Criminal Contempt? (John Steele/Prenda Law) & Cobbler NV Cuts & Runs

11 August 2016 Update – Cobbler Nevada Case (3:15-cv-00866(OR)): On 3 Aug 16, Troll Crowell filed two document (and exhibits) in response to the Defendant’s Motion for attorney fees and costs (link below).   Docket_11Aug16_00866(OR)   Doc48_TrollResponse_FeesCosts_00866(OR)   Doc49_Decl_Resp_FeesCosts_00866(OR)   Doc49_Decl_EX1_00866(OR)   Doc49_Decl_EX2_00866(OR)

As I said he would, Troll Crowell went and filed some garbage. Here is the bottom line of what Troll/Plaintiff claims.

Defendant is NOT the prevailing party – funny… According to the judge, HE is most certainly the prevailing party on the “Indirect” copyright infringement claim – dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.  As to the “Direct” infringement claims, Troll/Plaintiff was given a second chance to file an amended complaint that adequately allegedy the Defendant was responsible – but FAILED to do so.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days, why its Second Amended Complaint 41 should not be dismissed for failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order of Dismissal 39 and the Court’s Findings and Recommendation 35 , or for failure to identify the Doe defendant in a timely manner, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Ordered on 7/13/2016 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (gw) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

It is a funny read. I also find the Declaration from Troll Crowell (and Exhibits) to be on equal level – crap.  Troll Crowell goes onto claim (and show deposition excerpts) that the Defendant knew about the infringement activity and didn’t do enough to stop it at the location. ??????  The judge already dismissed the INDIRECT claim WITH PREJUDICE. That argument and claimed obligation to Plaintiff already FAILED. Next.

He then goes on to claim that in November and December 2015, Troll/Plaintiff asked the Defendant to sign a “Complaint and Stipulated Consent Judgment that fully resolves this matter without any assessment of costs, fees or damages.” Troll Crowell claims that the Defendant did not confer with Troll/Plaintiff prior to filing its motion – but admits that there were emails and phone messages dealing with this issue.  Nice try – I’m sure the judge is going to buy that! Note: In Document #48, the Troll claims he will attached the “Complaint and Stipulated Consent Judgment,” but he does NOT (Doc # 48, bottom of page 3). The only thing he attached was the email (Exhibit 2). I would love to see what they tried to get the Defendant to sign.

Last laugh – Here is an example of how Troll greed overpowers common sense – Troll Crowell states that they tried to get the Defendant to sign the Stipulated Consent Judgement in Nov & Dec 2015. Why offer such a “walk-away” deal???  Because at this stage they already knew they would have a hard time making either infringement claim (Direct or Indirect) stick. This was even after they amended the complaint (naming the Defendant) on 4 Nov 2015.  Their greed prevented them from simply voluntarily dismissing the case and avoiding the potential award of attorney fees/costs. They were probably worried the Defendant would file an answer and not simply a motion to dismiss. I assume the Defense will respond and hopefully soon the court will award fees/costs.

DTD 🙂

——————————

Prenda_Idiots1Are You an Idiot And/Or a Criminal???

The crazy world of Prenda Law (AKA: John Steele & Paul Hansmeier) doesn’t seem to stop. Even when given advice from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “stop digging” (First Rule of Holes), they kept going.

On 19 July 2016, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on the Steele and Hansmeier’s appeal on the contempt sanctions imposed on them (3:12‐cv‐889‐DRH‐SCW(SDIL) – Lightspeed Media v, Anthony Smith). I will not go too far into this, but ruling is worth a read IMO.   49-Lightspeed-Opinion_PrendaLaw_2016   Techdirt Article

Bottom line: The appeals court ruled that since Hansmeier is in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, he CANNOT appeal the sanctions (has NO standing) – PERIOD – Appeal Denied. The sanction award against Steele was vacated and returned to the District court for corrective action because the contempt sanctions were determined to be CRIMINAL in nature (v. Civil).  Steel needed to be afforded his rights IAW the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. 

This is enough to show that we must vacate the existing contempt order and remand for further proceedings. We make no comment on what type of contempt Smith may wish to seek, whether the court might re‐consider the possibility of civil contempt, or whether criminal contempt could be justified once the proper procedures are followed. We are confident that the district court will take a fresh look at these questions in light of this opinion.  {page 15, Doc # 49, 15-2440(7th)]

So back to the District court we go. I’m sure the District court will handle this. I would love to see John Steele afforded his 5th Amendment protections. Take the 5th John Steele. Your direct testimony is NOT required to ensure contempt sanctions are levied. Appropriate due-process will be afforded and the results will not be to your liking.  John Steele and Paul Hansmeier are turds (my opinion) and the courts are not too fond of the stench they have made.

