Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
c/o Forwarding Agent at:
11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188
Gold River 95670-4484
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
District Court of the United States
Eastern Judicial District of California
Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) #CIV. S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS
)
Plaintiff, )
) VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR
v. ) DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION
) FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
AOL Time Warner, Inc., ) AND RELATED CLAIMS:
Steve Case, )
Lennert Leader, ) JURY DEMANDED
Randall J. Boe, )
Adit Seth, ) [authorities listed infra]
George R. Boyce, )
James R. Bramson, )
California Institute of Technology, )
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, )
Florida Institute of Technology, )
Miami University of Ohio, )
Northeastern University, )
Pennsylvania State University, )
Princeton University, )
Stanford University, )
Stetson University, )
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,)
University of Arkansas, )
University of Georgia, ) [continue next page:]
University of Kansas, )
University of Oregon, )
University of Texas, and )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________)
Page
VENUE 4
PARTIES 4
SUMMARY 25
COUNT ONE 27
COUNT TWO 29
COUNT THREE 31
COUNT FOUR 33
COUNT FIVE 35
RELIEF REQUESTED: 36
ON COUNT ONE 36
ON COUNT TWO 39
ON COUNTS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE 41
JURY DEMAND 43
VERIFICATION 43
This is an action for copyright infringement and related claims arising: under the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”), specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (hereinafter "1:8:8"); under the laws of the United States, specifically the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; the federal criminal Code at 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 371, 1512, 1513, and 2319; the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (uncodified); and under the treaties of the United States, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Declaration”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”), the latter enacted with explicit reservations (both here as "Human Rights Treaties").
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (i.e. federal question), 1338(a) (i.e. copyrights), and 1338(b) (i.e. unfair competition); 15 U.S.C. 1121 (i.e. Lanham Act, uncodified); 18 U.S.C. 3231 (i.e. DCUS criminal jurisdiction); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(g), and 1513(d) (i.e. extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction, crimes against Federal Witnesses).
See also 28 U.S.C. 1331 supra, in pari materia with the Arising Under Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 ("3:2:1") and with the Supremacy Clause ("6:2"), i.e. Constitution, Laws and Treaties. The latter two clauses mirror each other in respect to these matters.
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. sections 1391(b)(2) and 1400(a) and (b).
Plaintiff Paul Andrew Mitchell (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is a Citizen of California State presently inhabiting Sacramento county in California State. Plaintiff is the sole Author of the subject book, all editions, without exception.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that:
Defendant AOL Time Warner, Inc. ("AOL") is a corporation domiciled in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 22000 AOL Way, Dulles, Virginia.
AOL is duly registered with the California Secretary of State to do business as a foreign corporation in California State.
Defendants Steve Case (Chairman & Chief Executive Officer), Lennert Leader (Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer), Randall J. Boe (Associate General Counsel), Adit Seth (Legal Intern), George R. Boyce (Internet Contact) and James R. Bramson (Designated Agent) are now, and were at all times relevant to matters alleged herein, citizens of the United States [sic] working in various positions on the payroll of Defendant AOL.
Defendant Daniel Levy is a citizen of the United States doing business as Levity in New York City.
Defendant Jonathan Steuer is a citizen of the United States doing business as Cyborganic Media in San Francisco, California.
Defendant Brian Oblivion (believed to be an alias) is a citizen of the United States doing business as L0PHT Heavy Industries (spelled “el ‑ zero ‑ P ‑ H ‑ T”) in Boston, Massachusetts.
Professor Donald D. Hoffman is a citizen of the United States and faculty member employed by the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
Karl Kleinpaste is a Citizen of Pennsylvania State employed by the Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The twenty (20) named colleges and universities are well known public and private educational institutions.
Defendants Does 1 thru 2,500 are presently unnamed Party(s) whose identity(s) are yet to be formally discovered.
In March of 1992, Plaintiff conceived, wrote, and caused to be published an original book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" under the pen name of "Mitch Modeleski", abbreviated "The Federal Zone" (hereinafter "the subject book").
Also in March of 1992, Plaintiff transmitted two (2) bound copies of the subject book to the Acquisitions Librarian at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.
Plaintiff decided against registering His exclusive copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office, because of unresolved questions as to any tax liability(s) that might result therefrom.
The first edition was printed and bound in a quantity of five hundred (500) books.
The second edition was printed and perfect bound in a quantity of two thousand (2,000) books.
In December of 1992, Plaintiff entered a printed second edition of the subject book into evidence in the case of People v. Boxer, California Supreme Court docket number #S‑030016. Plaintiff subsequently published the pleadings in that case at Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/boxer/index.htm
In the summer of 1993 A.D., the trust account that Plaintiff managed -- to deposit funds for all prepaid orders -- was levied without any notice to Plaintiff, without any hearing(s), and without the warrant of distraint (court order) required by the holding in U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir., 1947), reducing the balance on deposit to zero dollars ($0.00).
Subsequently, Plaintiff was reduced to selling the electronic third (3rd) and fourth (4th) editions as “shareware” [sic] on standard 1.44‑megabyte (million character) 3.5‑inch “floppy” computer disks.
Each Chapter and each Appendix in these editions was stored in a separate computer file, with a separate README file, Preface, Introduction, thirteen (13) Chapters numbered 1 thru 13, Conclusions, and twenty‑six (26) Appendices lettered A thru Z, for a total of forty‑three (43) separate and discrete computer files.
All README files contained the following SHAREWARE POLICY:
“The
electronic third edition of The Federal Zone is being distributed as computer
‘shareware’. The purpose of shareware is
to combine personal honor with the phenomenon
of spontaneous digital reproduction.
If the information contained
in the electronic third edition is useful in any way, we ask that its
recipients send $25 in cash, check or money order to [trust
account supra].”
