too long for the length of the article . please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article . please read the layout guide and lead section guidelines to ensure the section will still be inclusive of all essential details . please discuss this issue on the article s talk page . august 2014 prenda law inc. industry law fate dissolved following adverse legal ruling successor business claimed to be founded predecessor steele hansmeier pllp successor anti piracy law group alpha law firm llc class justice llc as stated by onlookers defunct july 2013 1 headquarters chicago illinois united states of america number of locations primary locations understood to be staff or offices in florida and perhaps minnesota area served n a active in united states generally but run for the benefit of the principals key people john steele paul hansmeier paul duffy revenue around us 1.93 million in 2012 according to alleged documents presented in court 2 p. 13 and 15m total over lifetime until 2012 according to john steele . website defunct mirrored website on archive.org march 2012 prenda law also known as steele hansmeier pllp and anti piracy law group 3 was a chicago based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement but was later characterized by the united states district court for central california in a may 2013 ruling as a porno trolling collective 4 2 whose business model relies on deception 4 8 and which resembled most closely a conspiracy 4 fof .1 p. 3 and racketeering enterprise 4 p. 10 referring in the judgment to rico the united states federal anti racketeering law . 4 p. 10 5 the firm ostensibly dissolved itself in july 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling 6 although onlookers describe alpha law firm llc as its apparent replacement 7 while in 2014 aba journal law news described the prenda law saga as entering legal folklore . 8 in the 2013 civil ruling prenda law and three named principals john steele paul hansmeier and paul duffy were found to have undertaken vexatious litigation 4 fof .5 p. 4 identity theft 4 fof .9 p. 5 misrepresentation and calculated deception including fraudulent signature 4 fof .6 p. 4 fof .9 11 p. 5 p. 6 8 professional misconduct and to have shown moral turpitude . 4 p. 10 the principals were also deemed to have founded and been the de facto owners and officers of the shell company plaintiff and their alleged client created in order to give an appearance of legitimacy . 4 fof .1 2 p. 3 4 as a result the firm and its principals were fined ; the matter was also referred to the united states attorney for central california for criminal indictment consideration and the irs criminal investigation division for tax fraud consideration . 4 p. 10 11 a fourth attorney brett gibbs was also sanctioned fined and referred to a disciplinary committee by the court for false statements 4 p. 6 8 and his part in the subsequent cover up 4 p. 7 though described as their employee . 4 fof .7 p. 5 gibbs monetary sanctions were later vacated after turning whistleblower 9 as part of his appeal . subsequently other federal courts in different states also ruled in a similar manner against the firm and or others linked to it 10 including fraud upon the court ruled in a minnesota court review of 5 closed cases 11 and relentless willingness to lie in an illinois court 12 criminal prosecutor referrals also occurred or were suggested in other jurisdictions . 6 12 the firm s modus operandi as described in the ruling and media coverage was to threaten individual members of the public with litigation hence public exposure over allegations that they breached copyright during pornographic downloads based on a statistical guess according to the court . 4 fof .10 p. 5 13 the firm would then offer to settle the case silently for a little below the cost of an active legal defense 4 1 2 in what was described by the court as an extortion payment . 14 cases with robust defendants and non profitable cases were dropped . 4 fof .6 p. 4 fof .10 p. 5 at times the firm acted for client corporations whose filed papers contained discredited signatures and identities found false by the courts commenters characterized the firm s plaintiffs as often though not always being shell companies operated for the firm and or attorneys own benefit 10 15 16 a federal district court described prenda s principal attorneys in 2013 as engaging a cloak of shell companies and fraud 4 p. 2 and comments of shocking and apparent shell game activity by seventh circuit court of appeals judges at the inability or refusal to describe relationships between the law firms clients and principals 17 an expert witness 13 affidavit stated that ip addresses linked to prenda s minnesota and florida offices and john steele had themselves been identified in 2013 as the initial seeders sharers of some pornographic media tagged for fast sharing on file sharing networks which would be followed up by threat of legal action 13 18 19 with prenda as the pornography producer or copyright purchaser file sharer offeror plaintiff and plaintiff s attorney ; the suspect ip linked to unauthorized media distribution was confirmed as steele and hansmeier s by comcast . 20 in some cases hacking was alleged or claims that the defendant was one of hundreds or thousands of co conspirators for whom non party subpoenas and discovery were sought ; 21 items 2 4 8 14 in one case the defendant testified he was in effect offered an ultimatum to act as a sham 22 defendant and collusively 22 agree to be sued . 