WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case Number 1:14-cv-01683 ELH v. ) ) WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________)
CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COURT FROM DEFENDANT REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SETTLEMENT HEARING SET BEFORE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUSTICE TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN ON AUGUST 14, 2014
NOW COMES Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt with this correspondence to the Honorable Judge Ellen L. Hollander in regards to her order for an Alternative Dispute Resolution Settlement hearing, which has been scheduled to be heard by Federal Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan on August 14, 2014 at 10am. BARRING A DECISION FROM THE HONORABLE COURT DISMISSING THE INSTANT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE, DEFENDANT FEELS HE HAS NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT WITH PLAINTIFF, OTHER THAN A DISCUSSION OF THE TERMS BY WHICH THE DEFENDANT, AS COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF, MIGHT SETTLE HIS COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST 2 MR. HOGE AND THE PSEUDONYMOUS BLOGGER PAUL KRENDLER.
Argument With all due respect to the Honorable Judge and this Court, given the fact that Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement case suffers from numerous fatal flaws, and that the Plaintiff seems incapable of admitting those flaws as evidenced by his outlandish settlement offer to Defendant, the Defendant humbly asks the court to decide on his motion for a Summary Judgment before August 14, the date of the intended Settlement Hearing. Hoges complaint fails, and horribly so, in several areas. I. He did not file his copyright applications with the US Copyright Office until June 5 and 7 (Exhibit A), more than a week after filing the instant suit on May 27. (Exhibit B). In his Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF 45) which Defendant replies to under separate cover, the Plaintiff is laboring under the mistaken impression that filing an Amended Complaint somehow ameliorates the fact that he did not comply with the very clearly stated terms of 17 USC 411(a) which states, in relevant part: S !" $%&%' ($)%"! *"+ %!*+%!,-.-!) "* )/- $"01+%,/) %! (!1 2!%)-3 4)()-5 6"+7 5/('' 8- %!5)%)9)-3 9!)%' 0+-+-,%5)+()%"! "+ +-,%5)+()%"! "* )/- $"01+%,/) $'(%. /(5 8--! .(3- %! ($$"+3(!$- 6%)/ )/%5 )%)'-. It uoes not mattei whethei this Couit auopts the application appioach oi the iegistiation appioach in iegaius to the suitability of Plaintiff's application as justification foi filing a copyiight infiingement suit. This couit will be cieating new law if it allows a plaintiff to biing a copyiight infiingement suit without even botheiing to file the most basic pieiequisite of all in the 0.S. Copyiight Act. Even if Plaintiff hau fileu timely applications, theie is the mattei of his having fileu thiee months of Bogewash blogs as "uaily newsletteis," a classification foi which the blog uoes not qualify, his attempt to copyiight mateiial wiitten by the uefenuant, anu his attempt to copyiight the public uomain, 0.S uoveinment woiks embouieu in the 7u NASA photos he incluues in his gioup application. We've seen the e-mail "unueistanuing" between "Kienulei" anu the uefenuant by which Plaintiff took action, that veiy night, to effect a BNCA takeuown of his book, Intentional Infliction. We have yet to see a legal copyiight tiansfei agieement signeu by the oiiginatoi of the mateiial. Boge's asseition that I will "haiass" Ni. Kienulei aie spuiious anu pait of the caiefully ciafteu "Bill Schmalfelut is a Beiangeu Cybeistalkei anu Aujuuicateu Baiassei" meme he anu his associates have cieateu, anu he now uses to tiy to blinu this couit to the actual fact that this Befenuant has haiasseu nobouy, has nevei been convicteu in a couit of law of haiassment oi anything else, anu only one Caiioll County Ciicuit Couit }uuge who aumitteu fiom the bench he hau no iuea what "the Twittei" was all about agieeu 4 with Boge's mistaken assumptions about this couit's pieceuent in 0S v. Cassiuy wheiein this couit ueciueu that hunuieus of foul, putiiu, obscene posts uiiecteu to a peison weie not "haiassment" because they weie posteu on Twittei, which is a public bulletin boaiu that a peison can eithei choose to ieau oi not ieau. It is not a uiiect communication, as iequiieu by Naiylanu Law S-8uS oi S-8uS. When Befenuant tiieu to explain the position of the state legislatuie anu the state Attoiney ueneial on this issue, he was waveu off by the juuge with the aumonishment, "The attoiney geneial is just anothei lawyei as fai as this couit is conceineu." Even if we get past the fatal flaws in Boge's filing of his copyiight applications, the untimely filing of the copyiight infiingement suit, theie iemains the mattei of Boge's Teims of Seivice which explicitly alloweu Befenuant to copy anu paste items fiom Boge's blog, the uiity hanus with which Boge appioaches this couit having uone piecisely the same thing (although expiessly F0RBIBBEN by Schmalfelut's own Teims of Seivice) with a haughty "No, I will not link to it," his misuse of copyiight to allow some but not otheis who aie unuei the same Teims of Seivice to use his mateiial, anu his Fiauu on the 0S Copyiight 0ffice by attempting to copyiight Befenuant's oiiginal mateiial anu public uomain, 0S uoveinment piouuceu woiks. All this being saiu, youi honoi, Befenuant sees nothing to be gaineu by sitting in a ioom with the Plaintiff as he huffs anu puffs anu blusteis anu tiies to instiuct }uuge Sullivan on the finei points of Copyiight Law as he uiu with Youi Bonoi at the Pieliminaiy Injunction heaiing. I am not going to "negotiate" with someone who biings no pokei chips to the caiu table. As it was the oiuei of this Couit that I S attenu, I will attenu. But, as I saiu, the only thing this Befenuant has to uiscuss with this Plaintiff is how Ni. Boge anu Ni. Kienulei plan to compensate the Befenuant foi the abuse they've heapeu upon him ovei the past yeai anu a half. TBEREF0RE: If it please the couit, this Befenuant piays foi a swift anu expeuient iuling on his Notion foi Summaiy }uugment which has been iesponueu to by the Plaintiff anu that iesponse answeieu by the Befenuant, in time to change the natuie of this "uoomeu to failuie" settlement heaiing on August 14, 2u14.
DATED: AUGUST 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________ William M. Schmalfeldt 6636 Washington Blvd. Lot 71 Elkridge, MD 21075 410-206-9637 bschmalfeldt@comcast.net
Verification
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and all copies are true and correct representations of the original documents.
William M. Schmalfeldt
Certificate of Service
6 I certify that on the 14 h day of August, 2014, I served a copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss by First Class Mail to W.J.J.Hoge III, 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, MD 21157, Certified, Return Receipt Requested.
William M. Schmalfeldt 1
EXHIBIT A
HOGEs PURPORTED COPYRIGHT APPLICATION RECEIPT, SHOWING HE DID NOT FILE AN APPLICATION UNTIL JUNE 5 AND 7, WELL OVER A WEEK AFTER FILING THE INSTANT SUIT 1
1
EXHIBIT B
THE FIRST PAGE OF PLAINTIFF HOGES COMPLAINT, SHOWING THE DATE THIS LAWSUIT WAS BEGUN, MAY 27, 2014