[bold
emphasis added]
The
Preface in the electronic third
and fourth editions contained an
explicit requirement, under a "Disclaimer" heading, that users not modify the content of the character stream in any way,
to wit:
"The purpose of this requirement is faithfully to preserve all punctuation, Capitalization [sic], bold [sic], italics [sic], and underlines [sic] exactly as found in the original text. Permission is hereby given to translate the electronic fourth edition into formats compatible with different word processors, resulting at most in cosmetic changes like different margins which may cause changes in pagination."
This requirement is here termed the "fidelity requirement." Identical language was also placed in all README files (Exhibit A‑1).
The Preface in the electronic third and fourth editions also contained an explicit requirement, under a "Special Notice" heading, about payment of the single copy cost, to wit:
"This book is protected by a Common Law Copyright under the name of the author. … If you make unauthorized copies of this book without paying the Author for those copies, you are obtaining unjust enrichment by doing so, and therefore you are no different from the government officials who are stealing from you."
This requirement is here termed the "payment requirement."
A printed hard copy of the electronic fourth edition is attached as Exhibits A‑1 thru A‑43 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein (one Exhibit per computer file).
In 1995, in his concurring opinion in the case of U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word, giving it a permanent place in the history of American constitutional jurisprudence.
In December of 1995, Plaintiff first became aware of the Internet World Wide Web ("Web"), and of the Navigator software originally developed and marketed by the Netscape Corporation, which corporation was later acquired by Defendant AOL.
Also in December of 1995, Plaintiff discovered a modified, derivative copy of the electronic fourth edition of the subject book at the Internet address http://www.deoxy.org (hereinafter "Domain DEOXY.ORG"), with all component chapters and appendices (except the README file) in as many separate and discrete computer files.
A more commonly used term for an "Internet address" is the Uniform Resource Locator (hereinafter "URL").
Hard copies of the modified, derivative files at DEOXY.ORG, as printed by the Microsoft Internet Explorer software, are attached as Exhibits B‑1 thru B‑42 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein (42 exhibits, not 43).
The corresponding raw text files are attached as Exhibits C‑1 thru C‑42, respectively, and also incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein (42 exhibits, not 43).
The README files, describing the SHAREWARE POLICY, were never copied onto the Internet at Domain DEOXY.ORG.
At that point in time (December 1995), Plaintiff did not have the time, nor the requisite expertise, to determine exactly what Internet user(s), company(s) and computer(s) were hosting said URL and the related computer files at said URL.
In September of 1996, Plaintiff's schedule and available financial resources permitted Plaintiff to hire an experienced Internet consultant, to assist in designing and developing Plaintiff's own Internet Web site.
That Internet consultant provided Plaintiff with technical instructions which enabled Plaintiff to determine that Domain DEOXY.ORG was most probably being hosted by Defendant AOL.
During the summer of 1997 A.D., Plaintiff’s client in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson introduced a printed seventh edition of the subject book as an Exhibit attached to that client’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri.
Plaintiff later published the pleadings in that case at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/index.htm
Over a period of several months, time permitting, Plaintiff surveyed the entire Internet, using the Alta Vista search engine developed by Digital Equipment Corp. (now owned by Compaq Corp.)
During October of 1997, Plaintiff produced a summary of initial survey findings in a private Internet file named TFZLINKS at Domain SUPREMELAW.COM, also known as the Supreme Law Library.
A true and correct hard‑copy of the TFZLINKS file is attached as Exhibit D‑1‑A and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
At entry number three (3) in TFZLINKS, the original file at Internet URL http://www.deoxy.org/fz/fedzone.htm was reported to have a creation date of May 13, 1997, and "AOL" [sic] was listed as the "Name Server" [sic] for said URL.
Also during October of 1997, Plaintiff commenced to transmit a consistent series of electronic and printed ("hard‑copy") messages directed to Defendant AOL, to other violators at Internet domains known to Plaintiff, and to Internet email lists of which Plaintiff was an active member during various periods of time (e.g. SNETNEWS and LIBERTY‑AND‑JUSTICE [sic]). See Exhibit D‑1‑B.
Said series of messages informed their many recipients of the ongoing copyright violations at Domain DEOXY.ORG and elsewhere on the Internet, and demanded compliance with the fidelity requirement and with the payment requirement supra.
Later on, said series of messages also demanded immediate removal of all unauthorized copies and all modified derivatives of the subject book from the Internet and from all computers to which suspected violators had any write access whatsoever.
In some cases, specifically during the month of October 1997, said messages tendered bona fide offers in compromise to several individuals suspected of direct copyright infringement, and bona fide offers to hold them harmless. See Exhibit D‑1‑B.
Not one such offer was ever accepted.
Specifically, on October 17, 1997, Plaintiff mailed to Defendants Case and Leader a BONA FIDE OFFER IN COMPROMISE AND BONA FIDE OFFER TO HOLD HARMLESS, on the subject of Defendant AOL’s unauthorized electronic copy of “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue,” fourth edition.
A true and correct copy of said OFFER is attached as Exhibit D‑2 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Defendant AOL and several of its
anonymous agents either ignored, or failed to comply with, said OFFER and the many written requests that were made in
Plaintiff's several messages sent during October 1997 and afterwards.
Also on October 17, 1997, Plaintiff mailed a written letter to the Internet Network Information Center ("InterNIC"), requesting written confirmation that Domain DEOXY.ORG was, in fact, being hosted by Defendant AOL.
A true and correct copy of said letter is attached as Exhibit D‑3 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
InterNIC professional staff later replied with a written letter confirming that Domain DEOXY.ORG was, in fact, hosted by computers owned and operated by Defendant AOL.
On November 3, 1997, Plaintiff mailed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT to the Postmaster of the United States Postal Inspection Service at Dulles 20166‑9323, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, citing copyright violations, and the transmission of false and misleading information through the United States Mail.
Said COMPLAINT also cited the criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 2.
A true and correct copy of said COMPLAINT is attached as Exhibit D‑4 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On December 17, 1997, Plaintiff utilized the Internet to query the InterNIC WHOIS database for the names of all Contacts responsible for Domain DEOXY.ORG.
The results of said query are attached as Exhibit D‑5 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Domain name servers (“DNS”) were listed in the following order:
DNS01.WEB.AOL.COM [emphasis added]
DNS02.WEB.AOL.COM [emphasis added]
152.163.212.26
152.163.212.27
As of that date (12/17/1997), the above data were last updated on "05‑Jun‑97"; and, the database record containing these data for Domain DEOXY.ORG was first created on "30‑May‑96".
Prior
to residing at Domain DEOXY.ORG, the
copyright violations in question had
resided at Internet Domains EXECNET.COM, INTAC.COM and LEVITY.COM infra.
On June 8, 1998, Plaintiff transmitted electronic and hard copies of Plaintiff's FINAL BONA FIDE OFFER IN COMPROMISE.
A true and correct copy of said OFFER is attached as Exhibit D‑6‑A and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On July 7, 1998, Plaintiff transmitted His standard NOTICE AND DEMAND via electronic mail (“email”) to AOL and to AOL subscriber Terry W. Stough, demanding proof of Plaintiff’s authorization (if any) to promote another stolen electronic copy at Domain NEBONET.COM.
A true and correct copy of said message dated July 7, 1998, is attached as Exhibit D‑6‑B and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Plaintiff transmitted copies of other email correspondence with Terry W. Stough to the following email addresses within AOL:
On July 17, 1998, Plaintiff transmitted another electronic message to Defendant Case at email address stevecase@aol.com with a Subject: line of "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION: The Federal Zone (all editions)" [sic], and with electronic copies to the following additional email addresses:
A true and correct copy of said message dated July 17, 1998, is attached as Exhibit D‑7 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Said message dated July 17, 1998, contained active, valid hyper‑text links to two (2) additional messages that Plaintiff had previously published in the Supreme Law Forum ("Forum"), at the following URL's:
http://www.supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1181.html
http://www.supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1182.html
True and correct copies of these two Forum messages are attached as Exhibits D‑8 and D‑9 respectively, and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On July 22, 1998, Plaintiff transmitted two (2) more electronic messages to Defendant Steve Case at email address stevecase@aol.com with a Subject: line of "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" [sic].
These two electronic messages are likewise attached as Exhibits D‑10 and D‑11‑A, respectively, and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Then, on July 23, 1998, Plaintiff published in the Supreme Law Forum a PUBLIC NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1270.html
Said NOTICE AND DEMAND contained the following specific language:
“Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to delete ALL extant copies of component electronic files in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," all editions, and ALL hypertext links to extant copies, whether such links are now valid or not, and ALL pointers to same which now exist in the index databases of all Internet search engines, and to do so on all computers now in your possession or control, and all computers to which you have any write access whatsoever.”
Plaintiff then transmitted an identical email message, containing a valid hyper‑text link pointing to said PUBLIC NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, to all Internet domains and to all Internet users suspected, at that time, of infringing Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
The stated deadline for recipients’ specific performance was 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (“PDT”) on July 31, 1998.
A true and correct copy of said PUBLIC NOTICE AND DEMAND is attached as Exhibit D‑11‑B and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here.
On July 30, 1998, Plaintiff received from Defendant Seth, via Federal Express Priority Overnight delivery, a hard copy letter alleging that all component files of the subject book had been removed from Internet Domains DEOXY.ORG and PARASCOPE.COM [sic].
A true and correct copy of said letter from Defendant Seth is attached as Exhibit D‑12 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 2, 1998, Plaintiff posted and published in the Forum a formal NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND PASSAGE OF DEADLINE, at Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/wwwboard/messages/1319.html
A true and correct copy of said NOTICE OF DEFAULT is attached as Exhibit D‑13 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
[A] On September 20, 1998, approximately seven (7) weeks after receipt of Defendant Seth's hard copy letter, Plaintiff confirmed, and then carefully re‑confirmed, that the following modified, derivative files still remained at Domain DEOXY.ORG as hosted by Defendant AOL:
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/4.htm Chapter 4 D-14
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/11.htm Chapter 11 D-15
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/b.htm Appendix B D-16
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/c.htm Appendix C D-17
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm Appendix G D-18
http://www.deoxy.org/fz/x.htm Appendix X D-19
Plaintiff attaches true and correct printed copies of said modified derivatives as Exhibits D‑14, D‑15, D‑16, D‑17, D‑18, and D‑19 respectively, and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Also on September 20, 1998, Plaintiff refused Defendant Seth's letter for fraud, and mailed said refusal back to Defendant Seth at AOL's mailing address at 22000 AOL Way, Dulles, Virginia.
Said refusal is attached as Exhibit D‑20 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
During the summer and fall of 1998 A.D., after suffering protracted criminal retaliation for His extensive judicial activism and repeated federal testimony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 371, 1512 and 1513, Plaintiff was permitted to take advantage of the modern computer facilities at the Southwest Texas State University ("SWT") in San Marcos, Texas.
Plaintiff's purpose at SWT was to conduct systematic and comprehensive enforcement of His exclusive Rights in all extant copies and versions of the subject book, both printed and electronic, derivative or not, with emphasis on all Internet copies known to violate either the fidelity requirement or the payment requirement.
In addition to the network of computers owned and operated by Defendant AOL, Plaintiff was thereby able to confirm that separate criminal copyright violations were then in progress at approximately one hundred fifty (150) additional discrete Internet domains.
See the recent legislative histories of 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513, and 2319, and also unnamed Does 1 thru 2,500 on the caption page supra, to incorporate, among others, all Contacts listed as such in the WHOIS [sic] databases on the Internet, and all Internet users who have infringed any of Plaintiff’s Rights enumerated herein.
The WHOIS databases list technical, administrative, and billing Contacts for all Internet domains, e.g. see Internet URL’s:
http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois/
Plaintiff also re-confirmed that the modified, derivative copies, later hosted by Defendant AOL, had moved several times from one Internet domain to another, beginning on March 24, 1994 (see aen_files.txt at domain L0PHT.COM, “FEDZTXT4.ZIP” dated “03‑24‑94”).
A subset of said domains were likewise hosted by Defendant AOL, at one time or another.
The following is a sample of these several different domains and corresponding Internet URL's:
execnet.com/downloads_001/p/patriotu.zip
intac.com/~dimitri/dh/fz/fedzone.html
levity.com/deoxy/fz/fedzone.htm
DEOXY.ORG
feustel.mixi.net/fedzone/fedzone.html
AOL.COM
members.aol.com/astrology/fedzone/fedzone.htm
BAYON.NET
bayon.net/federalzone/fedzone.htm
l0pht.com/pub/blackcrwl/patriot/the_federal_zone.txt
CORNELL.EDU
cybernews.comm.cornell.edu/pub/usa/patriot/fedzone.txt
phreak.com/archives/blackcrwl/patriot/the_federal_zone.txt
geburah.cihost.com/nwo/tezcat/Law/The_Federal_Zone.txt
kingdomofzion.org/doctrines/library/sovereignty/S_FedZone.txt
TEXTFILES.COM
textfiles.com/politics/fedztext.txt
The copyright enforcement that Plaintiff conducted at SWT resulted in retaliations by suspected violators.
These retaliations took the form, among other things, of false complaints to Plaintiff’s email service providers, to Plaintiff’s Internet consultant, and to the InterNIC Registrar.
In response to said false complaints, Plaintiff addressed a long memo dated July 23, 1998, to Dr. Dean Hines, Ph.D., Plaintiff’s Internet consultant, and another long memo dated July 29, 1998, to Ms. Ann Lowe, InterNIC Registrar at that time.
True and correct copies are attached as Exhibits D‑21‑A and D‑21‑B and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) was signed into law on October 28, 1998, P.L. 105‑304, 112 Stat. 2860, Title II.
It was not until March 17, 1999, when Plaintiff first discovered that all modified derivatives had finally been removed from the Domain DEOXY.ORG hosted by Defendant AOL (see Page 14, Paragraph [A] above).
Several other principal copyright violations, i.e. direct infringements, continued after March 16, 1999.
During the summer of 1999 A.D., Plaintiff performed another comprehensive round of copyright enforcements, with the goal of identifying principal violators, namely, those domains which had made unauthorized copies, and “recalcitrants,” namely, those domains which had refused to remove the subject book and hyper‑text links to it, after receiving lawful notices from Plaintiff.
On June 21, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Daniel Levy and served same on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in New York City.
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Daniel Levy is attached as Exhibit D‑22 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On June 24, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Jonathan Steuer and served same on the FBI in San Francisco, California.
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Jonathan Steuer is attached as Exhibit D‑23 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On June 24, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Brian Oblivion and served same on the FBI in Boston, Massachusetts.
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Brian Oblivion is attached as Exhibit D‑24 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On June 25, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Donald D. Hoffman and served same on the FBI in Los Angeles, California.
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Donald D. Hoffman is attached as Exhibit D‑25 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On June 25, 1999, Plaintiff executed the AUTHOR’S FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE and served same: on the four (4) FBI offices itemized supra; on Judge Alex Kozinski, sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena, California; and on the Postmaster of the U.S. Post Office in San Leandro, California.
A true and correct copy of said AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE is attached as Exhibit D‑26 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On July 11, 1999, Plaintiff wrote, and published on the Internet, a document entitled “The Federal Zone” Copyright Amnesty Program.
A true and correct copy of said document is attached as Exhibit D‑27 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
The stated purpose of this Copyright Amnesty Program was to give certain Internet users suspected of copyright infringement an opportunity to avoid all civil and criminal liabilities simply by: (1) paying for one copy, (2) deleting all copies of component files, and (3) verifying this deletion in an affidavit, all before 7/31/1999.
Plaintiff disseminated this Copyright Amnesty Program very widely, via email and also via first class U.S. Mail.
Plaintiff made a point of sending same via first class U.S. Mail to the last known mailing addresses of all recalcitrants, and of all others suspected of copyright infringements (direct or indirect).
On July 28, 1999, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Judge Alex Kozinski concerning possible insider sales by Defendant Steve Case, and transmitted same via first class U.S. Mail.
A true and correct copy of said letter is attached as Exhibit D‑28 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
By the time the stated amnesty deadline of July 31, 1999, had passed, only four (4) people suspected of copyright infringement had each paid for one copy of the subject book.
After July 31, 1999, Plaintiff did not offer amnesty to anyone, ever again.
On August 1, 1999, Plaintiff wrote and published on the Internet a generic letter announcing an international boycott of defendant AOL, for its complicity in violating Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights.
A true and correct copy of said letter is attached as Exhibit D‑29 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 2, 1999, Plaintiff confirmed yet another principal violation at Internet domain PHREAK.COM (see above, Page 16).
This direct infringement violates both the Copyright Act supra and the Lanham Act supra.
