1

!"#" %&#'(&)' )*!(' +*( ',-

%&#'(&)' *+ ./(01/2%
324567859 %:;:<:49=


>&11&/. ?*,2 ?*#-@, ,*A- =
=
!"#$%&$''( =
= )B<8 2CDE85 FGFHIJ;IKFLMNI-1,
;" =
=
>&11&/. ." #),./1+-1%' =
=
*+'+%,#%&" =
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO=


%-+-2%/2'P# .-.*(/2%!. &2 *@@*#&'&*2 '* @1/&2'&++P# .*'&*2 +*( /
@(-1&.&2/(0 &2?!2)'&*2 /2% .-.*(/2%!. &2 #!@@*(' *+
%-+-2%/2'P# .*'&*2 '* %&#.&##


&2'(*%!)'&*2

1. The Plaintiff is asking this Couit to enjoin the Befenuant fiom
blogging oi "Tweeting" any mateiial piouuceu by the Plaintiff foi the uuiation of the
instant case.
2. Plaintiff has the auuacity to ask this Couit to make such an injunction
on a unilateial basis while allowing Plaintiff to continue on unencumbeieu by the
same iules he wishes to impose on the Befenuant. In this motion, Befenuant will
uemonstiate that Plaintiff also takes such images, sometimes complete oi neaily
complete aiticles fiom the Befenuant's Twittei anu blog posts to use on his
"Bogewash" blog without Befenuant's peimission.
2
S. 0f the 24 blog posts that Plaintiff claims weie infiingeu by Befenuant,
1S of them contain mateiial scieencappeu fiom Befenuant's blog oi Twittei account.
Anothei foui of the allegeuly infiingeu blog posts contain mateiial Plaintiff
scieencappeu fiom othei souices. 0ut of the seven allegeuly infiingeu "Bogewash"
posts that uo not contain mateiial fiom someone else's blog oi Twittei account, the
blog entiies aie so shoit anu lacking in cieativity that they woulu not be subject to
copyiight even if Plaintiff hau fileu foi copyiight piotection, (Exhibits A thiough X).
Yet nowheie in his motion uoes Plaintiff state that he will likewise iefiain fiom
using mateiial fiom othei people's websites, blogs oi Twittei accounts. By gianting
this Notion, the Couit woulu be giving Plaintiff license to continue uoing that which
he claims Befenuant is uoing outsiue the bounus of copyiight law.
4. Befenuant has not applieu foi Copyiight piotection foi his blog oi
Twittei account because Befenuant believes the whole iuea of suing someone foi
using inconsequential snippets fiom anothei peison's blog oi Twittei account is
foolish, chiluish, vexatious, vinuictive, anu inuicative of a peisonality that seems to
enjoy having a sense of "powei" ovei anothei peison. It's like the Plaintiff is saying,
"I'll copy anu use as much of youi stuff as I feel like, but if you use a single sentence
of my stuff I will sue you!"
S. With all uue iespect, Befenuant maintains the position that this entiie
lawsuit is nothing moie than yet anothei aiiow fiom Plaintiff's quivei of
haiassment against Befenuant. 0nable to get eithei the Caiioll County oi Bowaiu
County State's Attoiney to piosecute the S67 ciiminal chaiges he fileu against
Befenuant foi violation of a possibly 0nconstitutional peace oiuei anu othei
S
misuemeanois, he has tuineu to the Civil Couits in an attempt to fuithei haiass
Befenuant by accusing the Befenuant of uoing the same thing Plaintiff uoes on his
own blog on a neaily uaily basis.

.(" ,*A-P# 1/>#!&' >&11 1&Q-10 R- %&#.&##-% *2 ',- .-(&'#
6. Befenuant iespectfully asks what law books Plaintiff has been
ieauing. Eveiy ieauing by Befenuant of the applicable case law shows that the
Plaintiff has a veiy high huiule to oveicome in oiuei to pievail.
a. Be must piove that he has a signeu tiansfei agieement with
Counteiclaim Befenuant "Paul Kienulei" (anonymous bloggei)
executeu in wiiting befoie such uate as Boge claimeu
owneiship of the blog entiy unuei uispute. 17 0SC 2u4.
b. Be will have to pioviue eviuence that he has fileu applications
with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi the mateiial he claims
infiinges his copyiight in my books, :Ny Slow, }ouinalistic
Beath" (upon which Plaintiff fileu a BNCA takeuown notice
seveial uays aftei attempting to sell the book on his blog
(Exhibit Y).
c. Be will have to pioviue pioof that he has fileu an application
with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi mateiial in my book "Biain
Beau," which I peisonally pulleu off the shelves at Lulu.com
anu nevei ieceiveu a copyiight takeuown iequest ovei.
4
u. In auuition to pioving he has the stanuing to file a copyiight
claim foi the mateiial he claims is infiinging in my book
"Intentional Infliction," he will have to piove that he fileu a
piopei application with the 0S Copyiight 0ffice foi the
mateiial piioi to filing his BNCA takeuown iequest anu piioi
to launching his vexatious Copyiight suit.
7. Boge mentions many times in his pleauings that applications foi
iegistiation have been submitteu to the Copyiight office by himself anu anonymous
bloggei "Paul Kienulei." But this beggais the imagination, as if Kienulei solu his
iights to Boge, why woulu Kienulei neeu to file a copyiight application. All
Befenuant knows of these allegeu applications is that Boge claims he has sent them,
anu Plaintiff has hau uealings in the past with Ni. Boge wheie he says one thing
while having uone anothei.
8. Boge keeps alleging that he fileu these copyiight applications in
accoiuance with this Couit's pieceuent in Patiick Collins, Inc. v. Boes 1-2211-Cv-
AW, ECF, No 18 (B. Nu. 2u11) at S,4. But a ieview of this Couit's uecision uoes not
ieveal a pieceuent setting uecision by this Couit, but iathei this Couit meiely
applieu a 0S Supieme Couit uecision in !""# %&'"()"*+ ,-./ (/ 01.2-).3+ 1Su S.Ct.
12S7, 1246 (2u1u)
"Feueial uistiict couits have subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei copyiight
infiingement actions baseu on 28 0.S.C. 1SS1 anu 1SS8. But neithei
1SS1, which confeis subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei questions of feueial
law, noi 1SS8(a), which is specific to copyiight claims, conuitions its
juiisuictional giant on whethei copyiight holueis have iegisteieu theii
woiks befoie suing foi infiingement."

S
9. That was not this Couit setting pieceuent. It was this Couit applying a
iuling on subject mattei juiisuiction. Plaintiff appaiently stoppeu ieauing the iuling
when he saw the pait he likeu, because the iuling in 01.2-).3 continues:
45"&#6 Section 411(a)'s iegistiation iequiiement $- a ./+01%,$&$1% to filing a
copyiight infiingement claim. A copyiight holuei's failuie to comply with
that iequiiement uoes not iestiict a feueial couit's subject-mattei
juiisuiction ovei infiingement claims involving uniegisteieu woiks. Pp. S-16.
" |Emphasis Auueuj

1u. Since this Couit's uecision anu 01.2-).3, othei couits have ueciueu
that pie-iegistiation befoie filing an infiingement suis iemains a piefequsite. In
Tattoo Ait, Inc. v. Tat Inteinational, LLC, 794 F. Supp. 2u 6S4 (E.B. va. 2u11 Bistiict
Couit, E.B. viiginia) the couit founu:
."in light of the Supieme Couit's iecent uecision in 01.2-).3+ this Couit uoes
not lack subject-mattei juiisuiction ovei plaintiff's copyiight claim against
uefenuants foi theii infiingement of both its iegisteieu anu uniegisteieu
tattoo uesigns. Bowevei, the existence of subject-mattei juiisuiction uoes
not, by itself, suffice to establish plaintiff's entitlement to a iecoveiy of
monetaiy uamages in connection with its uniegisteieu uesigns at this
junctuie. As noteu above, 17 0.S.C. 411(a) pioviues in ielevant pait that "no
civil action foi infiingement of the copyiight in any 0niteu States woik shall
be instituteu until pieiegistiation oi iegistiation of the copyiight claim has
been maue in accoiuance with this title." 17 0.S.C. 411(a). Although the
Supieme Couit founu such language not to be juiisuictional in natuie, it
expiessly "uecline|uj to auuiess whethei 411(a)'s iegistiation iequiiement
is a manuatoiy pieconuition to suit that ... uistiict couits may oi shoulu
enfoice '17 '89-:" by uismissing copyiight infiingement claims involving
uniegisteieu woiks." 01.2-).3+ 1Su S.Ct. at 1249.


.(",*A- +/)-# 2* ,/(. >&',*!' / @(-1&.&2/(0 &2?!2)'&*2
11. This contention by Plaintiff beggais belief. Was Ni. Boge planning to
sell his blog woiks to a publishing house. Will someone ieau the items, on
Befenuant's blogs anu tweets anu believe foi a moment that, with the links anu the
6
scieen caps, that Befenunant was the authoi of the woiks in question. As amazeu as
Befenuant is that Plaintiff shoulu choose to use a section of anonymous bloggei anu
Counteiclaim Befenuant's blog entiy to suppoit his own case, even that aigument
uoes not holu watei as nobouy will believe foi a moment that I wiote the mateiial.
12. Plaintiff's aiguments on "the iights of copyiight holueis" shoulu fall
on ueaf eais until such time as he pioves his allegeu copyiight owneiship.
1S. Befenuant has consistently maintaineu that his use of Plaintiff's
mateiial was caiefully uone unuei the Faii 0se Boctiine anu will stanu up to the
Foui Pillai test. Plaintiff's iefeiial to Befenuant as a seiial copyiight infiingei is
meant only to piejuuice the couit anu has no basis in fact as I have not been
aujuuicateu as having infiingeu anything anu Ni. Boge is cleaily putting the couit
befoie the hoise.
14. Befenuant cuiiently has no plans to use mateiial wiitten by the
Plaintiff. But in the futuie if Plaintiff wiites something, using Befenuant's woius,
Befenuant maintains his Fiist Amenument Right anu his iights unuei the Faii 0se
Boctiine of 0S Copyiight Law to use whatevei mateiial he ueems necessaiy to tell
the stoiy, giving piopei attiibution. Theiefoie, Plaintiff's motion foi a pieliminaiy
injunction piohibiting Befenuant's fuithei use of Plaintiff;s copyiighteu mateiial
until a final uisposition of the instant lawsuit shoulu be uenieu, anu Plaintiff shoulu
be aujuieu to not waste the Couit's time with such silly motions.

',- R/1/2)- *+ ,/(. >-&A,# /A/&2#' .(" ,*A-P# +/S*(
7
1S. What Ni. Boge is asking is foi me to abanuon the piinciples of
jouinalism. So many people of the iight wing political peisuasion seem to believe
that theii woiu is pioof of anything to say. As a peison with moie than thiee
uecaues in the piactice of jouinalism, I piefei to let the subject's woius speak foi
themselves. To see the subject's woius, as wiitten, is a poweiful tool useu by
jouinalists. Ni. Boge woulu seek to bai my Fiist Amenument Rights to wiite about
this case, oi his twin lawsuits fileu by a Nontgomeiy County man chaiging Boge anu
otheis with a vaiiety of toits, incluuing haiassment, stalking, abuse of piocess,
malicious piosecution anu intentional infliction of emotional uistiess. Accoiuingly,
the Couit shoulu BENY Plaintiff's motion of a pieliminaiy injunction.

/ @(-1&.&2/(0 ?!%A-.-2' &# &2 ',- @!R1&) &2'-(-#'
16. Ceitainly, if the "public" is uefineu as William }ohn }oseph Boge. We
uon't neeu a histoiy lectuie fiom Plantiff about }ohn Nauison's iationale foi
uesciibing Congiessional Authoiity to giant copyiights, anu such gianustanuing is a
waste of the Couit's time. We aie suie the Couit's legal euucation incluueu intensive
cuiiicula on Copyiight Law, as uiu mine in my tiaining as a jouinalist. The pioposeu
pieliminaiy injunction woulu place a giievous buiuen on the Befenuant by limiting
the mateiial that he can use to tell his stoiy. Theiefoie, again, the injunction shoulu
be BENIEB in the inteiest of the Fiist Amenument.

(-T!-#' +*( / ,-/(&2A
17. Befenuant agiees to a heaiing at such time uesignateu by the couit.
8

.-.*(/2%!. #!@@*('&2A %-+-2%/2'P# .*'&*2 '* %&#.&##
18. In piactically eveiy instance allegeu by Plaintiff as being an
infiingement of his copyiight, the poition useu is so small anu lacking in cieativity
that it uoes not meiit copyiight piotection. In each allegation, save foi the one that
Plaintiff has not yet uemonstiateu a piopeily executeu copyiight tiansfei
agieement, the allegeu infiingements aie small anu fiagmenteu. Copyiight uoes not
piotect all elements of a woik, anu theiefoie not all elements aie consiueieu when
ueteimining if copying iises above #" ;)-);)'. Copyiight only piotects elements of a
woik that uemonstiate some minimal cieativity. (See <")': =1>&?-'+ ,-./ (/ !1*7& @"&/
A"*(/ B9/+ ,-.., 499 0.S. S4u, S4S (1991). Copyiight piotection also extenus to
expiession of iueas anu facts, but not those iueas anu facts themselves. (See ,-:?&
C"D' A"*(/ (/ E''9.)7:"# =*"''+ 248 0.S. 21S, 2S4 (1918); B2).7F9 !".9*#G5"*7&# B9/ (/
@*)>1-" E''?- 27S F. 797, 798, 799 (7th Cii. 1921))
19. 0nlike a #" ;)-);)' uefense, which challenges the elements of
copyiight infiingement, faii use is an affiimative uefense. It pioviues that ceitain
otheiwise infiinging uses of copyiighteu woik aie valuable anu piotecteu fiom
liability. Foui statutoiy factois ueteimine applicability of faii use: "(1) the puipose
anu chaiactei of the use, incluuing whethei such use is of a commeicial natuie oi is
foi nonpiofit euucational puiposes; (2) the natuie of the copyiighteu woik; (S) the
amount anu substantiality of the poition useu in ielation to the copyiighteu woik as
a whole; anu (4) the effect of the use upon the potential maiket foi oi value of the
copyiighteu woik." (See B7;8>"&& (/ E.1HHG!9'" 01').+ ,-.. S1u 0.S. S69, S78 (1994).)
9
2u. Nobouy is going to see Befenuant's woiks which make faii use of
Plaintiff's blog posts anu believe foi a moment that Plaintiff's woius aie the woik of
the Befenuant. They aie useu foi the puipose of uemonstiating, in the Plaintiff's
own woius, the uefamation, haiassment, intentional infliction of emotional uistiess
anu malicious piosecution the Befenuant has suffeieu at the hanus of the Plaintiff
since Febiuaiy 2u1S. Befenuant maintains this is the ieal ieason Plaintiff wants the
books he killeu with his BNCA takeuown to stay off the shelves.
21. Anothei thing foi this Couit to consiuei in Befenuant's Notion to
Bismiss is the tiansfoimative natuie of the woiks Plaintiff alleges weie infiingeu.
Tiansfoimative uses that iesult in the cieation of a tiansfoimative woik aie similai
to ueiivative woiks in that they aie baseu on the oiiginal. Bowevei, they aie
uiffeient in that they satisfy the unueilying puipose of copyiight law by builuing on
the oiiginal anu theieby "piomoting the piogiess of science anu the useful
aits." Simply put, tiansfoimative woiks cieate something new. Again, as noteu in
B7;8>"&& (/ E.1HHG!9'" 01').+ ,-.+ "The cential puipose of this investigation is to
see...whethei the new woik meiely |supeiseuesj the oiiginal cieation, oi insteau
auus something new, with a fuithei puipose oi uiffeient chaiactei, alteiing the fiist
with new expiession, meaning oi message; it asks, in othei woius, whethei anu to
what extent the new woik is tiansfoimative." Consequently, copyiight owneis uo
not contiol tiansfoimative uses that iesult in the cieation of tiansfoimative
woiks. Anyone can lawfully unueitake a tiansfoimative use of anthei's copyiight
piotecteu woik even befoie the copyiight expiies. No peimission is iequiieu fiom
the copyiight ownei.
1u
22. Finally, the vexatious, vinuictive, haiassing natuie of the Plaintiff in
this fuithei malicious piosecution of the Befenuant is uemonstiateu in a staitling
fashion by the fact that the majoiity of the blog anu Twittei posts Plaintiff alleges as
infiinging on his woik in Counts Iv thiough XXXvII of his Fiist Amenueu Complaint
aie actually blog posts that contain substantial amounts of the Befenuant's oiiginal
woik, as uemonstiateu in Exhibits A thiough X. in othei woius, of the 24 blog posts
that Plaintiff claims weie infiingeu by Befenuant, 1S of them contain mateiial
scieencappeu fiom Befenuant's blog oi Twittei account. Anothei foui of the
allegeuly infiingeu blog posts contain mateiial Plaintiff scieencappeu fiom othei
souices. 0ut of the seven allegeuly infiingeu "Bogewash" posts that uo not contain
mateiial fiom someone else's blog oi Twittei account, the blog entiies aie so shoit
anu lacking in cieativity that they woulu not be subject to copyiight even if Plaintiff
hau fileu foi copyiight piotection,
2S. Count I of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint alleges the
Befenuant "stole" a single line blog post in his book "Ny Slow, }ouinalistic Beath."
Plaintiff also claims copyiight owneiship he uoes not have in the comments
geneiateu by that one sentence. Plaintiff has yet to uemonstiate that he has
iegisteieu a copyiight application foi that blog post with the 0S Copyiight office,
anu the copyiights foi the comments iemain, accoiuing to the Plaintiff's own Teims
of Seivice on his blog, "Bogewash.com" with the commenteis. Theiefoie, Befenuant
iespectfully iequests that this Couit BISNISS Count I of the Plaintiff's Amenueu
Complaint with piejuuice.
11
24. Count II of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint uoes not even
specifically allege an infiingement of his copyiight, othei than to make a false
statement that someone sent a BNCA takeuown notice to the self-publishing
platfoim Lulu.com to iemove the book "Biain Beau" fiom the shelves. That
takeuown iequest was not fiom the BNCA: It was fiom the Befenuant who has the
only copy of this book evei solu. Theiefoie, Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this
couit BISNISS Count II of the Plaintiff's Amenueu Complaint with piejuuice.
2S. Count III of the Plaintiff's Fiist Amenueu Complaint alleges Befenuant
infiingeu on a copyiight Plaintiff has not yet pioven he has any claim to. Although he
alleges in his complaint that he puichaseu "woilu book anu e-book iights" he has
not iesponueu to my iequest (Exhibit Z) to piouuce even a ieuacteu copy of that
agieement, which is iequiieu by 17 0SC 2u4 which states (in pait):
A tiansfei of copyiight owneiship, othei than by opeiation of law, is not valiu
unless an instiument of conveyance, oi a note oi memoianuum of the
tiansfei, is in wiiting anu signeu by the ownei of the iights conveyeu oi such
ownei's uuly authoiizeu agent.

26. uiven Plaintiff's iefusal to piove that he has such an agieement, the
Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this couit BISNISS Count III of Plaintiff's
Amenueu Complaint with piejuuice.
27. Counts Iv thiough XXXvII of the Fiist Amenument Complaint aie
luuicious, vexatious, vinuictive, anu amount to malicious piosecution. As the
majoiity of the items Plaintiff claims Befenuant "stole" consist laigely of oiiginal
mateiial wiitten by Befenuant, his claim of copyiight - unsuppoiteu by a single
application to the 0S Copyiight 0ffice - is laughable at best, contemptuous at woist,
anu uemonstiates a continuation of the haiassment Plaintiff has leveleu at
12
Befenuant since Feb. 2u1S when he fileu the fiist of his S67 ciiminal chaiges
against Befenuant, all of which weie uismisseu. Foi this ieason anu the othei
ieasons set foith above, Befenuant iespectfully iequests that this couit BISNISS
Counts Iv thiough XXXvII with piejuuice.

@(/0-( +*( (-1&-+
WBEREF0RE Ni. Boge has faileu to state a ieasonable oi coheient ieason foi
uemanuing this pieliminaiy injunction, Befenuant piays once again that the Couit
uismiss the Plaintiff's case on all S7 counts with piejuuice foi the ieasons stateu
above.
0m the absence of a uismissal, the Befenuant asks the Couit to iounuly BENY
Plaintiff's uemanus )- :9:9 anu aumonish him foi wasting this Couit's time anu
iequiiing this Plaintiff, with seveie movement uisabilities, to neeu to be hauleu to
the Feueial Couithouse to answei these silly uemanus.
Ni. Boge shoulu ieceive N0 ielief fiom this couit, anu Befenuant will ask foi
sanctions in the futuie if Plaintiff continues to floou this couit with iiuiculous,
vinuictive anu vexatious motions such as this.
Befenuant also piays that aftei uismissing Plaintiff's claim that Befenuant be
fiee to piess foiwaiu with his counteiclaim against Plaintiff.




1S
BATEB: }0NE 16, 2u14 Respectfully submitteu,

________________________________________
William N. Schmalfelut
66S6 Washington Blvu. Lot 71
Elkiiuge, NB 21u7S
41u-2u6-96S7
bschmalfelutcomcast.net


S85:U:JB6:49

I ceitify unuei penalty of peijuiy that the foiegoing is tiue anu coiiect to the
best of my knowleuge anu belief anu all copies aie tiue anu coiiect iepiesentations
of the oiiginal uocuments.


William N. Schmalfelut



)856:U:JB68 4U #85;:J8

I ceitify that on the 16
th
uay of }une, 2u14, I seiveu a copy of the foiegoing
Reply to Plaintiff's Notion foi Pieliminaiy Injunction anu Nemoianuum in Suppoit
of Befenuants Notion to Bismiss by Fiist Class Nail to W.}.}.Boge, 2u Riuge Roau,
Westminstei, NB 211S7 by Fiist Class Nain, Ceitifieu, Retuin Receipt Requesteu.



William N. Schmalfelut
14

1S

16

17

18

19

2u

21

22

2S

24

2S

26

27

28

29

Su

S1

S2

SS

S4

SS


S6


S7


S8
IN TBIS P0ST, PLAINTIFF ANN00NCES BEFENBANT'S B00K ANB TRIES T0 SELL
IT TBR00uB BIS 0WN ANAZ0N BISTRIB0T0RSBIP AuREENENT. BAYS LATER, BE
FILEB A BNCA TAKEB0WN REQ0EST 0vER 0NE SENTENCES IN TBE B00K.



S9
TBIS IS A C0PY 0F NY AS-0F-YET 0NANSWEREB REQ0EST T0 PLAINTIFF T0
PR0vIBE PR0 SE BEFENBANT WITB C0PIES 0F TBE B0C0NENTS TBAT PR0vE
BIS ENTITLENENT T0 C0PYRIuBT PR0TECTI0N.