Cobbler Nevada – Attempts To Cut & Run – Attorney Fees & Costs Likely

JustStupid1In my previous article (Cobbler NV LLC), I wrote about how Plaintiff/Troll was in hot water after the court dismissed the complaint (Both WITH & WITHOUT Prejudice) for Direct and Indirect Copyright Infringement against a single Defendant (3:15-cv-00866(OR)). The court did allow Troll Crowell to refile an amended complaint NLT 18 July 2016.

On 5 July 2016, Troll Crowell did file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) – a sad joke of one – IMO.  This “Joke” did not go over well with the court.

On 13 July 2016, the court issued a “Show Cause” order (NLT 3 Aug 2016) to Plaintiff – requiring the Troll to explain why its SAC should not be dismissed for failure to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the court when dismissed on 8 June 2016.

Now it appears that Troll Crowell is maybe slightly smarter that John Steel and Paul Hansmeier when it comes to holes – stop digging. So on 19 July 2016, Troll/Plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice.  Doc45_Vol_Dismissed_00866(OR)

That same day (19 July), Defense Attorney David Madden filed a motion for attorney fees and costs.   Doc47_Mot_AttorneyFeesCosts_00866(OR)   By the length of the document, it appears Attorney Madden had this motion ready to file as soon as the dismissal occurred.

The motion is well worth the read, as it spells out clearly what BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolling is; the history of this particular case; that this Defendant is the PREVAILING PARTY for the Direct and Indirect copyright Infringement claims; and that he should be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs due to the following factors.

  • Frivolous Claims – “Plaintiff brought two claims against Defendant GONZALES: one was legally inadequate, and the other was re-asserted against an unknown party who remained unknown despite fourteen months of litigation and considerable inconvenience, anxiety and expense borne by Defendant (and now, even that claim has been dropped).”
  • Claims Were Overaggressive And Improper – “… Plaintiff has pressed futile claims (both the legally-insufficient indirect-infringement claim, and the direct-infringement claim unsupported by any relevant factual allegations). Here, and in its hundreds of other cases, even if Plaintiff is not intending to capitalize on the wide and unpredictable liability a target faces and the substantial attorney fees its counsel are able to rack up, it has undeniably maneuvered itself into a position where those statutory damages and fees incentivize the overreaching settlements that reward and encourage this litigation strategy.”
  • Objectively Unreasonable – “One of Plaintiff’s claims was dismissed with prejudice on Defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion, and the other was dismissed sua sponte by the Court.”
  • Compensation & Deterrence – “As discussed earlier, Plaintiff COBBLER NEVADA LLC has no reasonable infringement claim against Defendant GONZALES, and it never should have brought suit against him in the first instance. But now, having done so, Plaintiff should be charged for the full amount of cost and expense it has forced Defendant to bear.”  AND “…failing to award fees to the prevailing defendant here will encourage the filing of even more “thin” cases – equivocal allegations that threaten everyone but fail to clearly implicate anyone, and allegations that (even if true) fail to create liability – the cases quite literally pay for themselves, if Plaintiff risks no downside by filing them.”

I do expect Troll Crowell to file some sort of garbage in opposition to the motion for fees and costs. I think Troll/Plaintiff is going to have a hard time convincing the court not to awards fees and costs. Taking 14 months to run a single Doe/Defendant case is a joke – Telling the court that their intentions in pursuing this case were purely honorable is insulting. Hopefully the court will send a message to the idiot Plaintiffs, Troll Attorneys, and the German BT Monitoring Apparatus. We will see.

DieTrollDie 🙂   “Consider the black widow spider. It’s a timid little beastie, useful and, for my taste, the prettiest of the arachnids, with its shiny, patent-leather finish and its red hourglass trademark. But the poor thing has the fatal misfortune of possessing enormously too much power for its size. So everybody kills it on sight.”  {Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein}   

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 Carl Crowell, Cobbler NV LLC, john steele, paul hansmeier and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Criminal Contempt? (John Steele/Prenda Law) & Cobbler NV Cuts & Runs

  1. Quiet Lurcker says:

    Re your 11 Aug. update, I’d say it’s sad, not funny.

    What’s that old adage? If the laws against you pound the facts. If the facts are against you pound the law. And if both are against you pound the table?

    He’s pounding the table, seems like.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Agreed. I actually think he should pound sand. 😉

      DTD 🙂

      • Quiet Lurcker says:

        True, that. Would be even better if he chose one of those spiffy orange jumpsuits, or the black and white striped leisure suit (the one with the wide, horizontal stripes) as appropriate work wear. You know the ones I mean. The ones that look best with the matching silver-colored bracelets.

  2. Norahc says:

    The problem with pounding the table is that eventually someone is going to come along and pound you into the table.

    And it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of trolls.

  3. Pingback: OR Court – BT Copyright Troll Tactics Overly Aggressive – Awards Defendant $17K In Fees (3:15-cv-00866) | 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