Anyone, who is familiar with the “Coopergate” — a damning accusation that Prenda Law is engaged in fraud, forgery, and identity theft — has no illusion why Brett Gibbs came up with this vexatious motion on the New Year’s Eve. It is clear that Gibbs has desperately attempted to delay the inevitable — the necessity to answer questions about the real owners of AF Holdings and Ingenuinty 13 — under penalty of perjury — as it was ordered by the judge, whom our lying little swindler attempted to remove from the case.

From the order:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it. Plaintiff’s argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright’s discovery orders. […] Here, Judge Wright’s conduct simply does not demonstrate any pervasive bias against Plaintiff or other copyright holders of pornographic or erotic material. At most, Plaintiff demonstrates that Judge Wright is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse.

The game is on. I have mixed feelings: sensing the pain of Prenda’s victims, I want this blain on the judicial body to burst as soon as possible. On the other hand, as a curious person, I am impatiently waiting for the next Prenda’s move: the experience shows that there is no limit to Gibbs’s creative douchebaggery. Wash your hands, ladies and gentlemen, in preparation to the next epic palmface.

A brief history of Prenda Law, by Morgan Pietz

Yesterday (on 1/14/2013) defense attorney Morgan Pietz filed an opposition to Gibbs’s frivolous disqualification request. This opposition has an interesting attachment (embedded below) — a declaration that tells the story of deception and fraud: a colorful brief history of Prenda Law. I commend Mr. Pietz for this thorough job: while many episodes of crookery and abuse are missing (for example, a farcical “informal discovery” campaign or Guava/Arte de Oaxaca fraud), all the major milestones were grasped with precision. It is difficult to say if Pietz’s opposition played a critical role in Judge Fitzgerald’s decision — maybe not: Gibbs himself made enough effort to communicate the fraudulent nature of his lawsuits to judges. Nonetheless, Morgan did a huge favor to anyone fighting Prenda — both lawyers and pro se parties — by providing a concise reference, a must have attachment to motions and declarations, especially in cases where judges are not familiar with the Prenda gang and the contents of its bag of tricks.

Visit Pietz Law Firm’s website to read the exhibits referred in this declaration.

Coverage