Hoge wants me to stop stealing the stuff he stole from me so he can keep stealing my stuff without my stealing it back until this case is settled. Yup.
Original Title
Motion to Dismiss Motion for Prelim Innunction With Memorandum of Authorities
Hoge wants me to stop stealing the stuff he stole from me so he can keep stealing my stuff without my stealing it back until this case is settled. Yup.
Hoge wants me to stop stealing the stuff he stole from me so he can keep stealing my stuff without my stealing it back until this case is settled. Yup.
1. The Plaintiff is asking this Couit to enjoin the Befenuant fiom blogging oi "Tweeting" any mateiial piouuceu by the Plaintiff foi the uuiation of the instant case. 2. Plaintiff has the auuacity to ask this Couit to make such an injunction on a unilateial basis while allowing Plaintiff to continue on unencumbeieu by the same iules he wishes to impose on the Befenuant. In this motion, Befenuant will uemonstiate that Plaintiff also takes such images, sometimes complete oi neaily complete aiticles fiom the Befenuant's Twittei anu blog posts to use on his "Bogewash" blog without Befenuant's peimission. 2 S. 0f the 24 blog posts that Plaintiff claims weie infiingeu by Befenuant, 1S of them contain mateiial scieencappeu fiom Befenuant's blog oi Twittei account. Anothei foui of the allegeuly infiingeu blog posts contain mateiial Plaintiff scieencappeu fiom othei souices. 0ut of the seven allegeuly infiingeu "Bogewash" posts that uo not contain mateiial fiom someone else's blog oi Twittei account, the blog entiies aie so shoit anu lacking in cieativity that they woulu not be subject to copyiight even if Plaintiff hau fileu foi copyiight piotection, (Exhibits A thiough X). Yet nowheie in his motion uoes Plaintiff state that he will likewise iefiain fiom using mateiial fiom othei people's websites, blogs oi Twittei accounts. By gianting this Notion, the Couit woulu be giving Plaintiff license to continue uoing that which he claims Befenuant is uoing outsiue the bounus of copyiight law. 4. Befenuant has not applieu foi Copyiight piotection foi his blog oi Twittei account because Befenuant believes the whole iuea of suing someone foi using inconsequential snippets fiom anothei peison's blog oi Twittei account is foolish, chiluish, vexatious, vinuictive, anu inuicative of a peisonality that seems to enjoy having a sense of "powei" ovei anothei peison. It's like the Plaintiff is saying, "I'll copy anu use as much of youi stuff as I feel like, but if you use a single sentence of my stuff I will sue you!" S. With all uue iespect, Befenuant maintains the position that this entiie lawsuit is nothing moie than yet anothei aiiow fiom Plaintiff's quivei of haiassment against Befenuant. 0nable to get eithei the Caiioll County oi Bowaiu County State's Attoiney to piosecute the S67 ciiminal chaiges he fileu against Befenuant foi violation of a possibly 0nconstitutional peace oiuei anu othei S misuemeanois, he has tuineu to the Civil Couits in an attempt to fuithei haiass Befenuant by accusing the Befenuant of uoing the same thing Plaintiff uoes on his own blog on a neaily uaily basis.
.(" ,*A-P# 1/>#!&' >&11 1&Q-10 R- %&#.&##-% *2 ',- .-(&'# 6. Befenuant iespectfully asks what law books Plaintiff has been ieauing. Eveiy ieauing by Befenuant of the applicable case law shows that the Plaintiff has a veiy high huiule to oveicome in oiuei to pievail. a. Be must piove that he has a signeu tiansfei agieement with Counteiclaim Befenuant "Paul Kienulei" (anonymous bloggei) executeu in wiiting befoie such uate as Boge claimeu owneiship of the blog entiy unuei uispute. 17 0SC 2u4. b. Be will have to pioviue eviuence that he has fileu applications with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi the mateiial he claims infiinges his copyiight in my books, :Ny Slow, }ouinalistic Beath" (upon which Plaintiff fileu a BNCA takeuown notice seveial uays aftei attempting to sell the book on his blog (Exhibit Y). c. Be will have to pioviue pioof that he has fileu an application with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi mateiial in my book "Biain Beau," which I peisonally pulleu off the shelves at Lulu.com anu nevei ieceiveu a copyiight takeuown iequest ovei. 4 u. In auuition to pioving he has the stanuing to file a copyiight claim foi the mateiial he claims is infiinging in my book "Intentional Infliction," he will have to piove that he fileu a piopei application with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi the mateiial piioi to filing his BNCA takeuown iequest anu piioi to launching his vexatious Copyiight suit. 7. Boge mentions many times in his pleauings that applications foi iegistiation have been submitteu to the Copyiight office by himself anu anonymous bloggei "Paul Kienulei." But this beggais the imagination, as if Kienulei solu his iights to Boge, why woulu Kienulei neeu to file a copyiight application. All Befenuant knows of these allegeu applications is that Boge claims he has sent them, anu Plaintiff has hau uealings in the past with Ni. Boge wheie he says one thing while having uone anothei. 8. Boge keeps alleging that he fileu these copyiight applications in accoiuance with this Couit's pieceuent in Patiick Collins, Inc. v. Boes 1-2211-Cv- AW, ECF, No 18 (B. Nu. 2u11) at S,4. But a ieview of this Couit's uecision uoes not ieveal a pieceuent setting uecision by this Couit, but iathei this Couit meiely applieu a 0S Supieme Couit uecision in !""# %&'"()"*+ ,-./ (/ 01.2-).3+ 1Su S.Ct. 12S7, 1246 (2u1u) "Feueial uistiict couits have subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei copyiight infiingement actions baseu on 28 0.S.C. 1SS1 anu 1SS8. But neithei 1SS1, which confeis subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei questions of feueial law, noi 1SS8(a), which is specific to copyiight claims, conuitions its juiisuictional giant on whethei copyiight holueis have iegisteieu theii woiks befoie suing foi infiingement."
S 9. That was not this Couit setting pieceuent. It was this Couit applying a iuling on subject mattei juiisuiction. Plaintiff appaiently stoppeu ieauing the iuling when he saw the pait he likeu, because the iuling in 01.2-).3 continues: 45" Section 411(a)'s iegistiation iequiiement $- a ./+01%,$&$1% to filing a copyiight infiingement claim. A copyiight holuei's failuie to comply with that iequiiement uoes not iestiict a feueial couit's subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei infiingement claims involving uniegisteieu woiks. Pp. S-16. " |Emphasis Auueuj
1u. Since this Couit's uecision anu 01.2-).3, othei couits have ueciueu that pie-iegistiation befoie filing an infiingement suis iemains a piefequsite. In Tattoo Ait, Inc. v. Tat Inteinational, LLC, 794 F. Supp. 2u 6S4 (E.B. va. 2u11 Bistiict Couit, E.B. viiginia) the couit founu: ."in light of the Supieme Couit's iecent uecision in 01.2-).3+ this Couit uoes not lack subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei plaintiff's copyiight claim against uefenuants foi theii infiingement of both its iegisteieu anu uniegisteieu tattoo uesigns. Bowevei, the existence of subject-mattei juiisuiction uoes not, by itself, suffice to establish plaintiff's entitlement to a iecoveiy of monetaiy uamages in connection with its uniegisteieu uesigns at this junctuie. As noteu above, 17 0.S.C. 411(a) pioviues in ielevant pait that "no civil action foi infiingement of the copyiight in any 0niteu States woik shall be instituteu until pieiegistiation oi iegistiation of the copyiight claim has been maue in accoiuance with this title." 17 0.S.C. 411(a). Although the Supieme Couit founu such language not to be juiisuictional in natuie, it expiessly "uecline|uj to auuiess whethei 411(a)'s iegistiation iequiiement is a manuatoiy pieconuition to suit that ... uistiict couits may oi shoulu enfoice '17 '89-:" by uismissing copyiight infiingement claims involving uniegisteieu woiks." 01.2-).3+ 1Su S.Ct. at 1249.
.(",*A- +/)-# 2* ,/(. >&',*!' / @(-1&.&2/(0 &2?!2)'&*2 11. This contention by Plaintiff beggais belief. Was Ni. Boge planning to sell his blog woiks to a publishing house. Will someone ieau the items, on Befenuant's blogs anu tweets anu believe foi a moment that, with the links anu the 6 scieen caps, that Befenunant was the authoi of the woiks in question. As amazeu as Befenuant is that Plaintiff shoulu choose to use a section of anonymous bloggei anu Counteiclaim Befenuant's blog entiy to suppoit his own case, even that aigument uoes not holu watei as nobouy will believe foi a moment that I wiote the mateiial. 12. Plaintiff's aiguments on "the iights of copyiight holueis" shoulu fall on ueaf eais until such time as he pioves his allegeu copyiight owneiship. 1S. Befenuant has consistently maintaineu that his use of Plaintiff's mateiial was caiefully uone unuei the Faii 0se Boctiine anu will stanu up to the Foui Pillai test. Plaintiff's iefeiial to Befenuant as a seiial copyiight infiingei is meant only to piejuuice the couit anu has no basis in fact as I have not been aujuuicateu as having infiingeu anything anu Ni. Boge is cleaily putting the couit befoie the hoise. 14. Befenuant cuiiently has no plans to use mateiial wiitten by the Plaintiff. But in the futuie if Plaintiff wiites something, using Befenuant's woius, Befenuant maintains his Fiist Amenument Right anu his iights unuei the Faii 0se Boctiine of 0S Copyiight Law to use whatevei mateiial he ueems necessaiy to tell the stoiy, giving piopei attiibution. Theiefoie, Plaintiff's motion foi a pieliminaiy injunction piohibiting Befenuant's fuithei use of Plaintiff;s copyiighteu mateiial until a final uisposition of the instant lawsuit shoulu be uenieu, anu Plaintiff shoulu be aujuieu to not waste the Couit's time with such silly motions.
',- R/1/2)- *+ ,/(. >-&A,# /A/&2#' .(" ,*A-P# +/S*( 7 1S. What Ni. Boge is asking is foi me to abanuon the piinciples of jouinalism. So many people of the iight wing political peisuasion seem to believe that theii woiu is pioof of anything to say. As a peison with moie than thiee uecaues in the piactice of jouinalism, I piefei to let the subject's woius speak foi themselves. To see the subject's woius, as wiitten, is a poweiful tool useu by jouinalists. Ni. Boge woulu seek to bai my Fiist Amenument Rights to wiite about this case, oi his twin lawsuits fileu by a Nontgomeiy County man chaiging Boge anu otheis with a vaiiety of toits, incluuing haiassment, stalking, abuse of piocess, malicious piosecution anu intentional infliction of emotional uistiess. Accoiuingly, the Couit shoulu BENY Plaintiff's motion of a pieliminaiy injunction.
/ @(-1&.&2/(0 ?!%A-.-2' &# &2 ',- @!R1&) &2'-(-#' 16. Ceitainly, if the "public" is uefineu as William }ohn }oseph Boge. We uon't neeu a histoiy lectuie fiom Plantiff about }ohn Nauison's iationale foi uesciibing Congiessional Authoiity to giant copyiights, anu such gianustanuing is a waste of the Couit's time. We aie suie the Couit's legal euucation incluueu intensive cuiiicula on Copyiight Law, as uiu mine in my tiaining as a jouinalist. The pioposeu pieliminaiy injunction woulu place a giievous buiuen on the Befenuant by limiting the mateiial that he can use to tell his stoiy. Theiefoie, again, the injunction shoulu be BENIEB in the inteiest of the Fiist Amenument.
(-T!-#' +*( / ,-/(&2A 17. Befenuant agiees to a heaiing at such time uesignateu by the couit. 8
.-.*(/2%!. #!@@*('&2A %-+-2%/2'P# .*'&*2 '* %&#.&## 18. In piactically eveiy instance allegeu by Plaintiff as being an infiingement of his copyiight, the poition useu is so small anu lacking in cieativity that it uoes not meiit copyiight piotection. In each allegation, save foi the one that Plaintiff has not yet uemonstiateu a piopeily executeu copyiight tiansfei agieement, the allegeu infiingements aie small anu fiagmenteu. Copyiight uoes not piotect all elements of a woik, anu theiefoie not all elements aie consiueieu when ueteimining if copying iises above #" ;)-);)'. Copyiight only piotects elements of a woik that uemonstiate some minimal cieativity. (See <")': =1>&?-'+ ,-./ (/ !1*7& @"&/ A"*(/ B9/+ ,-.., 499 0.S. S4u, S4S (1991). Copyiight piotection also extenus to expiession of iueas anu facts, but not those iueas anu facts themselves. (See ,-:?& C"D' A"*(/ (/ E''9.)7:"# =*"''+ 248 0.S. 21S, 2S4 (1918); B2).7F9 !".9*#G5"*7&# B9/ (/ @*)>1-" E''?- 27S F. 797, 798, 799 (7th Cii. 1921)) 19. 0nlike a #" ;)-);)' uefense, which challenges the elements of copyiight infiingement, faii use is an affiimative uefense. It pioviues that ceitain otheiwise infiinging uses of copyiighteu woik aie valuable anu piotecteu fiom liability. Foui statutoiy factois ueteimine applicability of faii use: "(1) the puipose anu chaiactei of the use, incluuing whethei such use is of a commeicial natuie oi is foi nonpiofit euucational puiposes; (2) the natuie of the copyiighteu woik; (S) the amount anu substantiality of the poition useu in ielation to the copyiighteu woik as a whole; anu (4) the effect of the use upon the potential maiket foi oi value of the copyiighteu woik." (See B7;8>"&& (/ E.1HHG!9'" 01').+ ,-.. S1u 0.S. S69, S78 (1994).) 9 2u. Nobouy is going to see Befenuant's woiks which make faii use of Plaintiff's blog posts anu believe foi a moment that Plaintiff's woius aie the woik of the Befenuant. They aie useu foi the puipose of uemonstiating, in the Plaintiff's own woius, the uefamation, haiassment, intentional infliction of emotional uistiess anu malicious piosecution the Befenuant has suffeieu at the hanus of the Plaintiff since Febiuaiy 2u1S. Befenuant maintains this is the ieal ieason Plaintiff wants the books he killeu with his BNCA takeuown to stay off the shelves. 21. Anothei thing foi this Couit to consiuei in Befenuant's Notion to Bismiss is the tiansfoimative natuie of the woiks Plaintiff alleges weie infiingeu. Tiansfoimative uses that iesult in the cieation of a tiansfoimative woik aie similai to ueiivative woiks in that they aie baseu on the oiiginal. Bowevei, they aie uiffeient in that they satisfy the unueilying puipose of copyiight law by builuing on the oiiginal anu theieby "piomoting the piogiess of science anu the useful aits." Simply put, tiansfoimative woiks cieate something new. Again, as noteu in B7;8>"&& (/ E.1HHG!9'" 01').+ ,-.+ "The cential puipose of this investigation is to see...whethei the new woik meiely |supeiseuesj the oiiginal cieation, oi insteau auus something new, with a fuithei puipose oi uiffeient chaiactei, alteiing the fiist with new expiession, meaning oi message; it asks, in othei woius, whethei anu to what extent the new woik is tiansfoimative." Consequently, copyiight owneis uo not contiol tiansfoimative uses that iesult in the cieation of tiansfoimative woiks. Anyone can lawfully unueitake a tiansfoimative use of anthei's copyiight piotecteu woik even befoie the copyiight expiies. No peimission is iequiieu fiom the copyiight ownei. 1u 22. Finally, the vexatious, vinuictive, haiassing natuie of the Plaintiff in this fuithei malicious piosecution of the Befenuant is uemonstiateu in a staitling fashion by the fact that the majoiity of the blog anu Twittei posts Plaintiff alleges as infiinging on his woik in Counts Iv thiough XXXvII of his Fiist Amenueu Complaint aie actually blog posts that contain substantial amounts of the Befenuant's oiiginal woik, as uemonstiateu in Exhibits A thiough X. in othei woius, of the 24 blog posts that Plaintiff claims weie infiingeu by Befenuant, 1S of them contain mateiial scieencappeu fiom Befenuant's blog oi Twittei account. Anothei foui of the allegeuly infiingeu blog posts contain mateiial Plaintiff scieencappeu fiom othei souices. 0ut of the seven allegeuly infiingeu "Bogewash" posts that uo not contain mateiial fiom someone else's blog oi Twittei account, the blog entiies aie so shoit anu lacking in cieativity that they woulu not be subject to copyiight even if Plaintiff hau fileu foi copyiight piotection, 2S. Count I of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint alleges the Befenuant "stole" a single line blog post in his book "Ny Slow, }ouinalistic Beath." Plaintiff also claims copyiight owneiship he uoes not have in the comments geneiateu by that one sentence. Plaintiff has yet to uemonstiate that he has iegisteieu a copyiight application foi that blog post with the 0S Copyiight office, anu the copyiights foi the comments iemain, accoiuing to the Plaintiff's own Teims of Seivice on his blog, "Bogewash.com" with the commenteis. Theiefoie, Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this Couit BISNISS Count I of the Plaintiff's Amenueu Complaint with piejuuice. 11 24. Count II of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint uoes not even specifically allege an infiingement of his copyiight, othei than to make a false statement that someone sent a BNCA takeuown notice to the self-publishing platfoim Lulu.com to iemove the book "Biain Beau" fiom the shelves. That takeuown iequest was not fiom the BNCA: It was fiom the Befenuant who has the only copy of this book evei solu. Theiefoie, Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this couit BISNISS Count II of the Plaintiff's Amenueu Complaint with piejuuice. 2S. Count III of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint alleges Befenuant infiingeu on a copyiight Plaintiff has not yet pioven he has any claim to. Although he alleges in his complaint that he puichaseu "woilu book anu e-book iights" he has not iesponueu to my iequest (Exhibit Z) to piouuce even a ieuacteu copy of that agieement, which is iequiieu by 17 0SC 2u4 which states (in pait): A tiansfei of copyiight owneiship, othei than by opeiation of law, is not valiu unless an instiument of conveyance, oi a note oi memoianuum of the tiansfei, is in wiiting anu signeu by the ownei of the iights conveyeu oi such ownei's uuly authoiizeu agent.
