Good god—why would you ever lie about a death in the family to someone who has the power to jail you for contempt?
This order concerns Richard Liebowitz, a notorious attorney for copyright trolls. He failed to appear on at a discovery conference on a case he filed 
When the court issued an order to show cause why he failed to attend, Liebowitz said he missed it "because of a death in the family which was an 'unexpected urgent matter'"
When the conference was held, he doubled down, specifically saying the death happened on April 12, the morning of the conference.
Unfortunately, the defendant had been keeping receipts. He started raising "issues that reflected negatively on Plaintiff's counsel's credibility"
Unfortunately, the defendant had been keeping receipts. He started raising "issues that reflected negatively on Plaintiff's counsel's credibility"
"At that point, concerned about Mr. Liebowitz’s credibility . . . I determined that I could not merely accept Mr. Liebowitz’s representation that he missed the April 12 conference because of a death in the family," and directed that he provide documentation
So Liebowitz tripled down—he submitted a letter stating that it was his grandfather who died, and Liebowitz had to miss the hearing "to assist with certain customs" in advance of the Sabbath.
Surely, he must have thought, that would be enough to cover his tracks
Surely, he must have thought, that would be enough to cover his tracks
Narrator: It was not.
"The reason I requested documentation is that there is reason to believe Mr. Liebowitz is not being candid. So a letter from him does not advance the ball."
When someone dies, there is documentation. A certificate, an obit, even a text. Come on.
"The reason I requested documentation is that there is reason to believe Mr. Liebowitz is not being candid. So a letter from him does not advance the ball."
When someone dies, there is documentation. A certificate, an obit, even a text. Come on.
Finding himself well within the jaws of an Article III trap about to snap shut, Liebowitz filed a notice of settlement. No dice.
"I'm glad the parties have resolved the case . . . but there remains one open issue: Mr. Liebowitz's failure to document the death in his family[.]"
"I'm glad the parties have resolved the case . . . but there remains one open issue: Mr. Liebowitz's failure to document the death in his family[.]"
So Liebowitz quadrupled down—he submitted a declaration to "re-certif[y]" the statements in his previous letters
Buddy, you are not getting it. "[G]iven the issues surrounding Mr. Liebowitz's credibility . . . reiteration could not sufficiently discharge his obligations[.]"
Buddy, you are not getting it. "[G]iven the issues surrounding Mr. Liebowitz's credibility . . . reiteration could not sufficiently discharge his obligations[.]"
This time the court expressly ordered that he submit evidence "apart from his own word" to demonstrate the death. But Liebowitz just filed another letter, basically saying 'no, no, the previous three letters were sufficient'
The court ordered him, "under pain of contempt, to provide a copy of his grandfather's death certificate"—instead, it got a *fifth* letter! This one saying it's a personal matter, so he shouldn't have to produce the actual certificate
But, though a death in the family is personal, the "questions regarding Mr. Liebowitz's candor before the Court are professional in nature." He could submit the certificate in chambers if he was truly concerned about privacy, but he'll be in contempt if he doesn't do so by Aug 26
By this point, you've gotta know he wasn't going to do that. So on Aug 26, the court gets another declaration—but now he goes on the offensive.
He "argued that he was not in contempt because [the request] was unlawful," a usurpation of authority, or a breach of judicial decorum
He "argued that he was not in contempt because [the request] was unlawful," a usurpation of authority, or a breach of judicial decorum
The court was not happy. There is nothing unlawful about the order. He hadn't even alleged he couldn't comply with it (because he made it up). Therefore, Liebowitz was held in contempt and ordered to provide the declaration by Oct 2 or be fined $100 for each day of noncompliance
Liebowitz started frantically requesting a stay in-person meetings to discuss the order, which ended up with the court ordering him not to file any further requests unless he could provide a justification
Three days after the monetary sanctions went into effect, Liebowitz requested an extension. Denied the same day. You now owe $300. Now $400 more. Now $400 more. Now $500 more.
A month after the sanctions started running, it became clear that $100 a day "has plainly been ineffective to coerce compliance with the August 19, 2019 Order." Now it's $500 per day.
Further, Liebowitz is ordered to appear in court on Nov 13 and show cause "why he should not be incarcerated until such time as he complies"
"Failure to appear as directed will subject Mr. Liebowitz to arrest by the [U.S. Marshals] without further notice."
"Failure to appear as directed will subject Mr. Liebowitz to arrest by the [U.S. Marshals] without further notice."
This must be what it's like to watch someone slowly fall into a woodchipper
Since this thread has sparked some mild interest, here is a link to the full order
