|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
TechDirt Link
Judge Wright Denies John
Steele's Motion, Says Any Problem Is Steele's Own Fault, Directs Him To Legal
Clinic
Another great line from Judge Wright:
Nonetheless, the Prenda parties have missed their July 15, 2013
deadline, which the Court previously extended. Prenda’s characteristic
last-minute scramble once again falls short. Having fallen short, they once
again seek relief. But none will be given.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 10:21 PM EDT |
This is for those of you who aren't following Prenda on the Zombie thread that
just won't die: (The previous one on Popehat, "The sound of One Shoe
Dropping", from May had more than 1000 comments)
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/19/prenda-law-open-thread/
www.dietrolldie.com and www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com (with contributions from
ars technica's Joe Mullin and Techdirt, too) will also help those with a
fascination for train wrecks.
As for yesterday's hearing, "an order is to follow", but Mr Ticen,
counsel for unnamed John Does said, quote:
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.
"End quote"
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
