1

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

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


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


%-+-2%/2'O# (-@10 '* @1/&2'&++O# .*'&*2 /2% *@@*#&'&*2 '* #'(&P-
%-+-2%/2'O# #!@@1-.-2'/1 .*'&*2 '* %&#.&## 3-)+ QK=

Comes now Pio Se Befenuant William N. Schmalfelut in ieply to Plaintiff
William }ohn }oseph Boge III's Notion to Stiike ECF 2u, Befenuant's Supplemental
Notion to Bismiss. In suppoit of his ieply, Ni. Schmalfelut states the following:
Befenuant agiees with Plaintiff's assessment of what he affectionately calls
NTBS as being ieuunuant, anu has no objection to it being stiicken. Bowevei, as
Plaintiff iaises questions in his Notion anu 0pposition to Stiike, Befenuant will
choose to answei these questions to the best of his ability.

%-+-2%/2'O# .*'&*2 &# (-%!2%/2'

Not auuiesseu as his point is taken anu agieeu with.


%-+-2%/2' )&'-# 2* 2-> (-1-R/2' )/#- 1/>

Befenuant iespectfully uisagiees with Plaintiff, but as he has no objection to
ECF 2u being stiicken, his uisagieements aie moot.
2
%-+-2%/2' %*-# 2*' !2%-(#'/2% +-%" (" )&R" @ M3B=

uiven the uiessing-uown Plaintiff ieceiveu in this Couit's iejection of his
Pieliminaiy Injunction motion, it seems that Plaintiff is haiuly in the position to say
what the Befenuant uoes oi uoes not unueistanu. As much of the Plaintiff's case
seems to be baseu on insulting the uefenuant's intelligence, the Befenuant
apologizes to the couit foi lacking the Plaintiff's "0livei Wenuell }ones-esque" giasp
of legal issues. Bowevei, the Plaintiff's giatuitous insults asiue, Befenuant has not
uemanueu oi stateu a belief that a plaintiff must lay out all of his eviuence as pait of
his complaint. Bowevei, as stateu in his oiiginal Notion to Bismiss (ECF 1S), the
Plaintiff's "saying" that he has stateu a claim upon which ielief can be gianteu is not
iule of law as that ueteimination must come fiom the }uuge in this case. Befenuant
maintains his stance that Ni. Boge has yet to uemonstiate a claim upon which ielief
can be gianteu.
Foi instance, if a Plaintiff has gianteu peimission to use his mateiial on his
blog's Teims of 0se, the Plaintiff is not the ueciuei of fact as to what is "piacticable"
anu what is not. The Couit auuiesseu that issue in its Nemoianuum 0iuei
Bismissing Plaintiff's Notion foi Pieliminaiy Injunction in the instant case
/< :9S:JB68ST B6 678 78B5:9U VWB:96:XX :9654SCJ8S 678 '85D< 4X #85;:J8
U4;859:9U 7:< -./+0#123 Y8E<:68" @WB" ,5U" -Z7" M[ 1++ 1456# 3\C46:9U
58W8;B96 V54;:<:49< 4X '85D< 4X #85;:J8=" 246BEW]T S8X89SB96 <6B68S 67B6
78 7BS BW<4 :9689S8S 64 :9654SCJ8 678 '85D< 4X #85;:J8 B< B9 8Z7:E:6T :9
<CVV456 4X 7:< 4Y9 V4<:6:49" '78 58W8;B96 V54;:<:49 4X 678 '85D< 4X
#85;:J8 V85D:6< \C46B6:49< X54D -./+0#123T <4 W49U B< J58S:6 :< U:;89 64
-./+0#123 45 64 .5" ,4U8 B9ST ^Y7858;85 V5BJ6:JBEW8T_ B 7]V85W:9` 64
678 -./+0#123 Y8E<:68 :< V54;:S8S" 7," B6 Q"

'7:< :< 946 B JB<8 :9 Y7:J7 678 S8X89SB96 7B< <4CU76 64 VB<< 4XX B
J4V]5:U76 74WS85O< DB685:BW< B< 7:< 4Y9" (B6785T Y7858 S8X89SB96 7B<
C<8S DB685:BW< X54D -./+0#123T 78 BVV8B5< 64 7B;8 U8985BWW] :9JWCS8S
S
B665:EC6:49T :9 498 X45D 45 B946785T 64 ,4U8" 28;85678W8<<T S8X89SB96
S:S 946 :9JWCS8 B 7]V85W:9` 64 VWB:96:XXO< Y8E<:68T E8JBC<8aB<
S8X89SB96 8ZVWB:98S B6 678 78B5:9Ua78 S:S 946 YB96 64 :9J58B<8 ;:<:645
^65BXX:J_ 64 VWB:96:XXO< Y8E<:68"

'4 E8 <C58T 678 VB56:8< S:<BU588 B< 64 678 D8B9:9U 4X 678 685D
^V5BJ6:JBEW8"_ /9ST C9J856B:96] 58DB:9< B< 64 Y789 678 C<8 4X B
7]V85W:9` 64 678 -./+0#123 Y8E<:68 :< ^V5BJ6:JBEW8"_

&9 B9] 8;896T X45 VC5V4<8< 4X 678 V58<896 .46:49T :6 :< BVVB5896 67B6
S8X89SB96 7B< B 949IX5:;4W4C< B5UCD896 67B6 7:< C<8 4X V4<6:9U< X54D
-./+0#123 J4DVW:8S Y:67 678 Y8E<:68O< '85D< 4X #85;:J8"

