You are on page 1of 10

1

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Northern Division)


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










1