After years of fine-tuning a business model built around copyright lawsuits over pornographic movies, prolific anti-piracy lawyer John Steele is now on the receiving end of a devastating sanctions order by a federal judge in Los Angeles, who has recommended a criminal investigation of Steele and his colleagues. For "copyright trolling" critics ranging from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to anonymous anti-troll blogs, this week's order has been sweet vindication—and it elevated the Prenda Law situation to the attention of the national press. But all Steele sees is injustice.

Several copyright trolling operations are now suing thousands around the nation and, against his will, Steele has become the poster boy for their cause. In the face of increasingly serious charges, Steele has largely maintained his silence, but he unexpectedly responded to Ars this week. We had a wide-ranging, 90-minute discussion about Steele's reaction to the order—which he vows to appeal—and the true nature of his business.

A question of dignity

Ars: What was your reaction to yesterday's order by US District Judge Otis Wright?

John Steele: I mean, it starts out with a reference to Star Trek. Here's a general rule of thumb: any time there's more references to Star Trek than to case law, I think that's a bad sign. I counted over 30 references to Star Trek, myself. I just think this is a serious matter.

He talks about "battle-stations"? That tells you something about where this judge is coming from. In the same sentence he talks about attorneys having "moral turpitude," he uses Star Trek terms to describe it? It's really beneath the dignity of the court.

As for the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few [a Star Trek quote at the top of Judge Wright's order]—that's not [how the legal system works]. If the needs of the few didn't matter, black people wouldn't vote in most Southern states.

The deposition that [former partner] Paul Hansmeier gave wasn't even certified. It shouldn't have even been allowed to be used. There are hundreds of problems with this order in my view.

Many people involved in this [Prenda] litigation probably think along the lines of winning in court, and less along the lines of PR on the Internet. I'll be the first to admit: we have definitely lost the PR battle. But very few people can argue that these [sanctions] are allowed, legally. The overwhelming majority of courts have found in our favor in hearings. The only cases that stand out are Judge Wright.

These same allegations have been made by [defense attorney] Mr. [Morgan] Pietz in other cases. I—and others involved—have been in front of hundreds of judges. This is the first judge that has ever sanctioned anybody involved with Steele Hansmeier, Prenda Law, or whatever.

Ars: Could you react specifically to the statements in the order that your strategy was to intimidate people, using these accusations about pornography, into paying settlements?

“This judge is completely biased against our type of litigation. Anyone who's researched this judge knows it.”

Steele: I understand there are people with partisan interests here, especially people who read your site. A typical order, especially one involving sanctions, points to evidence and proof as to what the sanctions are [about]. We think a lot of the assumptions made are inaccurate and not based on any evidence. The hearing involving me and some other people [in April] was 12 minutes long and no one testified. It's my understanding that's the only basis the court can use to enter sanctions.

This judge used things he heard in other matters, or maybe read on the Internet, or heard from attorney Pietz.

Ars: Judge Wright made clear that the April hearing was your chance to explain your side of the story. It was your choice not to do that.

Steele: It's not our job to—there was no evidence against us! I think everyone, even the people that dislike anti-piracy litigation, would agree that I don't have to answer questions if I don't want to. That's my right. The fact that people take the Fifth Amendment, against compelled testimony, is not allowed to be a negative inference.

I have no involvement in this case. I've never made a misrepresentation [to the court], either me or Paul Hansmeier.

This judge is completely biased against our type of litigation. Anyone who's researched this judge knows it. There have been some very harsh rulings by this judge against intellectual property plaintiffs. I think there were some errors made, and that's why we have appellate courts.

I think the judge knows we're going to appeal. He wrote that the sanctions were designed to cost just less than [an effective appeal]. Look, you may hate me and the litigation that's gone on in the past, but most people have to be a little nervous when a judge puts out a number and says that.

“They try to change the narrative”

Ars: You're saying you have no involvement in this case. You have no involvement with these shell companies that have been suing people, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13?

Steele: Not until I received an order to show cause. I've spoken to some of the other people [involved], and they're in a similar situation. I didn't know about this until February of this year. Until March I hadn't read a single pleading in this case. I, quite frankly, had never been involved in any case in California.

If there was evidence I was involved and [Prenda Law lawyer] Paul Duffy was involved in more than just the somewhat supervisory role of Brett Gibbs, then that evidence would have come out.

Ars: Brett Gibbs testified at the March hearing that you and Hansmeier were "senior partners" at Prenda Law. He says you were supervising. Were you?

Steele: No. Absolutely not. Where's the evidence that we supervised Brett Gibbs? Where are the e-mails?

Ars: Gibbs testified that you were in control of these entities. You ran them. You initiated cases, you settled cases.

“Nobody I'm aware of, including myself, has ever forged Alan Cooper's signature. That is a pretty outrageous claim.”

Steele: Where are the documents showing that I own any of these entities? I've never even heard of a couple of them.

Ars: So when people settle a case with Ingenuity 13 or another Prenda Law client, you don't get any of that money?

Steele: I never have and I never will. I don't own any of the entities I recall them mentioning in this case, other than Steele Hansmeier [Steele's old law firm].

And the person who actually does control these entities—Mark Lutz—has stated under oath, in multiple hearings, that he does control them. The Court's like, "I don't care. I determine what I want." Mark Lutz has indicated that he's going to join the appeal, because his entities are liable for the financial portion of the sanction.

Let's step back for a second and think about something. What none of [the defendants] are talking about is whether or not they're responsible for what happened. The question is whether or not the defendant stole [the content] from the plaintiff. Many of the pirates tried to fight that with motions to quash, but the pleadings evolved to a point where that's not an effective solution. Eventually the plaintiffs get your information.

They try to change the narrative. The last thing the pirates want to talk about is whether or not they stole that content. So the tactic has been to go after the credibility of the attorneys, the plaintiffs. And it's been effective. They did a good job.

Ars: You're saying there's no evidence, and that Wright's order is just based on the April hearing in which you didn't testify. But there's a lot more than the April hearing referenced. [Former Steele property caretaker] Alan Cooper says he never signed on as an officer of these shell companies, and the order states that Alan Cooper's signature was forged.

Steele: I'm sure there will be some investigation into that. There are certain things—I have to be careful. I'm well aware Mr. Cooper said he never signed those documents. He said it was a forgery—those were words the court used. I'm very comfortable with the facts, and everything in my possession leads me to believe that Mr. Cooper's involvement with AF Holdings was different than what he led the court to believe. It will ultimately come down to a "he said, they said." Nobody I'm aware of, including myself, has ever forged Alan Cooper's signature. That is a pretty outrageous claim.

And for the love of God, where is the evidence [of forgery]? If someone had found something, it would be on the front page of Ars Technica and half a dozen other sites within minutes. There's no way any of that evidence could exist. Because it's not true.