In Re ELH-14-CV-1683

The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt™ filed a motion for summary judgement in the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt copyright infringement case. I have filed a memorandum opposing his motion.

My opposition speaks for itself. I do not intend to comment further on the motion for summary judgment until the Court has ruled on it.

73 thoughts on “In Re ELH-14-CV-1683

  1. Oh my, that was the definitive SMACK heard ’round the interwebs… hahahaha

    Well done, Mr. Hoge! Very well done. Nice way to start our weekends, thank you. 😀

    • “[T]here have been a number of developments, including a decision by the trial judge to follow the time-honored tradition of dumping his most burdensome and least attractive case onto the docket of a newly-appointed judge.”

      Ha! Spot on!

    • From the linked letter by convicted felon, Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin, of Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) and Velvet Revolution US (VRUS):

      “…Defendants Walker and Thomas have tweeted and written that discovery in this case should include depositions from [his daughter] and her friends to ask if I have ever molested them. These defamatory posts have been read by students, teachers and parents of my daughter’s friends. Now many of those parents will not allow their daughters to hang out with my daughter, have sleepovers, or engage in other normal teenage activities, …”

      He also says his older daughter “has been bullied out of two high schools.”

      I truly feel badly for the children but the defendants didn’t cause this. There is only one person responsible for their suffering and he appears unwilling to do anything to mitigate – instead, he tries to use it for his own purposes – their father.

      IF what he wrote is true, then I’m glad that all of the harassment suffered by the defendants has resulted in at least the friends of these children being protected from Brett Kimberlin.

      • Since even his harshest critics carefully do their best to keep innocents unmentioned, or even acknowledged, unless he forces the issue, BK has only himself to blame – its his own misdeeds and crimes to blame.

      • You know, Onlooker, every day in this country women/parents who love their child more than themselves, though very painful, give a baby up for adoption. They do this for many reasons, chiefly among them in most cases, I believe, is the best interest of their child.

        In this case, Brett Kimberlin of Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) and Velvet Revolution US (VRUS), refused to even share custody with his estranged wife (according to her pleadings and other statements), despite the harm that he claims he, Brett Kimberlin brought to his own children.

        So… I gotta wonder… was he exaggerating/lying about the harm? Or is he just that cruel and indifferent to their best interest?

        Yeah, I’d guess c)both too.

      • The people I have sympathy for are the parents of girls in the second and third schools. It has to be understood that the parents of girls at the first school were acting in a completely reasonable manner given the totality of the circumstances. It has to be remembered that Brett Kimberlin formed an unnatural attachment to a ten year-old girl. When the girl’s grandmother removed access to the girl from Brett Kimberlin the grandmother was soon after shot dead execution style. In his authorized biography, the author relayed an account of an FBI agent telling him on background that Brett Kimberlin contacted the FBI to report the location of the gun used to murder the grandmother in an attempt to frame the new guardians of the underage girl for the grandmother’s murder.

        Anyone looking at those facts would ask how Brett Kimberlin could possibly know what gun murdered the grandmother, or where it currently was? There are no answers that reflect well on Brett Kimberlin. Any parent looking at those facts would have to ask themselves, “What if Brett Kimberlin becomes fixated on my daughter and I decide to stop all contact?”

        The principles who allowed the transfers failed to balance the safety of the girls in the next school against their sympathy for the daughter’s situation. If they had done so they would never have allowed the transfers to take place.

        It has to be noted that Brett Kimberlin has the option of granting custody of the girls to his ex, and moving across the country. Instead, he is effectively attempting to use them as human shields.

      • I have been thinking a lot about this same problem.

        Some people I know grew up with a father who was a conman who probably stole millions of dollars. Conmen aren’t always the funny, charming rogues of TV episodes – they’re often more in the mold of Brett Kimberlin. This one was scheming, manipulative, demanding, harsh, and very, very meticulous about the maintenance of his own public image. His children were college aged when the house of cards fell apart, and they learned that their privileged lifestyle had been stolen from their father’s victims. That his insistence on extreme deference and respect was part of his conman act. That the specialness they used to be proud of as kids was all a lie. Even as adults, it’s been difficult and emotional. Besides the huge amount of stealing, the conman had badly disrupted his childrens’ ties to their other family, which I won’t go into here. And picture the shame of responding to friends who mention reading about it in the paper, or having to explain that he’s in jail. The kids are themselves decent-hearted, although they had very strange upbringings and there’s no getting around the fact that they’re quite different from everyone else. One of them in particular feels like a huge part of his identity was ripped from him and now he seems lost as a person.

        The parental situation here isn’t really analogous to Brett’s, but a lot of what went RIGHT after this conman in question was uncloaked, is that the kids finally developed much stronger ties with other family members who’d previously been kept out of the picture. Those family members played a huge and irreplaceable role in helping the conmans’ adult children transition away from their old life and find a new home away from home.

    • After reading that, I have a strong inclination to join in an “everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin” day.

      • As of now, I’m always up for this. Brett can’t sue the internet, and by now he probably knows better than to believe Neal Rauhauser if Neal tries to tell him otherwise.

    • Wow… just wow… Thanks for the heads up about the Levy article.

      Well, we now know what was in the letter to the Judge (the portion Mr. Hoge redacted). I have some really hilarious comments/observations to make regarding the information Levy addressed (that had been redacted by Mr. Hoge) but Mr. Hoge redacted that portion for a reason, so I will keep those observations to myself.

      Also, the comments I considered making are so biting and borderline cruel that it is probably better I just not say them at all.

  2. WJJ Hoge III wrote:

    “When evaluating his denial, the Court should consider Defendant’s own words from “Intentional Infliction”: ‘I doubt he [“Krendler”] will sue me for copyright, since he would have to review [sic] his actual name.'”

    Ignoring the blatant typo the “illustrious and star-studded journamalist” couldn’t manage to avoid inserting into a published “book,” let me re-quote a comment the aforementioned journamalist included in a blog post just yesterday:

    “Hoge Admits ‘Hogewash’ Doesn’t Meet ‘Daily Newsletter’ Requirements”
    by: Deranged Cyberstalker and Adjudicated Harasser Bill Schmalfeldt
    July 31, 2014

    “You know that feeling you get when you say or write something that you really shouldn’t have said or written because it disproves everything you’ve said up to this point?”

    Allow me to quote our Gentle Host yet again:

    “Defendant’s expectation that he would be sued but for the author’s expressed desire to maintain his anonymity is a clear indication of Defendant’s intent.”

    Keep digging, Bwilly. Keep digging. *smh*

  3. Mr. Hoge, a small oversight of Bill’s home address is not redacted in one spot under the Dcma takedown notice material. Just a friendly reminder, kind sir.

    • for the record Bill just accused Hoge of a crime and posting his proof he (Schmalfeldt) published his own address and phone number

    • INAL, but I believe it’s not a legal requirement to redact such information from a public document. Our esteemed host, however, believes it is the moral thing to do, which already puts him at an infinitely higher moral plane than the trailer-dweller is entitled to.

      • This.

        The addresses are up on pacer, they are public records, there is no requirement not to post, Hoge is just being responsible and polite to someone who takes joy and pleasure from posting OTHER people’s personal information online… even when it was under seal. Because Jornolizm, eleventy.1!1!11

  4. I wonder if Schmalfeldt knows that if he is right, and that the lawsuit was simply filed a few days too early, and that this results in a dismissal, that basically nothing should stop Mr. Hoge from simply refiling now that his case is ripe for filing…

    ‏@RadioNixonUSA Visit my website in a half hour or so. I have a shocking bit of news to impart”

    Shocking must have another meaning in the tin can.

    • A lot of things have an alternate meaning when used by cyberstalker, adjudicated harasser slapped with restraining/peace orders from multiple states (but apparently always with an eye toward adding to his collection), baby doxer, and affront to humanity bill schmalfeldt.

      In fact, one might (often) say, “those words/cases/rules/statutes don’t mean what you think they do” to him. hahahaha

  6. “Hey you need to bring a receipt to court to prove that the stuff I stole was PROPERLY sold to you before I stole it from you GOT IT!”

    And another moment in self impeachment gets forever emblazoned in GRANITE above the Pro Se Hall of Fame’s entrance to the wing of “Moments of Monumental Stupidity and Stuff”.

  7. “They all know EXACTLY what I was thinking when I wrote something”

    my popcorn maker just exploded under the strain.

    Got check book?

    • Also, I would probably say quoted without attribution, as I don’t really think it is plagiarism in this context. If he had published an ebook about why he is right and Hoge is wrong, and lifted those same passages word for word without attribution, then plagiarism would be an appropriate description. If he actually wrote an article published on an actual news sight, and lifted word for word without attribution, again plagiarism. If he were writing something for an academic journal or went back to get a degree and lifted those passages word for word without attribution in a paper or article, then again, plagiarism.

      However, I think theft of language used to explain a legal concept, even without attribution, when used in a legal pleading really isn’t plagiarism. The legal pleading is a public document, you can’t copyright it, and you aren’t really trying to imply that the legal understanding is entirely your own anyway (hence the need for citations). By not citing or giving attribution, you really only hurt yourself when it comes to a legal pleading.

  8. This is what I was trying to get Bill to do from the beginning to STOP the harassment, to STOP promoting Brett’s illegal lawfare, to STOP lying, all he had to do was stop. Oh and to use his right to remain silent.

    Now, truly he is screwed – tried to harm others – and is still trying to harm others

    And he will impressively impeach himself even further by claiming a right to steal and harass

  9. Pleased to see I made page 32 of the motion.

    Interesting to see that our host does indeed keep the trees pruned.

    While it was his decision and right to redact the comment, I still maintain that he was incorrect in redacting it as an attack on dumbass’s family. It was an attack on him which his high pitched shriekish caterwauling managed to convert into everyone assuming it was about his family.
    I still think it was a pointed strike that drew blood. Wish I had copied it before the cut came down.
    My posted reaction commentary at the time is here.

  10. The example I thought of was publishing all the sheet music for the Beatles, and, then, commenting extensively on their merit. No matter how lengthy, insightful, brilliant or meritorious the commentary was it still would not sufficiently “transform” the content to avoid being a copyright violation. Apple records has a financial interest in the exclusivity of the publication of the sheet music that trumps anyone’s desire to publish, without permission, the works for the purposes of commentary no matter how sincere an effort.

    • Actually, most of the copyrights to the Beatle’s song belongs to Sony/ATV Music. ATV Music was Michael Jackson’s music publishing company. That would include the rights to sheet music and performing rights.

      Apple owns the rights to the later recordings. EMI has the rights to the earlier Beatle’s records. The labels have the rights to produce copies of the recordings.

  11. Commenting on Bill Schmalfeldt’s claim you have “unclean hands,” I would note that I wish his accusation were true. I don’t visit the Kimberlin sites because I doubt they are safe links. It would have been a public service for you to have republished Bill Schmalfeldt’s original rantings for informational purposes. That alone ought to constitute fair use. I have numerous memories of thinking, “I wish John Hoge had posted the original!” I have no memories of John Hoge ever satisfying such a curiosity. If John Hoge has ever republished an entire article by Bill Schmalfeldt, which I have no memory of he ever doing, I would have to suggest the difference between such an incident and Bill Schmalfeldt’s systematic republication of writer’s works would differ so much in degree as to be a difference in kind. [I would have written “other writer’s work,” but, I have doubts what Bill Schmalfeldt does constitutes “writing” in any meaningful sense.]

Leave a Reply