
Prenda Saga Update: John Steele Pleads Guilty, Admits Entire Scheme - apsec112
https://www.popehat.com/2017/03/06/prenda-saga-update-john-steele-pleads-guilty-admits-entire-scheme/
======
abrookewood
From Wikipedia: Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-
Piracy Law Group, 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" whose business model "relies
on deception", and which resembled most closely a conspiracy and racketeering
enterprise,referring in the judgment to RICO, the United States Federal anti-
racketeering law.

~~~
dredmorbius
Previously at Popehat:
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prenda+site%3Apopehat.com&t=ftas&i...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prenda+site%3Apopehat.com&t=ftas&ia=web)

HN: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=prenda](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=prenda) (much
of it Popehat)

~~~
masklinn
The first link in TFA is to popehat's prenda-law case which is 4 pages of the
sordid history of these garbage people back to early March 2013:
[https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/](https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-
law/)

------
ChuckMcM
So nice to hear they are finally getting down to the time behind bars stage. I
hope (although don't particularly expect) that this will have a chilling
effect on other unscrupulous lawyers who shake down people using fraudulent
constructs.

~~~
mavelikara
Why were they (Prenda) caught? Did they try shake down someone powerful?

~~~
chowells
IIRC, a John Doe defendant got a young aggressive lawyer hoping to make a name
for himself to defend him pro bono. The lawyer started digging hard, refused
to just accept a dismissal, and went on a counter-attack that eventually dug
up enough for other parties to join in.

Huh. Phrased like that, it sounds like a John Grisham novel.

~~~
Already__Taken
Which is a great story but it's a little terrifying if it's "System working as
intended"

It seem to have only come this far because they doubled down on some already
outlandishly scumbag behaviour. If they'd just stopped this might have all
blown over for them.

~~~
caf
It does kind of make you wonder how frequent tactics like "strawman defendant"
or "made up hacking claims to get discovery" are used by other firms - because
it sure seems like these guys got caught because they kept up these sorts of
tactics relentlessly.

~~~
jessaustin
From that perspective, all the publicity surrounding this firm might actually
make the problems associated with them worse. Other unscrupulous lawyers might
study this and learn which specific mistakes not to make, rather than learning
to avoid this model altogether.

~~~
faster
Their primary error was arrogance, assuming that they were smarter than anyone
challenging them even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I don't think
there is a cure for that, short of US Marshals at your door with a warrant and
handcuffs.

------
anonsteele
I paid up years ago because I had an open AP and didn't want to get dragged
into court. Thoughts on how to get any of the ~$2000 back?

~~~
wyldfire
It's unlikely, but you could do it. After going through the trouble of
bringing a suit -- once you have the judgment against them, you'd have to get
in line behind the other creditors. :(

~~~
debt_suer
Unless they are in bankruptcy it's a free for all once judgement is granted.
There is no line and can be collected on by any legal means. I used to work
for a lawyer who primarily did collections of business accounts, some of which
we personally garunteed, depending on the age/credit of the business.

~~~
wyldfire
I guess I leaped ahead and assumed that everyone else with judgments would
quickly force them into bankruptcy.

------
PhantomGremlin
_the deal also contemplates that Steele will cooperate — become a rat, if you
want to be unkind_

A real-life prisoner's dilemma unfolding.

Couldn't have happened to a couple of nicer guys. /s

~~~
CodeWriter23
I know. I thought this meant that this Schadenfreude Fountain had dried up.
Looks like instead the story is moving into Act II.

------
downandout
_> Upon entry of judgment after his sentencing, John Steele will be a
convicted felon with a federal fraud conviction. His career as a lawyer — or,
more generally, as a gainfully employed person — is over._

While I share everyone's hatred of the tactics these people have employed over
the years, I also hate that felons in the US are given such a hard time
_after_ they have served their sentences. People make mistakes and should be
allowed to move on from them. A couple of years in federal prison shouldn't
carry with it a lifetime of financial despair.

~~~
whack
I recognise that what I'm going to say next will be very unpopular on HN.
Harsh punishments work exceedingly well as a deterrent. Harsh punishments make
other prospective law breakers think twice before harming innocent people. I
can agree with the notion that petty criminals deserve second chances, but
what this guy did isn't petty at all. If even one innocent person is spared
the ordeal of victimization, then harsh punishments are well worth the costs.

~~~
libertymcateer
> Harsh punishments work exceedingly well as a deterrent.

That is an _enormous_ claim and there are reams of research on this topic -
your assertion is _not_ supported. It doesn't even stand up to the most
cursory scrutiny - if it were true, then societies and states with harsh
punishment would have lower crime - and this is very, very, very obviously not
the case.

[https://www.nij.gov/five-
things/pages/deterrence.aspx](https://www.nij.gov/five-
things/pages/deterrence.aspx)

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-in-
question/2015...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-in-
question/201509/harsh-justice)

[http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/...](http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf)

[https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-
reduc...](https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduce-
crime/)

tl;dr Social norms, accepted membership in 'legal' society and education are
the best ways to deter crime, followed by _certainty_ of punishment - not its
_severity._ The reason people commit crimes is, in rough order, usually out of
desperation, social norms that lead them to believe the prohibited act
_should_ be acceptable or ignorance of the knowledge that the prohibited act
is illegal, for greed, and, lastly, then for the sheer thrill of it. Severity
of punishment doesn't act as a good deterrent for _any_ of those categories -
_certainty_ of punishment acts as a deterrent for the latter two, but for the
first two, desperation and ignorance, are fairly well inoculated against
rational counsel.

Before you start arguing the philosophy regarding merits of punishment v.
deterrence, I am going to put it bluntly: the claim at issue - that severity
of punishment is a deterrent for crime - is an _evidentiary_ claim and it
_cannot_ be proven from first principle. It _must_ be supported evidence, and
as far as I can tell, the numbers are in, and they do not appear to be on your
side. Unless you have studies that support your conclusion, the philosophy is
totally irrelevant.

~~~
whack
You've clearly spent some time looking up links to support your cause, so it's
unfortunate that you've cherry picked only the ones that support your beliefs.
Here are some others that say the opposite.

"Sentence Enhancements Reduce Crime"

[http://www.nber.org/digest/oct98/w6484.html](http://www.nber.org/digest/oct98/w6484.html)

"Longer prison sentences deter re-offending, study shows"

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/8504923...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/8504923/Longer-prison-sentences-deter-re-offending-study-shows.html)

Longer sentences deter crime up to a point

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-
justice)

"Longer prison terms really do cut crime, study shows"

[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-
se...](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-sentences-
cut-crime)

"the average add-on gun law results in a roughly 5 percent decline in gun
robberies within the first three years"

[https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/dabrams/workingpapers/D...](https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/dabrams/workingpapers/Deterrence12312011.pdf)

Note also that 2 of the 4 links you provided are comparing certainty-of-
punishment vs harshness-of-punishment. This is a false dichotomy. There's no
reason you can't have both. Having harsh punishment doesn't reduce the
certainty of punishment in any way.

Is there a lot of contentious debate on this topic, and a lack of consensus on
this topic? Of course. But given the lack of clear answers, I'd much rather
err on the side of preventing victimization.

~~~
libertymcateer
> But given the lack of clear answers, I'd much rather err on the side of
> preventing victimization.

In America, we have historically low crime rates and historically low violent
crime rates. Simultaneously, we have an insane crisis of prison overpopulation
that leads into multi-generational cycles of poverty.

I too would rather err on the side of preventing victimization.

Right now, from where I sit, over-criminalization is a bigger problem than
violent crime.

------
meowface
How did these guys think they could keep the con running for so long? Being
lawyers, you'd think they'd have some common sense.

~~~
mulmen
Being lawyers they have enough common sense to do the math and figure out that
the cost of being caught would never outweigh the profits. At that point the
only incentive is to make as much money as possible for as long as you can.

~~~
pktgen
I don't know about that - is ~10 years in federal prison worth a few million
dollars (after splitting it between Hansmeier and other co-conspirators)?
Also, they're not going to get to keep the money.

As lawyers, I'm betting they could make the same amount of money in the same
timeframe practicing legitimately (or, knowing how these idiots operate,
"semi-legitimately"), but without the federal prison time.

~~~
Zelmor
Nobody ever thinks they will get caught. "I'm too clever for that" is basic
human reasoning. Some are, some aren't. The real question is, are you willing
to risk it?

------
jmnicolas
There's something that I don't understand in this case(I'm not American): to
my knowledge in the US the Police can trap you by proposing to sell you drugs
or bomb making ingredients and then arrest you.

The Prenda modus operandi doesn't seems much different than what the US Police
is doing, so why do they face prison ? Don't get me wrong I think they deserve
to go behind bars, but I would have thought what they did was legal in the US.