23 24 commentators writing for salon 25 law360 6 jetlaw journal 26 forbes 27 the consumerist 28 and the register 18 described the business as a copyright troll or as notorious for trolling while tech website ars technica described the judge as coming at the firm and its principals like a tornado . 29 contents 1 history 2 alleged file downloader litigation cases 2.1 ingenuity 13 case 2.1.1 ruling and subsequent events in the ingenuity 13 case 2.1.2 appeals against monetary sanctions 2.1.3 responses to rulings 2.2 af holding vs. navasca 2.2.1 motion by defense 2.3 other cases involving findings of fraud deception or other irregularities 3 other significant cases and legal events 3.1 af holdings v. patel godaddy subpoena case 3.2 litigation against cooper cooper s attorney and online bloggers chilling speech cases 3.3 allegations of defendant coercion and collusion with defendant who agreed to be sued 4 u.s. legal background 4.1 signatures in the cases 4.2 case law related to purpose of judicial processes 4.3 us law on costs of litigation 5 references 6 external links history edit plaintiffs have outmaneuvered the legal system . they ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws paralyzing social stigma and unaffordable defense costs . and they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video . then they offer to settle for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare bones defense ... so now copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow starving attorneys in this electronic media era to plunder the citizenry . wright ruling ingenuity 13 vs. doe 6 may 2013 4 prenda first came to prominence through the practice of identifying the ip addresses of internet subscribers who it claims downloaded copyrighted pornographic videos or hacked into pornography related clients . the firm would file copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court in which it requested up front early discovery via over broad 30 p. 5 6 subpoenas against the respective internet service providers isps 4 p. 5 item 11 21 p. 2 5 7 31 p. 3 upon sometimes deceptive grounds and at times with falsified signatures on key documents 4 p. 5 31 p. 3 these discoveries were used to obtain names and addresses of hundreds or even thousands of subscribers said to be infringers or co conspirators in some cases . 4 p. 5 item 11 21 p. 2 5 7 31 p. 3 the subscribers concerned who might have had no responsibility for any alleged download due to prenda s lack of care over innocent targets 4 p. 6 21 p. 4 were then written to and accused of copyright infringement or computer misuse and threatened with over 150 000 in statutory penalties or told of the possibility of higher damages if the matter was decided in court 32 and that refusal to pay would cause the recipient s name together with the names of alleged pornographic videos to be entered on public court documents publicly exposing the subscribers supposed pornographic interest and trial for alleged downloading . that is the recipient would be stigmatized and identified to the public e.g. to friends employers spouse children coworkers etc. as someone who had illegally downloaded specific pornography titles on the internet and been sued in court for doing so . 21 p. 2 3 at times what were sometimes seen as veiled threats were also made that household members neighbors and visitors to the household would be formally asked if they had been responsible for the download of the pornographic material on the defendant s network as part of their investigation if they continued not to pay . 32 33 34 the letters then offered to make the case go away silently for a fee 4 000 was the price of silence offered to some . the amount demanded was usually slightly less than a typical attorney would charge to defend the case on its merits as alluded to in the ruling on ingenuity 13 below so under the american rule for legal costs even the completely innocent would have a strong incentive to pay what los angeles based u.s. district judge otis d. wright ii called an extortion payment . 14 alan cooper claimed in his 2013 testimony that an attorney ruled to be one of prenda s principals had stated to him that his goal was 10 000 a day to have a mailing of these letters . ... t hat he would just send out a letter stating that if they didn t send a check for a certain amount that he would make it public to these people s family and friends what they were looking at . 35 p. 24 25 it was later testified and ruled in various courts that many although not all of the firm s purported clients or plaintiffs only appeared to exist as shell companies or fronts for the principals themselves and that in effect the principals had been litigating on their own behalf . 36 signatures and representatives purported to be of clients were ruled to be falsified with at least one identity stolen and one purported representative excluded from court . in a 2013 minnesota review of five closed cases none of the documents used to show standing were ruled to be credible . 11 at times the law firm itself was also alleged to have been behind sharing of previously undistributed pornography on well known video piracy websites an apparent effort to induce litigable downloading . the rewards reaped by what wright called the porno trolling collective ran into the millions . steele told forbes magazine that his firm had filed over 350 lawsuits against more than 20 000 people resulting in a little less than 15 million in settlements . 37 brett gibbs testified in 2013 that based on documents shown to him the firm s revenue from settlements was around 1.93 m in 2012 of which around 80 % was ultimately distributed to the principals or their joint companies rather than purported clients . 2 p. 13 alleged file downloader litigation cases edit diagram adopted and