It is getting more and more interesting. Readers of this blog (as well as Arstechnica’s and TechDirt’s communities) are well aware of the “Coopergate” — the ongoing controversy regarding a Minnesota resident, former John Steele’s caretaker Alan Cooper, who, through his counsel, articulated a grave concern that his name might be used as a CEO of two Prenda’s offshore shell corporations, Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings, without his consent and even knowledge. These two Prenda’s “clients” filed more than 250 shakedown lawsuits across the US. I used quotation marks because those “clients” are widely believed to be fictional, Righthaven-style entities, mere façades that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier created for their firm — created with a sole goal of filing lawsuits against alleged file-sharers and then wrestling them into settling, using deception and intensive harassment¹.

Two California attorneys, Nick Ranallo and Morgan Pietz, have been drawing various judges’ attention to this troubling development. Morgan Pietz, in his motion to relate similar cases, asked Prenda’s California counsel, Brett Gibbs, very straight, no-nonsense questions aimed at resolving this controversy:

Is there another Alan Cooper, other than the gentleman in Minnesota who was John Steele’s former caretaker, who is or was the principal of AF Holdings, LLC and/or Ingenuity 13, LLC?; Will plaintiff’s counsel Brett Gibbs produce the original signature to the verified petition, supposedly executed by hand by “Alan Cooper” and notarized, which Mr. Gibbs stated, under penalty of perjury, that he has a copy of in his own possession and control? See In the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:11-mc-JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1, 10/28/11; Will Mr. Gibbs identify his client contact at Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings, given that Mr. Gibbs purported to speak with his “client” at Ingenuity 13 only two weeks ago?

Simple questions, and if there was another Cooper, they would be already answered, and the entire ordeal would be forgotten by today. Instead, Brett Gibbs became hysterical and reacted with a series of tantrums that I covered in detail:

Gibbs went even as far as filing a surprisingly frivolous motion for sanctions. This action raised some brows among attorneys: such a motion, full of baseless farcical allegations was destined to be denied. For example, Gibbs alleged that Morgan Pietz had tried to gain publicity and attract clients by secretly feeding this blog with publicly available documents. Of course, this motion was denied by Judge Wright without a single word of explanation.

On 12/14/2012, tired of Gibb’s games, Morgan Pietz filed an ex parte application for leave to take limited discovery prior to rule 26(f) conference regarding Alan Cooper and to stay subpoena in one of the Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe cases, 2012-cv-04976. He clearly explained the rationale:

[…]very recently, deeply troubling factual allegations have been made which suggest the plaintiff is engaged in a widespread and systemic fraud on the Courts affecting thousands of ISP subscribers. Specifically, very troubling questions have been raised as to whether Prenda Law, Inc., has misappropriated the identity of one Mr. Alan Cooper of Minnesota, holding him out in verified federal court filings as the principal of plaintiff Ingenuity 13, a shell entity organized in St. Kitts and Nevis, without Mr. Cooper’s knowledge or consent. Further, the circumstances seem to suggest that the plaintiff’s lawyers behind this action, Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele, may be the real—but undisclosed—parties in interest in this case. For weeks, undersigned counsel, and others, have sought answers from Prenda Law, Inc. and its clients AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC, to try and put these concerns to rest. None of the answers proffered to date have been at all reassuring; to the extent Prenda has engaged on the issue at all, the only answers provided have been evasive to a degree that is almost comical.

To be honest, I did not put much hope in the success of this motion, yet to our cheerful surprise, it was granted by Judge Otis Wright.

Of course, I expect more tantrums and baseless accusations from the crooks in a futile attempt to avoid the inevitable, but this time I’m nearly sure that the judge means business and won’t allow Prenda to weasel out. It means that the following questions will be answered:

Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no? If the answer to the first interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no? If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no? If the answer to the fifth interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no? If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers. If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at Ingenuity 13, LLC and the dates such position was held. If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at AF Holdings, LLC and the dates such position was held. Eleventh Special Interrogatory: Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of Ingenuity 13, LLC? Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of AF Holdings, LLC? On November 26, 2012, when undersigned counsel emailed Brett Gibbs to ask for a routine extension request, Mr. Gibbs responded by email “I would have to check with our client about that request. Just an FYI, our client usually does not like to grant these types of requests on short notice unless there is a reasonable chance that settlement may occur in the case.” Later, Mr. Gibbs purported to have an answer on his query to the “client” regarding an extension. Who is the client contact at Ingenuity 13, LLC that Mr. Gibbs spoke with on this matter? Note, no details of the communication are being requested, just the name of the client contact. Reference is made to the following civil actions filed by AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC in the Northern District of California: 4:2012-cv-02049-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02393-CRB; 5:2012-cv-02394-LHK; 3:2012-cv-02396-EMC; 3:2012-cv-02404-SC; 4:2012-cv-02411-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02415-CRB; 4:2012-cv-03248-PJH; 3:2012-cv-04218-WHA; 5:2012-cv-04219-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04446-EJD; 5:2012-cv-04447-RMW; 5:2012-cv-04448-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04982-CRB; 3:2012-cv-04216-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04217-RS; 5:2012-cv-04445-LHK; 3:2012-cv-04449-SC; 3:2012-cv-04450-MMC; 3:2012-cv-04976-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04977-WHA; 4:2012-cv-04978-PJH; 5:2012-cv-04979-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04980-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04981-RS. With respect to the copyright assignments attached to the complaints in these actions, as Exhibit B thereto, which all appear to have a similar signature by “Alan Cooper,” please state whether the person who signed these assignments was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread — yes or no? If the answer to the fourteenth interrogatory is no, then state all contact information for the person that did sign these documents, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.

Any attempt to avoid the answers will mean only one thing: a proof of a brazen criminal conduct. The scam artists found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Not the best timing for Prenda, given that in Florida another scandal involving possible document forgery is emerging.

Related

Followup

¹I don’t even touch upon the fact that all these allegations are based on the “impeccable” super-secret infringement detection methods employed by a “forensic” firm 6881 Forensics, which is not only unlicensed, but, to the best of my knowledge, unregistered as a business.