A true and correct copy of said infringement is attached as Exhibit D‑30 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 13, 1999, Plaintiff executed and served, via first class U.S. Mail, a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE AND PROSECUTE VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS on the Designated Agents and WHOIS Contacts at the following eighteen (18) major U.S. and European universities:
California Institute of Technology CALTECH.EDU
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology EPFL.CH
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ERAU.EDU
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ETEXT.ORG
Florida Institute of Technology FIT.EDU
Indiana University INDIANA.EDU
University of Kansas KUVCC.ORG
Miami University, Ohio MUOHIO.EDU
Northeastern University NEU.EDU
Princeton University PRINCETON.EDU
Pennsylvania State University PSU.EDU
Stanford University STANFORD.EDU
Stetson University STETSON.EDU
University of Arkansas UARK.EDU
University of California, Irvine UCI.EDU
University of Georgia UGA.EDU
University of Oregon UOREGON.EDU
University of Texas, San Antonio UTSA.EDU
Plaintiff
later added Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU.EDU)
and Cornell University (CORNELL.EDU) to
this list (see caption page).
A true and correct copy of said NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE is attached as Exhibit D‑31 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 20, 1999, Plaintiff complained in writing of yet another direct infringement at AOL, by addressing a MEMO with attached evidence to Defendant James R. Bramson, AOL’s Designated Agent for Notification of Copyright Infringement Claims, and transmitted same via first class U.S. Mail. See DMCA supra at § 512(c).
Plaintiff had earlier obtained Defendant Bramson’s name and mailing address from the Internet website of the U.S. Copyright Office, where a public domain database is maintained of all such Designated Agents, their mailing addresses, and phone numbers, pursuant to the DMCA supra at § 512(c). See Internet URL:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/list/index.html
True and correct copies of said MEMO and evidence are attached as Exhibit D‑32 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Subsequently, Plaintiff’s first class envelope to Defendant Bramson was refused with the following directive written on the envelope: “RETURN TO SENDER” [sic]. See Exhibit D‑32.
By doing so, Defendant James R. Bramson violated the DMCA supra.
On August 27, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Karl Kleinpaste and served same on the FBI in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendant Karl Kleinpaste is attached as Exhibit D‑33 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 27, 1999, Plaintiff published on the Internet a list of one hundred seventy‑nine (179) copyright violators, indexed by domain and accompanied by copies of the email that Plaintiff had previously transmitted to responsible Contacts at each domain.
A true and correct copy of said list is attached as Exhibit D‑34 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On December 13, 1999, Plaintiff executed a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendants Steve Case, Lennert Leader, Randall J. Boe, Adit Seth, and George R. Boyce, and served same on Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski at his office in Pasadena, California. See 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony).
A true and correct copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against Defendants Case, Leader, Boe, Seth and Boyce is attached as Exhibit D‑35 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On January 21, 2000, Plaintiff executed and mailed to AOL’s offices in Dulles, Virginia, a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE.
A true and correct copy of said NOTICE OF INTENT is attached as Exhibit D‑36 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
During the month of March 2000, a convicted felon and his wife attempted to steal the entire set of electronic and hard copy evidence assembled by Plaintiff in the instant case.
After lodging felony criminal complaints with local police, and with a federal judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 supra, Plaintiff succeeded in persuading the Hawaii police to recover all hard copy documents and the computer that Plaintiff uses to manage the entire set of electronic evidence.
To memorialize this attempted theft, on March 30, 2000, Plaintiff wrote and published a press release which He titled “Grand Theft of Author’s Evidence Widens AOL Internet Copyright Conspiracy.”
A true and correct copy of said press release is attached as Exhibit D‑37 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On July 23, 2000, Plaintiff confirmed another principal violation at Internet domain KINGDOMOFZION.ORG (see above, Page 16).
This direct infringement violates both the Copyright Act supra and the Lanham Act supra, for being a modified derivative.
A true and correct copy of said infringement is attached as Exhibit D‑38 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
On August 22, 2000, Plaintiff confirmed yet another principal violation at Internet domain CIHOST.COM (see above, Page 16), admittedly copied “From the Radio Free Michigan archives” [sic] via links to the following File Transfer Protocol (“FTP”) address:
ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot
This direct infringement violates both the Copyright Act supra and the Lanham Act supra, for being a modified derivative.
A true and correct copy of said infringement is attached as Exhibit D‑39 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
During the summer of 2000 A.D.,
Plaintiff performed yet another round of copyright enforcements, with
the goal of identifying direct infringements not previously known, and all new
indirect infringements of Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
Plaintiff duly notified the
following eleven (11) Internet domains, using the standard NOTICE AND DEMAND previously sent to
violators at other domains, but enhanced with hyper-text links to additional
supporting documentation:
DOMAIN / Evidence Folder
CIHOST.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/cihost.com
CROSSFIELDS.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/crossfields.com
EXECNET.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/execnet.com
FREEDOMDOMAIN.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/freedomdomain.com
HACKEDARCHIVES.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/hackedarchives.com
KINGDOMOFZION.ORG
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/kingdomofzion.org
LAWRESEARCH.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/lawresearch.com
LPDALLAS.ORG
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/lpdallas.org
TRANS-WORLD.NET
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/trans-world.net
TRIPOD.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/tripod.com
VIIKA.COM
http://www.supremelaw.com/copyrite/viika.com
These eleven new domains were added to the previous list of 179 domains (179 + 11), to produce a new Master Index by Domain, enumerating one hundred ninety (190) copyright violations, indexed by Internet domain name and accompanied by copies of email that Plaintiff had previously transmitted to responsible Contacts at each domain.
True and correct copies of said Master Index, and of said standard NOTICE AND DEMAND enhanced with links to additional supporting documentation, are attached as Exhibit D‑40 and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
[Please continue next page.]
To summarize, the facts as stated above prove that Defendants failed to respond expeditiously to Plaintiff’s numerous written messages complaining of a multiplicity of copyright infringements and Lanham Act violations, to His BONA FIDE OFFERS IN COMPROMISE, to His PUBLIC NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, to His NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND PASSAGE OF DEADLINE, or to His Copyright Amnesty Program.
The duration of Defendants' uninterrupted violation of Plaintiff's exclusive copyrights in the subject book lasted at least from March 24, 1994 A.D., through and including April 14, 2001 A.D., for a total of eighty-four (84) consecutive months.
During those same 84 months, Plaintiff's gross revenues from sales of the subject book amounted to less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) total, or $1,000.00 / 84 = $11.90 per month.
Using the activity rate during November 1999 at Plaintiff's own Internet Web site as a baseline -- on the theory that this rate is an excellent empirical measure of the general public's interest in Plaintiff's published writings -- then an estimated 84 months x 78,000 "hits" per month => 6,552,000 copies of one or more component files of the subject book, or modified derivatives, were obtained unlawfully, and without any payments whatsoever, from Defendants’ network of computers, in direct and/or indirect infringement of Plaintiff's exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
This rate of violations is roughly equivalent to a minimum of 78,000 "hits" per month / 43 "hits" per Internet user = 1,814 Internet users per month, assuming all 43 component files were downloaded by each and every user.
On the basis of these assumptions, the value of the stolen property was then 1,814 copies @ $25.00 = $45,350.00 per month, minimum. Then, 84 months @ $45,350.00 = $3,809,400.00 minimum.
These latter assumptions are Plaintiff's good faith attempt to estimate absolute lower bounds for:
(1) the number of Internet users per month who obtained all, or part, of the subject book, or any modified derivatives, from Defendants’ worldwide network of computers;
(2) the monthly retail value of the intellectual property stolen in that fashion; and,
(3) the total retail value of the intellectual property stolen in that fashion, over a period of 84 consecutive months.
See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1).
Plaintiff expects more accurate evidence to show that the average Internet user did not download all 43 component files; for example, the SHAREWARE POLICY from the README file (see Exhibit A‑1) was found only at CALTECH.EDU and TEXTFILES.COM.
In some cases, but not all cases, current activity counters were available at the Web pages published by certain copyright violators, e.g. 3,864,782 “hits” at EXECNET.COM where the subject book was sold.
Plaintiff has not used any of these other activity counters in the damage estimates below. See SUMMARY OF DAMAGES infra.
The activity logs of Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) are proprietary, and may have been altered or erased without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, in anticipation of this lawsuit.
Without specific relief from this honorable Court, Plaintiff believes He has no legal right to read or analyze the activity logs of any ISP’s (not without becoming a “hacker” Himself).
Moreover, evidence illegally acquired is not admissible.
Copyright Infringements:
17 U.S.C. §§ 506(a)(2),
512(c)
and 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1)
Plaintiff re‑alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
By their actions above, Defendants AOL, Case, Leader, Boe, Seth, Boyce and Bramson have infringed Plaintiff's exclusive copyrights in, and relating to, the subject book, either directly and/or indirectly, by failing to remove timely and expeditiously all modified, derivative copies extant on the network of computers owned and operated by Defendant AOL, during a period covering at least October 17, 1997, thru March 16, 1999, inclusive, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 512(c).
By consistently violating the payment requirement, and by reproducing and distributing one hundred (100) or more copies of a copyrighted work having a total retail value of $2,500.00 or more (i.e. >100 @ $25), during multiple periods each lasting one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or less, all Defendants are liable for fines and penalties under the criminal statutes at 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1).
Plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunctions during pendency of this action, and permanent injunctions thereafter, restraining all Defendants and all of their officers, agents, employees, subscribers (both past and present), and all other persons (or Persons, as the case may be) in active concert or in participation with them, from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the copyright Laws of the United States, inclusive of all pertinent provisions in the U.S. Constitution, federal Statutes, and the Human Rights Treaties.
Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from all Defendants the actual damages that Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by all Defendants, as a result of their joint and/or several acts of copyright infringement as properly alleged above.
At present, the amount of such damages, gains, profits, and advantages is estimated to equal approximately 6,552,000 copies @ $25.00 per copy = $163,800,000.00, although the full amount of such damages cannot now be ascertained more accurately by Plaintiff without further discovery, and will require lawful jury determination.
No one ever requested Plaintiff's permission to modify the subject book, and then to make modified derivatives available for free on the World Wide Web of the Internet.
No
one!
No one ever obtained Plaintiff's permission to modify the subject book, and then to make modified derivatives available for free on the World Wide Web of the Internet. No one.
Absolutely no one!
Using said modified, degenerate derivatives, Defendants’ coordinated actions jointly and severally saturated the market for the subject book, to Plaintiff’s obvious detriment, by effectively diluting to zero the real economic demand for authentic editions of the subject book.
Plaintiff now has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
[Please continue next page.]
Violations of Lanham Act § 43(a):
False Designations of Origin,
False and Misleading Descriptions of Fact, and
False and Misleading Representations of Fact,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1117, 1125(a) (uncodified)
Plaintiff re‑alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this COUNT under 15 U.S.C. 1121 (not yet codified), 60 Stat. 440, 62 Stat. 907, 63 Stat. 107, 96 Stat. 46, 96 Stat. 1316, and 102 Stat. 3946.
By modifying the electronic text of the subject book with: arbitrary changes, arbitrary deletions, the addition of Hyper Text Markup Language ("HTML"), and the addition of other extraneous text not found anywhere in the original text of the electronic editions, Defendants created and maintained unauthorized, modified derivatives that violated the fidelity requirement and thereby falsely designated the origin(s), falsely represented the fact, and falsely described Plaintiff as the sole Author, of said derivatives.
In so doing, Defendants’ conduct was likely to mislead others, to cause confusion and mistake, and to deceive others, both on and off the Internet, as to Defendants’ affiliation(s), connection(s), and association(s) with Plaintiff, if any.
See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1) (not yet codified).
Likewise, Defendants’ conduct was likely to mislead others, to cause confusion and mistake, and to deceive others, both on and off the Internet, as to the origin, sponsorship, and approval of Plaintiff’s goods, services, and commercial activities, if any.
Again, see 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1) (not yet codified).
By placing and using said derivatives on the Internet, by installing and maintaining active hyper‑text links to same (i.e. HTML HREF anchors), and by failing to remove said derivatives and links after receipt of repeated NOTICES AND DEMANDS from Plaintiff, Defendants thereby falsely designated the origin(s) of said derivatives, falsely represented the fact of said derivatives, and falsely described Plaintiff as the sole Author responsible for authorizing the publication and maintaining the availability of said derivatives, on the Internet's World Wide Web.
This Web is an integrated network of computers that are so easy to use, even young children have become proficient Internet "surfers."
Plaintiff alleges that each discrete act by any or all Defendants thus: falsely designating the origin(s) of said derivatives, misleading others by falsely representing the fact of said derivatives, misleading others by falsely describing Plaintiff as the sole Author of said derivatives, and copying or linking to same via the Internet or any other medium, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of the Lanham Act, section 43(a), uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), 60 Stat. 441, 102 Stat. 3946.
The README files, Preface, Introduction, 13 Chapters numbered 1 thru 13, Conclusions, and 26 Appendices lettered A thru Z, amount to 43 separate files, hence 43 discrete violations.
Plaintiff now has no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
[Please continue next page.]
(a) Deprivations of Fundamental Rights,
18 U.S.C. 242; and,
(b) Federal Witness/Victim Retaliation,
Plaintiff re‑alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this COUNT under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 18 U.S.C. 3231 (DCUS criminal jurisdiction).
Moreover, there is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(g) and 1513(d).
Plaintiff alleges that His Rights in, and related to, the subject book are also fundamental Rights expressly secured and protected by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.
Confer at "Fundamental law" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. See also Chapter 10 in the electronic tenth edition.
The U.S. Constitution is expressly in force within the District of Columbia (“D.C.”), all federal Territories and all 50 States.
See 16 Stat. 419, 426, § 34 (1871); 18 Stat. 325, 333, § 1891 (1873).
See also 1:8:8, the Human Rights Treaties, and 3:2:1 in pari materia with 6:2 (the federal Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all supreme Law of the Land).
[B] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have severally violated Articles 19, 23(1)-(3), 25(1) and 27(2) in the Declaration, and Articles 14(3)(e), 19(1) and (2), 25 and 26 in the Covenant, both rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have induced severe financial hardship upon, and injured, oppressed, threatened, obstructed, and/or intimidated Plaintiff, since birth a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, in the free exercise and full enjoyment of His freedoms of expression, His Petition Clause Rights, His Rights to just and favorable remuneration and to an adequate standard of living, and His exclusive Copyrights as secured by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States, and because He so exercised same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1512 and 1513.
Plaintiff further alleges that each discrete act by any or all Defendants, thus inducing financial hardship and willfully depriving Plaintiff of the free exercise and full enjoyment of His fundamental Rights enumerated supra, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of Rights under color of law).
See also 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513, and related COUNT FOUR infra.
[C] Plaintiff hereby reserves His fundamental Right to petition this Court for leave, as a qualified Private Attorney General, to prosecute criminally this and other Counts against all Defendants to which they are applicable, after formal discovery reveals the full extent of the violation(s) alleged herein and after civil verdicts and final judgments are reached.
[D] See: 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2), as amended Dec. 16, 1997, P.L. 105‑147, § 2(b), 111 Stat. 2678; 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1), as amended Oct. 28, 1992, P.L. 102‑561, § 1, 106 Stat. 4233 & Nov. 13, 1997, P.L. 105‑80, § 12(b)(2), 111 Stat. 1536 & Dec. 16, 1997, P.L. 105‑147, § 2(d), 111 Stat. 2678; and 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513 as amended; and legislative histories of same, for the intent of Congress.
Plaintiff now has no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
(a) Criminal Conspiracy,
(b) Federal Witness/Victim Retaliation,
Plaintiff re‑alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this COUNT under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 18 U.S.C. 3231 (DCUS criminal jurisdiction).
Moreover, there is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(g) and 1513(d).
Plaintiff alleges that His Rights in, and related to, the subject book are also fundamental Rights expressly secured and protected by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.
Confer at "Fundamental law" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. See also Chapter 10 in the electronic tenth edition.
The U.S. Constitution is expressly in force within the District of Columbia (“D.C.”), all federal Territories and all 50 States.
See 16 Stat. 419, 426, § 34 (1871); 18 Stat. 325, 333, § 1891 (1873).
See also 1:8:8, the Human Rights Treaties, and 3:2:1 in pari materia with 6:2 (the federal Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all supreme Law of the Land).
Plaintiff further alleges that a complex criminal conspiracy involving multiple Defendants, working in active concert and participation with each other, has induced severe financial hardship upon, and injured, oppressed, threatened, obstructed, and/or intimidated Plaintiff, since birth a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, in the free exercise and full enjoyment of His freedoms of expression, His Petition Clause Rights, His Rights to just and favorable remuneration and to an adequate standard of living, and His exclusive Copyrights as secured by the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States, and because He so exercised same, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 371, 1512 and 1513.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs [B], [C] and [D] under COUNT THREE supra, as if set forth fully herein. (See Pages 31 and 32 above.)
Plaintiff further alleges that the Human Rights Treaties cited above are likewise the supreme Law of the Land, under the Supremacy Clause at 6:2.
Under 18 U.S.C. 241, Congress can provide punishment for their infraction on the deprivation of, or injury to, Rights secured by Treaties, as in the case of ordinary law.
See Re Grand Jury, 26 F. 749 (D.C. Or., 1886). See also 18 U.S.C. 242 supra.
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges, and hereby formally offers to prove, that Treaties supersede all State constitutions and laws, insofar as conflicts may arise between Treaties and the latter.
Plaintiff now has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
Unfair Competition under California Law:
California Business and Professions Code,
Sections
17200 et seq.
Plaintiff re‑alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this COUNT under 28 U.S.C. 1338(b), i.e. unfair competition.
Defendants’ misconduct constituted unfair competition under California State law.
In connection with all matters and all things alleged herein, Defendants have been guilty of oppression, actual and constructive fraud, and malice aforethought.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary (punitive) damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff now has no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
[Please continue next page.]
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests judgment against all named Defendants as follows:
1. That this Court find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
2. That all Defendants, and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subscribers, and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book, or continuing to market, offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, host, store, transfer, modify, display, advertise, reproduce, develop, or manufacture any works derived or copied from the subject book, or to participate or assist in any such activity.
3. That all Defendants, and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subscribers, and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be ordered to return to Plaintiff any and all originals, copies, derivatives, facsimiles, or duplicates of the subject book in their possession, custody, or control.
4. That all Defendants, and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subscribers, and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be ordered to recall from all subscribers, advertisers, distributors, wholesalers, jobbers, dealers, retailers, users, and all others known to Defendants, any and all originals, copies, derivatives, facsimiles, or duplicates of any works shown by the evidence to infringe Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
5. That all Defendants, and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subscribers, and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be ordered to deliver upon oath, to be impounded during pendency of this action, and destroyed pursuant to judgment herein, any and all originals, copies, derivatives, facsimiles, or duplicates of any work shown by the evidence to infringe Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book.
6. That all Defendant ISP’s be ordered to debit electronically a one‑time fee of $25.00 against the credit card accounts of all subscribers, both past and present, who are shown by proof to have obtained any part of the subject book, or any of its derivative files, from Defendants’ network of computers.
7. That all Defendants be required to file with the Court and to serve upon Plaintiff, within 90 days after service of the Court’s ORDER(s) as herein requested, separate reports in writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which all Defendants have complied with the Court’s ORDER(s).
8. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants for Plaintiff’s actual damages, according to the best available proof, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all infringements of Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the subject book, according to the best available proof.
9. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of copyright infringement and from all other violation(s) of applicable law(s).
10. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of copyright infringement and from all other violation(s) of applicable law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
11. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.
[Please continue next page.]
1. That this Court find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have falsely designated the origin(s), falsely represented the fact, and falsely described Plaintiff as the sole Author, of all modified derivatives of the subject book.
2. That all Defendants, their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subscribers, and all persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined preliminarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from falsely designating the origin(s), from falsely representing the fact, and from falsely describing Plaintiff as the sole Author, of all modified derivatives of the subject book and of all their component files, and from installing hyper‑text links to any such derivatives of the subject book anywhere on the Internet World Wide Web, or anywhere else.
3. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages, under 15 U.S.C. 1117 (see Statutes at Large supra), for their intentional, willful and false designations of the origin(s), for their intentional, willful, false and misleading representations of the fact, and for their intentional, willful, false and misleading descriptions of Plaintiff as the sole Author, of all modified derivatives of the subject book.
4. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of suit incurred herein, including all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a minimum of $75.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff’s standard professional rate during the period in question).
5. That all Defendant ISP’s be ordered to debit electronically an additional one‑time fee of $75.00 (3X) against the credit card accounts of all subscribers, both past and present, who are shown by proof to have obtained any modified or derivative copies of the subject book or any of their component files, from Defendants’ network of computers.
6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their creation, publication, and maintenance of modified or derivative copies of the subject book, and from all other violation(s) of applicable law(s).
7. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their creation, publication, and maintenance of all modified derivatives of the subject book, and from all other violation(s) of applicable law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
8. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.
[Please continue next page.]
ON COUNTS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE:
1. That this Court find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have competed unfairly against Plaintiff, infringed Plaintiff’s fundamental Rights, conspired to infringe Plaintiff’s fundamental Rights, retaliated against Plaintiff for His verified testimony in federal and State courts, and thereby rendered Plaintiff a victim of said torts.
2. That all Defendants be enjoined preliminarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from any and all acts of unfair competition, deprivation of Plaintiff's fundamental Rights, conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff’s fundamental Rights, and retaliation against a Federal Witness and Victim.
3. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff actual damages in an amount to be proven.
4. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff the damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants' misconduct, in an amount to be proven.
5. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff exemplary and punitive damages, as the case may be, for their intentional and willful misconduct, in an amount to be determined by jury verdict(s).
6. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of suit incurred herein, including all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel's fees, at a minimum of $75.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff’s standard professional rate during the period in question).
7. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from all violation(s) of applicable law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.
8. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.
Summary of Reasonable Counsel’s Fees: TBA
Summary of Consequential Damages: TBA
Summary of Actual Damages:
COUNTS THREE, FOUR, FIVE: TBA
COUNT ONE:
copyright infringements, actual: $163,800,000.00
COUNT TWO:
Lanham Act
violations (3X): $491,400,000.00
Subtotal: $655,200,000.00
Summary of Punitive Damages (3X): $1,965,600,000.00
TOTAL DAMAGES (minimum):
$2,620,800,000.00
The damage matrix is three‑dimensional: for each Defendant, there are actual, consequential, and punitive damages (3 columns) on each of five counts (5 rows).
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury lawfully convened. See Rule 38, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in pari materia with the Seventh Amendment. With respect to the common law, see also Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920): “Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Plaintiff in the above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause.
Exhibit “A” Cover Sheets
Exhibit “B” Cover Sheets
Exhibit “C” Cover Sheets
Exhibit “D” Cover Sheets
Exhibit “E” Cover Sheets
Dated: September 10, 2001 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
___________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
