California, Copyright, Gay Marriage, Intellectual Property, Pornography, Technology

Prenda Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage

Prenda's crackerjack lawyers are at it again.

By  
on

So, you may recall that as a part of Judge Otis Wright’s Prenda sentencing, he ordered that a copy of the ruling be submitted in every other case involving Prenda:

For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.

In one Prenda case (involving AF Holdings again) in the Northern District of Georgia, the defendant, Rajesh Patel, and his lawyer, Blair Chintella, submitted Judge Wright’s ruling themselves to the court in the case. As pointed out by Fight Copyright Trolls, Prenda’s local counsel in Georgia, Jacques Nazaire has filed one of the most ridiculous filings we’ve ever seen yet in all of the Prenda filings. It argues that the court should not allow Judge Wright’s order to be entered into the docket because California recognizes gay marriage and Georgia does not. I’m not joking…

The defendant has filed a copy of that Order hoping that it would be viewed as a mandate by this Court. However, the defendant’s attempts to issue this mandate should fail for the following reasons.

First and foremost the undersigned respects the California decision and believes that it was rendered in the best interest of the residents of California.

Nevertheless, this instant case is pending in a Georgia District Court and it is trusted that any decision rendered, whether for or against the plaintiff, will be done so in the best interest of the residents and practitioners of Georgia.

While this Court may or may not agree with some of the issues presented in the California case, unbeknownst to the defendant, the California case will not necessarily become a mandate on this Court. It is solely within the discretion of this Court to follow or not follow the decisions made in the California case.

The defendant should realize that California has different laws than Georgia, a different Governor than Georgia; a different legislative body than Georgia, different business needs than Georgia and different views than Georgia and as such all of its decisions cannot serve as a mandate for Georgia.

For example the California Courts have legalized gay marriage. Perry v. Schwarzenegger 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal., 2010);Certified question, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th. Cir.); Answered 52 Cal.4th 1116 (2011) Affirmed, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) Such a decision cannot serve as a mandate on Georgia Courts to legalize gay marriage as well.

(emphasis added)

It doesn’t stop there. It notes that California courts have different immigration rules and (randomly) that NY has different gun rights. Basically, it throws out every hot button issue that stereotypical conservatives might disagree with stereotypical liberals on.

Sponsored

Of course, all of that is meaningless. While it’s true that Judge Wright’s ruling is in no way a precedential ruling for the Georgia court, it’s still a ruling about federal law, not any specific state law. And the ruling itself is about flat out misconduct (including potential racketeering and tax evasion claims) by the plaintiff in this case, because of actions in a nearly identical case. That’s not about California having a “mandate” over Georgia. It’s about very relevant additional information that the court should know about.

Nazaire then goes on to list out a ridiculous parade of horribles that he claims would happen if the Georgia court “followed the aforesaid California Order” including that law firms wouldn’t be able to use boilerplate text any more. This makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all, the inclusion of Judge Wright’s order is not about having the Georgia court “follow” the order, but adding additional important information about the parties in this particular case. Separately, the idea that adding a California ruling into the docket suddenly means lawyers wouldn’t be able to cut and paste any more… just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Nazaire then tries to argue, incredibly, that there is no “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Alan Cooper’s signature was forged. Earth to Nazaire: that ship sailed a long, long time ago. It also leads to this completely random attack on the EFF:

Prior to filing the document, the undersigned contacted Prenda Law to find out whether or not Mr. Cooper would be available to testify at trial but was advised that they could not locate Mr. Cooper. The undersigned was advised that Mark Lutz and Peter Hansmeier would be available to testify as witnesses. Had the undersigned realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was hanging with Mr. Cooper, he would have been able to track down Mr. Cooper and questioned him about the documents. It turns out that Mr. Cooper was a caretaker of one of the properties of a Prenda Law member and had left said property in August, 2012.

Therefore, even if the undersigned had placed a knife to the throats of each of Prenda’s members, none would have been able to give him Mr. Cooper’s contact information at the time on November 5, 2012 when Plaintiff commenced its law suit. It is certainly not the first time a company has lost contact with an agent (or alleged agent as stated).

(emphasis added)

Sponsored

Wow. Honestly, this one needs no commentary. It speaks volumes (of insanity) for itself.

And Nazaire is not done. He also argues that Patel’s lawyer, Chintella, was “one of the two star witnesses in the California case” (which, um, isn’t true) and then claims that this is an ethics violation in Georgia.

This whole filing really is quite remarkable, but certainly seems to fit in to the growing pile of “Prenda crazy” filings in various cases around the country.

See the whole filing on the next page…

1 2Next »
CRM Banner

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , ,