Correspondence to ELH, 8-4-2014

8/12/2019 Correspondence to ELH, 8-4-2014

1/10

"

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 COURTDISMISSING 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


2/10

#

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:


3/10

$

!" $%&%' ($)%"! *"+ %!*+%!,-.-!) "* )/- $"01+%,/) %! (!1 2!%)-3 4)()-5

6"+7 5/('' 8- %!5)%)9)-3 9!)%' 0+-+-,%5)+()%"! "+ +-,%5)+()%"! "* )/-

$"01+%,/) $'(%. /(5 8--! .(3- %! ($$"+3(!$- 6%)/ )/%5 )%)'-%

&' ()*+ ,)' -.''*/ 01*'1*/ '12+ 3)4/' .()5'+ '1* .55627.'2), .55/).71 )/ '1*

/*82+'/.'2), .55/).71 2, /*8./(+ ') '1* +42'.9262': ); 4+'2;27.'2), ;)/ ;262,8 . 7)5:/281' 2,;/2,8*-*,' +42'% ?12+ 7)4/' 0266 9* 7/*.'2,8 ,*0

6.0 2; 2' .66)0+ . 56.2,'2;; ') 9/2,8 . 7)5:/281' 2,;/2,8*-*,' +42' 02'1)4' *@*,

9)'1*/2,8 ') ;26* '1* -)+' 9.+27 5/*/*A42+2'* ); .66 2, '1* B%C% 3)5:/281' D7'%

E@*, 2; 4(27.'*( G./.++*/I -*-* 1* .,( 12+ .++)72.'*+

1.@* 7/*.'*(F .,( 1* ,)0 4+*+ ') '/: ') 962,( '12+ 7)4/' ') '1* .7'4.6 ;.7' '1.' '12+

R*;*,(.,' 1.+ 1./.++*( ,)9)(:F 1.+ ,*@*/ 9**, 7),@27'*( 2, . 7)4/' ); 6.0 );

1./.++-*,' )/ .,:'12,8 *6+*F .,( ),6: ),* 3.//)66 3)4,': 32/742' 3)4/' U4(8* 01)

.(-2''*( ;/)- '1* 9*,71 1* 1.( ,) 2(*. 01.' H'1* ?02''*/I 0.+ .66 .9)4' .8/**(


4/10

V

02'1 G)8*=+ -2+'.K*, .++4-5'2),+ .9)4' '12+ 7)4/'=+ 5/*7*(*,' 2, BC @% 3.++2(:

01*/*2, '12+ 7)4/' (*72(*( '1.' 14,(/*(+ ); ;)46F 54'/2(F )9+7*,* 5)+'+ (2/*7'*( ') .

5*/+), 0*/* ,)' H1./.++-*,'I 9*7.4+* '1*: 0*/* 5)+'*( ), ?02''*/F 01271 2+ .

549627 9466*'2, 9)./( '1.' . 5*/+), 7., *2'1*/ 71))+* ') /*.( )/ ,)' /*.(% &' 2+ ,)' .

(2/*7' 7)--4,27.'2),F .+ /*A42/*( 9: S./:6.,( W.0 $PXM$ )/ $PXMY% O1*,

R*;*,(.,' '/2*( ') *Z56.2, '1* 5)+2'2), ); '1* +'.'* 6*82+6.'4/* .,( '1* +'.'* D'')/,*:

J*,*/.6 ), '12+ 2++4*F 1* 0.+ 0.@*( );; 9: '1* >4(8* 02'1 '1* .(-),2+1-*,'F H?1*

.'')/,*: 8*,*/.6 2+ >4+' .,)'1*/ 6.0:*/ .+ ;./ .+ '12+ 7)4/' 2+ 7),7*/,*(%I

E@*, 2; 0* 8*' 5.+' '1* ;.'.6 ;6.0+ 2, G)8*=+ ;262,8 ); 12+ 7)5:/281'

.55627.'2),+F '1* 4,'2-*6: ;262,8 ); '1* 7)5:/281' 2,;/2,8*-*,' +42'F '1*/* /*-.2,+

'1* -.''*/ ); G)8*=+ ?*/-+ ); C*/@27* 01271 *Z56272'6: .66)0*( R*;*,(.,' ') 7)5:

.,( 5.+'* 2'*-+ ;/)- G)8*=+ 96)8F '1* (2/': 1.,(+ 02'1 01271 G)8* .55/).71*+ '12+

7)4/' 1.@2,8 (),* 5/*72+*6: '1* +.-* '12,8 [.6'1)481 *Z5/*++6: \]^T&RREN 9:

C71-.6;*6('=+ )0, ?*/-+ ); C*/@27*_ 02'1 . 1.481': HN)F & 0266 ,)' 62,K ') 2'FI 12+

-2+4+* ); 7)5:/281' ') .66)0 +)-* 94' ,)' )'1*/+ 01) ./* 4,(*/ '1* +.-* ?*/-+ );

C*/@27* ') 4+* 12+ -.'*/2.6F .,( 12+ \/.4( ), '1* BC 3)5:/281' ];;27* 9: .''*-5'2,8

') 7)5:/281' R*;*,(.,'=+ )/282,.6 -.'*/2.6 .,( 549627 ()-.2,F BC J)@*/,-*,'

5/)(47*( 0)/K+%

D66 '12+ 9*2,8 +.2(F :)4/ 1),)/F R*;*,(.,' +**+ ,)'12,8 ') 9* 8.2,*( 9: +2''2,8

2, . /))- 02'1 '1*


5/10

Y

.''*,(F & 0266 .''*,(% T4'F .+ & +.2(F '1* ),6: '12,8 '12+ R*;*,(.,' 1.+ ') (2+74++ 02'1

'12+


6/10

b

I certify that on the 14hday 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


7/10

"

EXHIBIT A

HOGEs PURPORTED

COPYRIGHT APPLICATIONRECEIPT, SHOWING HE DID

NOT FILE AN APPLICATION

UNTIL JUNE 5 AND 7, WELL

OVER A WEEK AFTER FILING

THE INSTANT SUIT


8/10

"


9/10

"

EXHIBIT B

THE FIRST PAGE OF

PLAINTIFF HOGES

COMPLAINT, SHOWING THE

DATE THIS LAWSUIT WAS

BEGUN, MAY 27, 2014


10/10

"

Documents

Correspondence to ELH, 8-4-2014