~~~
mikeash
If a private citizen tries to sell drugs or bomb ingredients, then extorts the
buyer by threatening to tell the police, I think that would probably be
illegal as well.

A lot of the trouble here is _how_ they went about this scheme, not merely the
basic idea of what they did. They repeatedly lied to defendants and courts
about their operations. Some of the materials they sued over were things they
didn't actually have copyright for, but they used false documents to claim
that they did. Those false documents involved forged signatures and even
invented a person who didn't exist. They even filed defamation lawsuits
against a person whose signatures they forged, for daring to say that they
hadn't signed this stuff.

Wikipedia has a huge list of the crazy stuff they've done:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law)

So, it's not just about trying to entrap people by "pirating" their own
content. It's about massive fraud and abuse along the way.

------
hughdbrown
By coincidence, I was viewing this today:

[http://bestfunny-
videos.com/video.php?vid=ObZDipKRH0c&13-558...](http://bestfunny-
videos.com/video.php?vid=ObZDipKRH0c&13-55859-Paul-Hansmeier,-Esq.-v.-John-
Doe)

My understanding of court procedure is limited, but it is pretty clear that
the appellants are making some pretty incredible decisions that surprise the
judges, including insisting that the proceedings are a criminal case with the
possible outcome that the appellants would face life imprisonment for criminal
contempt (17:11 - 17:45). I gather this is high comedy for lawyers.

~~~
nikcub
That's a great clip

Fun fact: Tallman, the judge in the middle with the great stories - is one of
three judges who sit on the FISA court

~~~
pktgen
The judge in the middle is Judge Pregerson.

~~~
throwanem
So is he the one on the FISA court, or is Tallman? I mean I'm impressed with
the whole panel and it's a hilarious proceeding, but I'd be interested to see
this point cleared up, and Wikipedia's list [0] doesn't mention either. (I
don't really know where else to look.)

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court)

~~~
pktgen
Tallman is on the appellate level of the FISA court [1], which is why his name
doesn't appear on that Wikipedia page. Pregerson isn't on the FISA court at
any level.

[1]
[http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/fiscr_membership](http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/fiscr_membership)

------
vermontdevil
they are truly scummy esp with their ADA shakedowns.

ADA was a great way for people with disabilities to get equal access but now I
fear its future due to the constant abuse by scumbags like Prenda and others.

~~~
arjie
Could you clarify how these shakedowns are performed? Are the victims non
compliant with some law?

~~~
jessaustin
Typically the victims are low-margin businesses operating in old buildings
that were designed long before ADA existed. These businesses may never have
served a wheelchair-bound customer before, or if they did it was an _ad hoc_
process. In other words, physically lifting a wheelchair over some stairs or
just bringing the customer's purchases outside. That's fine for reasonable
customers, but the wheelchair people involved in these lawsuits do not behave
in reasonable fashion.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Typically the victims are low-margin businesses operating in old buildings
> that were designed long before ADA exited

That's not really true. Under the ADA, buildings built before 1992 are
generally not required to perform renovations for compliance unless they are
already performing renovations, at which point they are required to adherence
to the requirements. And the amount that they are required to spend on
compliance is a function of the amount that they are spending on the other
renovations.

It's actually more complicated than that, because there are two sets of
requirements (1993 and 2010), with different safe harbor provisions for each,
and renovations to old buildings may or may not invalidate the 1993 safe
harbor, but that's the general idea.

------
_pmf_
These types of operations abound in Germany, too. Arguably, adult movie
producers make more money via "Abmahnanwälte" than via regular distribution.

------
theoryofone
So what would be the Nash equilibrium in this instance?

------
coldcode
Anyone who has watched Law & Order knows making a deal first is best. I also
bet once he is out of jail he will write a book and get hired on some TV
channel as an expert and probably make more money than he did as a crook.

~~~
daenney
Did I miss the part in Law & Order where it says this is an accurate
representation of US law, the court system etc?

