Court will sanction Prenda lawyers if they don’t appear March 29
John Steele and other Prenda officials' porn-trolling days may be numbered.
Judge Otis Wright is angry. He ordered
the principals of the porn-trolling firm Prenda law to come to his
courtroom and justify their conduct at a Monday hearing. Most of them
made lame excuses
and skipped the hearing. The one former Prenda attorney who did show
up, Brett Gibbs, portrayed himself as a mere pawn carrying out the
orders of his bosses, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. "Someone has an
awful lot to hide," Judge Wright said at Monday's hearing.
Now Judge Wright has issued an order that's even more ominous than his previous ones. Steele, Hansmeier, and other Prenda officials are ordered to report to his courtroom on March 29 to answer for a long list of alleged misconduct. In addition to the charges raised in Monday's hearing, Judge Wright now wants Prenda to explain "why they should not be sanctioned for defrauding the Court" about the relationships among Prenda's various shell companies.
Prenda filed a request to be excused late in the day on the Friday before the last hearing. In Thursday's order, Judge Wright wrote that the motion's "eleventh-hour filing exemplifies gamesmanship." Judge Wright wants Prenda's lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be punished for failing to show up on Monday.
"Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a–m above not appear on March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their failure to appear," Judge Wright wrote. "Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions."
The wheels of justice move slowly—frustratingly slowly for those who were rooting for Prenda's top lawyers to receive harsh penalties on Monday. But Judge Wright's latest order makes it clear that he has no intention of dropping the issue, and that continued defiance of his orders will only make things worse.
At this point, Prenda's top lawyers may have to worry about more serious problems than an angry judge, like criminal penalties. As Ken from Popehat suggested, Prenda's lawyers "should only submit to questioning about their conduct after a very serious discussion with competent attorneys about their constitutional rights."
Correction: This story originally suggested Prenda's lawyers filed its Friday motion on paper as a delaying tactic. But a source tells us that as non-parties to the case, Steele and company may have been unable to e-file. Accordingly, we've removed that sentence.
Now Judge Wright has issued an order that's even more ominous than his previous ones. Steele, Hansmeier, and other Prenda officials are ordered to report to his courtroom on March 29 to answer for a long list of alleged misconduct. In addition to the charges raised in Monday's hearing, Judge Wright now wants Prenda to explain "why they should not be sanctioned for defrauding the Court" about the relationships among Prenda's various shell companies.
Prenda filed a request to be excused late in the day on the Friday before the last hearing. In Thursday's order, Judge Wright wrote that the motion's "eleventh-hour filing exemplifies gamesmanship." Judge Wright wants Prenda's lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be punished for failing to show up on Monday.
"Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a–m above not appear on March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their failure to appear," Judge Wright wrote. "Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions."
The wheels of justice move slowly—frustratingly slowly for those who were rooting for Prenda's top lawyers to receive harsh penalties on Monday. But Judge Wright's latest order makes it clear that he has no intention of dropping the issue, and that continued defiance of his orders will only make things worse.
At this point, Prenda's top lawyers may have to worry about more serious problems than an angry judge, like criminal penalties. As Ken from Popehat suggested, Prenda's lawyers "should only submit to questioning about their conduct after a very serious discussion with competent attorneys about their constitutional rights."
Correction: This story originally suggested Prenda's lawyers filed its Friday motion on paper as a delaying tactic. But a source tells us that as non-parties to the case, Steele and company may have been unable to e-file. Accordingly, we've removed that sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment