Four lawyers linked to the embattled copyright-trolling Prenda Law operation were slapped with a sanctions order earlier this month, ordering them to pay more than $80,000 in penalties and referring them to state bar investigators as well as the US Attorney's office.

The only one who has spoken publicly, John Steele, said he will appeal. Now, papers have been filed by Steele's comrade-in-arms Paul Hansmeier, asking the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay the sanctions issued by US District Judge Otis Wright while Hansmeier puts together a proper appeal. Hansmeier filed the motion late Thursday, just days before the May 21 deadline to pay the $81,319.72.

"The district court failed to afford Appellant even the most basic due process protections, such as the ability to cross- examine adverse witnesses or to object to the introduction of improper evidence against him, let alone the strict due process protections that would be available in a criminal contempt proceeding," writes Hansmeier in his plea to the appeals court. "The impending actions of the district court threaten to damage Appellant’s reputation in the legal community, in turn damaging his ability to attract clients and to represent them effectively, in a manner that will be irremediable through the normal appellate process without a stay of execution."

Hansmeier went straight to the appeals court, since "the district judge has prejudged the issues" and petitioning Wright would be "futile." Wright's order was "explicitly drafted to evade meaningful appellate review," with Wright putting the sanctions price tag at what he thought would be "just below the cost of an effective appeal."

He goes on to describe briefly what Wright was concerned with. The judge's orders suggested the Prenda gang needed to defend their actions on several grounds: did they fail to conduct "reasonable inquiry" before filing their John Doe suits? Did they hide their financial interest in the case and misrepresent the relationships between different entities filing suit? And did they Steal Alan Cooper's identity, setting him up as a "straw man" head of their copyright-enforcement shell company?

At the April 2 hearing, Hansmeier, Steele, and Duffy all showed up, but they pleaded the Fifth Amendment. Hansmeier writes: "After learning of this posture, the district court rebuffed counsel’s attempt to present arguments and abruptly ended the hearing... No testimony, evidence, or argument was allowed or presented at the hearing, which lasted approximately 12 minutes."

The Prenda crew didn't get the rights they were due in a criminal contempt proceeding, argues Hansmeier—and the April 2 hearing should have been considered a criminal hearing, regardless of what Wright called it. "[T]he district court raised questions of fraud, potential incarceration, and contempt," he writes.

Thus, Hansmeier's motion argues that he deserved all the rights of a criminal defendant. Punitive measures like the $81,000 fine should also comport with the safeguards of criminal law, which include "notice of the charges, assistance of counsel, the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses, the opportunity to present a defense and call witnesses, an independent prosecutor, a jury trial, the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination, and a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Hansmeier then says that Wright's "procedural errors and failures to provide Appellant with due process of law are too numerous and extensive to fully cover in this motion," and he goes on to list two main points. First, Hansmeier argues that defense lawyer Morgan Pietz was essentially appointed as a "special prosecutor" when the court invited him to present evidence regarding Prenda's conduct. Second, Hansmeier's emergency motion repeats a complaint that has been made by his friend John Steele: that it was improper for Wright to draw negative inferences when Hansmeier, Steele, and Duffy invoked their Fifth Amendment rights.

Pietz, who represents the John Doe defendant sued in the Ingenuity 13 case, responded to Hansmeier's motion on Friday afternoon. He doesn't have a problem with the monetary sanctions being delayed, if Prenda agrees to post a bond for payment. Pietz explains:

Prenda Law, Inc. and its associated lawyers are an organization that is rapidly falling apart. They have dismissed the vast majority of their pending court cases across the country—cases which are their sole source of revenue. Meanwhile, as the days go by, they are increasingly being hit with new motions and orders to show cause for sanctions in various courts... In short, there may not be any solvent persons around to collect from for much longer. Further, as will be detailed in briefing on the merits, the lawyers’ interests in these cases (as well as their assets, one presumes) are hidden behind a web of Nevis LLC’s and mysterious offshore trusts.

As for the non-monetary sanctions, Pietz gives no quarter. "[T]he courts and public with whom Hansemeier is transacting business should absolutely be informed and appraised of these findings, even if an appeal is underway," he writes.

Defamation case against anti-troll blogs is dead in the water

Hansmeier's desperate plea for more time is bracketed by two other negative developments for the group.

If Hansmeier and his colleagues weren't already pressed enough, a final obstacle presented itself on Wednesday, the day before he filed his emergency motion: it appears that Hansmeier can't easily be admitted to the bar of the Ninth Circuit, where he wants to appeal. "The court is informed that respondent is the subject of a referral to the Minnesota State Bar and to the Central District of California Standing Committee on Discipline, based on a finding of moral turpitude in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe," wrote the Ninth Circuit commissioner. He'll have to file a status report before even being admitted to practice and will have to continue to file status reports every 60 days.

Until Hansmeier is admitted, he'll have the right to represent himself, but he will not be able to represent other Prenda-linked parties.

Finally, one of Prenda's last-ditch efforts to save itself—or, arguably, dig itself into a deeper hole—was a defamation lawsuit filed in early March. The suit alleged that authors who made comments on anti-troll blogs suggesting that Prenda lawyers are "brain damaged" or "assclowns" should be hauled into court. To that end, Prenda actually went ahead and asked for the IP address of every anti-troll blog reader. At that point, WordPress said it would fight back, and EFF got involved, moving to quash the subpoena on behalf of the anonymously authored anti-troll blogs.

Prenda didn't even bother responding to EFF's motion, which has now been accepted by the court. They won't get any information from the blogs, and their defamation lawsuit looks, predictably, like it's going nowhere fast.