Last week, all the lawyers involved in the Prenda Law debacle showed up to federal court in Los Angeles—and said nothing. Instead, they choose to plead the Fifth. The judge ended the hearing in less than 20 minutes, storming off and saying he would draw his own conclusions about the lawyers involved in the copyright-trolling operation.

Prenda is a legal firm that has used questionable tactics in suing people they allege to have illegally downloaded porn titles, and it has found itself under scrutiny over the past few months for its potentially extortionate practices. That scrutiny has intensified since it was discovered that two of Prenda's clients, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, could not confirm the existence of one man that appeared to lead both companies: Alan Cooper.

Key Prenda lawyer Paul Hansmeier, like his colleague John Steele, lawyered up and refused to talk at the April 2 hearing. Today Hansmeier filed his response on paper, attempting to explain why he shouldn't be sanctioned despite the fact that he's not willing to shed much light on the whole situation Prenda Law finds itself in.

"Hansmeier's invocation of the Fifth Amendment may not be use[d] to formulate presumptions against him," because the court has "raised questions of fraud and potential incarceration," states Hansmeier's lawyer in the response.

When US District Judge Otis Wright chose to focus his attention in the "Ingenuity 13" case on attorney misconduct rather than intellectual property rights, the matter became more similar to a criminal proceeding than a civil one, Hansmeier argues.

The brief directly takes on Wright's assertion that he'll assume the worst based on the non-answers coming from Team Prenda. And there's no justification for sanctions, argues Hansmeier's lawyer, Philip Baker.

What was Brett Gibbs up to? No idea.

"There is simply no tie between Hansmeier and the issues raised within the court's order to show cause," writes Baker. As for Gibbs, the lawyer who was on-record as representing Ingenuity 13, he "was neither employed nor supervised by Hansmeier in connection with this matter."

That means that Wright shouldn't sanction Hansmeier, Baker says, either under Rule 11 (the section of the federal litigation rules related to attorney misconduct) or under his "inherent powers" as a federal judge. Sanctions would be "inappropriate" since Hansmeier wasn't supervising Gibbs in any way and never "had any malicious intent or otherwise acted in bad faith" regarding any of the activities in Judge Wright's order.

Who's Alan Cooper? Who owns AF Holdings? No idea.

One of the key points in Judge Wright's order is that he wants more information about the allegations of identity theft related to Alan Cooper. In another remarkable recent filing in the Ingenuity 13 case, Prenda lawyers have accused Cooper of being mentally ill.

Hansmeier says he's had no contact with Alan Cooper and "played no role in the acquisition of Cooper's signatures" on the corporate documents. And "there is no evidence that Hansmeier obtained or represented that the signatures on the assignments over the name Alan Cooper were those of John Steele's former caretaker, who bears that same name and provided testimony to the court."

But that doesn't answer one of Judge Wright's key questions, which is whether or not there is more than one Alan Cooper.

Hansmeier also dodges the question of who has any financial interest in AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13. He cheekily states that "the duty to disclose a financial interest is necessary for a single purpose, to allow the court to determine whether it is necessary to disqualify or recuse itself."

"The only evidence given regarding the financial interests to AF Holdings is that it is a limited liability company formed by Aisha Sargeant in May 2011 and is wholly owned by a trust with no defined beneficiaries. There is no evidence that Hansmeier has an ownership interest in either AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13."

Of course, the reason there is no evidence about who owns AF Holdings is because Hansmeier himself won't cough up the information. In his deposition, he called it an "undefined beneficiary trust" and said he couldn't name a single owner of it—despite the fact that, according to AF Holdings, Paul Hansmeier is the most qualified person to discuss the business of AF Holdings.

Hansmeier similarly dodges other key questions in the response he filed today. Why didn't he notify the court about related cases? There's "no evidence [he] participated in the decision"—it was all Gibbs. Why didn't he show up to the March 11 hearing? He didn't get enough time. He was served on March 7, "less than two business days before the hearing."