback: The Sinking of the S.S. Prenda – AKA: Any Fraud On The Court Is NOT Moot, 0:12-cv-01445 (MN) | 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