Porno copyright troll to Georgia judge: "Ignore California judge! They have gay marriage!"

When US Federal Judge Otis Wright ruled against Prenda Law (a gang that used sloppy accusations of illegal downloads of pornographic movies to extort millions from people who didn't want the embarrassment of being publicly sued), he ordered Prenda's lawyers to give copies of his ruling to judges in all the other places where they were suing their victims. Judge Wright's ruling called Prenda a "fraud" and said its lawyers engaged in "moral turpitude."

One of Prenda's most colorful lawyers is Jacques Nazaire. He's asked a judge in Georgia to ignore the Judge Wright's order, because Judge Wright is a California judge, and California has gay marriage.

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.

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.

Prenda Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage [Mike Masnick/TechDirt]

36

  1. A cynical effort to characterize a judge from outside the South as a Yankee.

  2. The opposing lawyer should point out that “Jacques Nazaire” sounds suspiciously French.

    1. Maybe even an illegal!  The most surprising thing about Prenda is that otherwise rational people continue to act surprised when Prenda lawyers act like brazen sociopaths.

  3. I kind of get what this guy is getting at, that different states have different laws and what happens in one doesn’t necessarily affect what happens in others.  That being said, Judge Wright is a federal judge, so he’s not ruling based on state laws, right?  Therefore the laws of the state his court is in are really irrelevant in this case.  

  4. When the facts aren’t on your side, pound on the law.
    When the law isn’t on your side, pound on the facts.

    When neither is on your side, pound on the table. 

    1. You left one off…

      When representing Prenda, start chewing on the corner of the table and declaring your Napoleon.

        1.  I was never able to declare my Napoleon’s. They are just too damned delicious and so were long gone before I even got to the border.

  5. I believe the proper procedure here would be to introduce a bill in the Georgia legislature that would overturn gay marriage in California.  At least I think that’s how it goes.

    1. I see a long and fruitful career for these guys in politics.  Random assertions of evil gay marriage don’t generally work on judges, but they work on voters like a charm. Also, moral turpitude is a plus.

    2. At least a resolution condemning California for heterosexual rights abuses.

    3. Gay marriage isn’t currently legal in California, except for the people who got married when it was.  Hopefully the Supremes will finish fixing the issue soon.

      But his argument wasn’t quite as stupid as I was expecting it to be; it was basically that “Judges in California often decide stuff in ways we wouldn’t here in Georgia, so please don’t listen to them”.  It’s a pretty lame argument, but lame arguments are all Prenda’s got right now, and some judges in California have a habit of really stomping on lawyers who bring lame arguments into court (as happened in both Prenda’s case and the anti-gay-marriage cases.)

    1. Sadly, for the lawyer, the ruling was in a federal court and the court in Georgia is also a federal court..  state laws are not in question.

      1. Even more sadly, the judge to whom he made the argument has issued equality-friendly rulings in LGBT rights cases recently.

        Karma is a lovely thing.

        1.  Because, you know, researching the rulings of the judge whose court you’re pleading in just might be an action that COMPETENT lawyers might engage in.

  6. The argument doesn’t even make sense. Prop 8 took care of gay marriage being recognzied. So, he’s also not read newspaper in the last 5 years.

  7. And the count down until there is a flurry of posts supporting the lawyer all suspiciously from the same IP posted within minutes of each other in…3….2…..1…

  8. I’m starting to think that Prenda isn’t really a company but rather a “Fight Club”-like extreme scumbag tournament. The founders set a high bar for scumbaggery, and then anyone who chooses to associate with them on a full-time or casual basis is actually signing up to do their best to match that bar.

    This lawyer does pretty well — maybe not Cadillac material, but he might win the steak knife set this month.

    1. Well then they would just claim he ruled against them because he was biased.  And this would keep going…

  9. Waiting for Prenda to come back with “Why do you hate America?” in 3…2…1…

  10. Gee, appealing to a judge’s political prejudices… When does that ever work?  Besides almost always? Bush v Gore…. Citizens United v FEC… NFIB v Sibelius…

  11. I think this is the gay marriage version of the chewbacca defense, If Gay Marriage exists you must… press on, hell I can’t even follow these guys anymore. 

    1. I can’t work out exactly what it would be either, but I’m pretty sure somebody’s gonna be picking a lot of hair out of their teeth when it’s all said and done.

Comments are closed.