26. uiven Plaintiff's iefusal to piove that he has such an agieement, the Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this couit BISNISS Count III of Plaintiff's Amenueu Complaint with piejuuice. 27. Counts Iv thiough XXXvII of the Fiist Amenument Complaint aie luuicious, vexatious, vinuictive, anu amount to malicious piosecution. As the majoiity of the items Plaintiff claims Befenuant "stole" consist laigely of oiiginal mateiial wiitten by Befenuant, his claim of copyiight - unsuppoiteu by a single application to the 0S Copyiight 0ffice - is laughable at best, contemptuous at woist, anu uemonstiates a continuation of the haiassment Plaintiff has leveleu at 12 Befenuant since Feb. 2u1S when he fileu the fiist of his S67 ciiminal chaiges against Befenuant, all of which weie uismisseu. Foi this ieason anu the othei ieasons set foith above, Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this couit BISNISS Counts Iv thiough XXXvII with piejuuice.
@(/0-( +*( (-1&-+ WBEREF0RE Ni. Boge has faileu to state a ieasonable oi coheient ieason foi uemanuing this pieliminaiy injunction, Befenuant piays once again that the Couit uismiss the Plaintiff's case on all S7 counts with piejuuice foi the ieasons stateu above. 0m the absence of a uismissal, the Befenuant asks the Couit to iounuly BENY Plaintiff's uemanus )- :9:9 anu aumonish him foi wasting this Couit's time anu iequiiing this Plaintiff, with seveie movement uisabilities, to neeu to be hauleu to the Feueial Couithouse to answei these silly uemanus. Ni. Boge shoulu ieceive N0 ielief fiom this couit, anu Befenuant will ask foi sanctions in the futuie if Plaintiff continues to floou this couit with iiuiculous, vinuictive anu vexatious motions such as this. Befenuant also piays that aftei uismissing Plaintiff's claim that Befenuant be fiee to piess foiwaiu with his counteiclaim against Plaintiff.
1S BATEB: }0NE 16, 2u14 Respectfully submitteu,
________________________________________ William N. Schmalfelut 66S6 Washington Blvu. Lot 71 Elkiiuge, NB 21u7S 41u-2u6-96S7 bschmalfelutcomcast.net
S85:U:JB6:49
I ceitify unuei penalty of peijuiy that the foiegoing is tiue anu coiiect to the best of my knowleuge anu belief anu all copies aie tiue anu coiiect iepiesentations of the oiiginal uocuments.
William N. Schmalfelut
)856:U:JB68 4U #85;:J8
I ceitify that on the 16 th uay of }une, 2u14, I seiveu a copy of the foiegoing Reply to Plaintiff's Notion foi Pieliminaiy Injunction anu Nemoianuum in Suppoit of Befenuants Notion to Bismiss by Fiist Class Nail to W.}.}.Boge, 2u Riuge Roau, Westminstei, NB 211S7 by Fiist Class Nain, Ceitifieu, Retuin Receipt Requesteu.
William N. Schmalfelut 14
1S
16
17
18
19
2u
21
22
2S
24
2S
26
27
28
29
Su
S1
S2
SS
S4
SS
S6
S7
S8 IN TBIS P0ST, PLAINTIFF ANN00NCES BEFENBANT'S B00K ANB TRIES T0 SELL IT TBR00uB BIS 0WN ANAZ0N BISTRIB0T0RSBIP AuREENENT. BAYS LATER, BE FILEB A BNCA TAKEB0WN REQ0EST 0vER 0NE SENTENCES IN TBE B00K.
S9 TBIS IS A C0PY 0F NY AS-0F-YET 0NANSWEREB REQ0EST T0 PLAINTIFF T0 PR0vIBE PR0 SE BEFENBANT WITB C0PIES 0F TBE B0C0NENTS TBAT PR0vE BIS ENTITLENENT T0 C0PYRIuBT PR0TECTI0N.