In Re ELH-14-CV-1683

I can confirm that I have receive a “settlement offer” from Bill Schmalfeldt. I do not consider it to be a serious offer.

The court has scheduled a hearing on my motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain further copyright infringement by Schmalfeldt pending a final ruling in the lawsuit. The hearing will be at 10 am on 26 June at the U. S. District Courthouse in Baltimore.

28 thoughts on “In Re ELH-14-CV-1683

  1. It would have been stunning if it had been a serious, reasonable offer. I don’t think he has it in him.

    • Yep, no wiggle or jiggle down here. Only sound and fury is thunder and a very faint, off it the distance ” Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooge …” trailing off into nothingness (rather like Bill’s existence).

  2. Did it include a lifetime subscription to the “Jelly of the Month Club?”
    well in 48 hrs he went from “Launching a nuke”
    Tweeting he had won the case
    To “Can we talk?”

    Predicting similar meltdown in another MD location, unfortunately he pissed of 21 Hoges so its H to the 23rd power on that one

  3. Anyone else find it strange that someone who claims to be virtually housebound can go gallivanting around Baltimore and off to dinner? Remember when he told the court how hard it would be for him to get there? How he had to make arrangements for a “care giver” and “assistant” etc.? How he couldn’t walk? Yet he’s made several trips to the post office and court house lately, now a nice day trip to the harbor. He can’t even remember the lies he’s told he lies so much.

  4. May you prevail. You must be so weary of all of this nonsense, and having to jump up and make a fuss to enforce a bare minimum of decent behavior.

  5. It occurs to me that it’s unethical for Hoge to divulge the details of CBBS’s “settlement offer.” But CBBS could, if he believed it was more than reasonable, and quite possibly win himself some sympathy if it was true that Hoge had rejected a reasonable offer. So I suggest that CBBS post the terms he offered Hoge.

    • No, only if the offer is contains a confidentiality clause. In practice, however, it usually makes good sense to conduct negotiations in private.

      • I’m probably thinking of criminal law, where plea bargain offers can’t be used in trials. But the principle seems sound…

      • I agree. Even if you reject an offer as absurd, publicly disclosing it merely discourages future tender of a reasonable offer. Under NORMAL circumstances, I personally would be reluctant to disclose that an offer of settlement, no matter how absurd, had been made and rejected. Dealing with BS, however, is not a normal circumstance. Disclosing that an offer of settlement from him was received and rejected as unreasonable might be prudent.

      • By the way, we might want to be careful about distinguishing between what is not admissible in litigation and what may not be publicly disclosed. Something might not be admissible in specific litigation and yet still be legally disclosable to the public.

    • Unethical by whose standards?

      The Elkridge Horror long ago lost any substantive claim as to ethical or proper moral treatment by his incalculably cruel and inhumane treatment of perceived enemies and foes of his unique brand of journalism. There is not enough money in the entire world that could reimburse the victims of his insanely bizarre and cruel conduct. The only remedy is a Nuremburg Trila devoted just to the Elkridge Horror.

  6. Doesn’t really matter inasmuch as from what I see of BS, and the rest of that menagerie too– they don’t follow any rules, including at least one settlement agreement previously entered into. It’s all like a one-way game to them, you follow the rules, they don’t.

  7. Pingback: New Feature at Thinking Man’s Zombie | The Thinking Man's Zombie

Leave a Reply