Ken White

Popehat blogs. He is a litigator and criminal defense lawyer and white Newhouse Brown LLP in Los Angeles. His views are his alone and not those of the company.

My previous coverage of the law Pledge saga is here.

Yesterday, March 14, according to Judge Wright held issuance of a new order to show cause to guide clients and lawyers affiliated Turn right to appear before him, was too busy pledge Act .

More specifically, the law Pledge - Paul Duffy, Lawyer Judge Wright ordered to appear - was busy dismissing the case and submit a "notice of claim" inform other courts that happens. Almost.

An informant told me that Mr. Duffy was a busy day yesterday. PACER has proven to be true. Specifically, Mr. Duffy filed voluntary redundancies several cases of AF Holdings LLC in the Northern District of Illinois - here and here and here (which is provided to close the case

with Prejudice

meaning can not be re-presented) and here. In a case that has provided notification of dismissal despite investment AF

already obtained a rebellion against the defendant,

leaving nothing to prove damages. I have not counted all cases where layoffs Duffy presented yesterday.

In each case - and in one case in the Northern District of California - Duffy also presented a paper about the same style "notice of claim". That's what they all say:

applicant informed the Court on charges of forgery made during a hearing in a case pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ingenuity13 LLC vs. John Doe, No. 2:12-cv-08333-JC-OWD (CD Cal. March 11, 2013). On 11 March 2013, an individual named Alan Cooper claimed that his signature was forged on two separate agreements granting rights of copyright works other than the applicant, including the assignment in question in this case. (See ECF No. 1-2 of 2.) An applicant categorically denies the allegations of Mr. Cooper, who come almost two years after some of the alleged conduct. Mr. Cooper has a pecuniary interest in their claims under a lawsuit he filed against the applicant. Cooper v. Steele, et al., No. 27-CV-13-3463 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., 2013).

Even if the allegations of Mr. Cooper was true, and not the candidate dispositions, including the allocation issue in the instant action, remain valid. The formal requirements of the assignment of copyright is "very simple": a writing signed by the transferor. 17 USC  204; Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F. 2d 555, 557 (9th Cir 1990.) ("The rule is really the case: 1:12-cv-03567 Document simple: If the copyright holder agrees to transfer the property to a third party, the third must obtain the copyright holder to sign a piece of paper saying it does not have to be the Constitution. proforma line will "). see also Order, AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-96, No. 11-cv-3335-JSC (ND Cal. November 22, 2011), ECF No. 29-5 n.1 ("The assignment Rights Copyright recites writing between the owner of the copyright, Killer Films, following the applicant, AF Holdings, LLC .... As the law only requires that the allocation will be signed by the transferor and the transferee, this incompatibility prevents prima facie ownership of copyright. ") (internal citations omitted).

Mr. Cooper complaints concern the transferor and the transferee. The mission in question in this action meets the formal requirements of the Act Copyright. It is a written document signed by the transferor. Applicant's rights to the copyrighted work in this action have been transferred when the work was performed transferor.

applicant's complaints of Mr. Cooper seriously and investigate its contents. Because Mr. Cooper claims concerning the sale contract at issue in this case, the Applicant respectfully refer the matter to the attention of the Court.

Broken down, this is what Duffy said: (1) the application of Cooper is false, (2), but we try to pretend seriously and studied, (3), but even if c ' true, does not matter, because the assignment requires a valid signature of the person giving the property, not the person who receives the property.

There are many things I could say about this argument. Among them: the first two are strangely at war with each other, in particular when such proximity. If AF Investments knows the accusation is true, then what exactly is carefully considered investment AF? AF Holdings do not know if Mr. Cooper agreed to be official documents and executed do? What should investigate, exactly?

Duffy
third point is a doctrine that lawyers - including, for example, prosecutors and defense lawyers - call

materiality

civil laws more or prohibiting criminal. false statements only extending materials
Find best price for : --Paul----Wright----Prenda----White--