8-./+ 9: ;<2=#"'+",&( >?@ AB #& 5#/+1 CDECBF
Befenuant maintaineu anu continues to maintain that since Befenuant is not
alloweu to post his ieplies to the vile, libelous, scuiiilous things wiitten about him
by Plaintiff anu his commenteis, Befenuant has but one option to ieply, anu that is
on his Twittei feeu anu on his blog. It is Befenuant's contention that he satisfies the
Plaintiff's oiiginal teims of seivice, which the Befenuant changeu substantially on
}une 26, 2u14, immeuiately following the Pieliminaiy Injunction Beaiing in this
case. "#$$ %&'()(*+ , -./ 012
Befenuant maintains that by making these changes, the Plaintiff has pioven
the Befenuant's asseition that Befenuant was, in fact, peimitteu to use the mateiial
anu the new, moie stiingent iules aie meant to keep Befenuant anu otheis fiom
using the mateiial as peimitteu in the past. The new Teims of Seivice seem to
outlaw eveiyone who uisagiees with the Plaintiff fiom using his mateiial, as is (we
suppose) his iight. This iight uoes not extenu to the use of comments, to which the
Plaintiff uoes not own the copyiight. Befenuant will comply with Plaintiff's new,
aujusteu anu impioviseu Teims of Seivice.

4
.(" ,*A- /11-A-# ',/' b(/&2 %-/% &2+(&2A-# ,&# )*@0(&A,'

This Couit auuiesseu the issue of Plaintiff's claim of copyiight owneiship of
his comments in its Nemoianuum 0pinion Bismissing Plaintiff's Notion foi
Pieliminaiy Injunction.

c:6 :< 946 896:58W] JW8B5 C9S85 Y7B6 J:5JCD<6B9J8< VWB:96:XXT B< 678
4Y985 4X ^54]BW6]IX588 W:J89<8d<e_ EC6 946 4X 678 J4DD896< 678D<8W;8<T
JB9 E5:9U B J4V]5:U76 :9X5:9U8D896 JWB:D EB<8S 49 BWW8U8S
D:<BVV54V5:B6:49 4X J4DD896< BVV8B5:9U 49 -./+0#123 67B6 Y858
BC67458S E] 67:5S VB56:8<" #:U9:X:JB96W]T <8;85BW C<8< E] S8X89SB96 4X
VWB:96:XXO< DB685:BWa:9JWCS:9U 678 C<8< B6 :<<C8 :9 )4C96< & B9S &&a
:9;4W;8 DB685:BW X54D -./+0#123 67B6 WB5U8W] J49<:<6< 4X 58BS85
J4DD896<T Y7:J7 Y858 946 BC67458S E] VWB:96:XX"

8-./+ 9: ;<2=#"'+",&( >?@ AB #& 5#/+ CBF
Since the only othei use fiom the late book 304-(. 5$-/6 Plaintiff claims
infiinges his copyiight is the one linei fiom his uaily "Pinky anu the Biain" bit of
whimsy, theie is no copyiight, theiefoie no infiingement.
*',-( -((*(#
Plaintiff uenies in his Notion that he has "evei wiitten anything uefamatoiy
oi libelous about Befenuant." As libel is a legal ueteimination, I suppose that
Plaintiff has a point as I uo not have a uecision fiom a juuge oi juiy (yet) that Ni.
Boge has 7()$7$/ me. Befamation, howevei, is anothei stoiy. Two examples aie
submitteu, but theie aie many, many moie. |See Exhibits C anu Bj
Plaintiff can huff anu puff all he wants about the cuiient case being biought
foi no othei ieason than piotection of his copyiights. That iationale uissolves like
tissue papei in watei when applieu to all the othei people who have useu Ni. Boge's
full blog posts, eithei with oi without peimission anu aie cuiiently walking aiounu
S
un-sueu by Plaintiff. It will be appaient by the conclusion of this case that the
Plaintiff has one ieason foi filing this suit, anu that is to use yet anothei Couit of
Law as a weapon against this Befenuant
%-+-2%/2'O# (-f!-#' +*( #/2)'&*2# %*-# 2*' )*.@10 >&', +-%" ("
)&R" @" FF3J=3Q=

Again, Befenuant bows to Plaintiff's expeiience with lawsuits, this being the
Befenuant's fiist. As Befenuant's mothei useu to tell him anu %887$+(-+*$+ 9 cleaily
states:
GH. +9+6I&2$%/ &2+6+ $1 # 1+#1.%( #%, # &$=+ &. +9+6I 5465.1+ 4%,+6 &2+
2+#9+%JK

When the appiopiiate time comes to ask foi sanctions, Befenuant will file the
piopei motions.
)*2)1!#&*2
Although politely uisagieeing that ECF 2u, oi NTBS (as Plaintiff calls it) is
$.*(4$7: without meiit, it is ieuunuant anu Befenuant has no objection to it being
stiicken. Befenuant will stanu on his oiiginal motion to uismiss, augmenteu by this
Couit's finuings iegaiuing the impiobability of Plaintiff succeeuing on the meiits of
his case. Befenuant asks that the }uuge take juuicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff
changeu his blog's Teims of Seivice on the afteinoon aftei the Pieliminaiy
Injunction Beaiing on }une 26, 2u14 wheie Befenuant maintaineu the Teims of
Seivice, in theii pievious incaination, expiessly peimitteu Befenuant's use of
Plaintiff's mateiial. Befenuant intenus to ask this Couit at whatevei heaiing is next
on the scheuule to BISNISS the Plaintiff's Amenueu Complaint anu to allow the
Befenuant to pioceeu with his pieviously-fileu Counteiclaim.
6
In this Couit's iecent Nemoianuum 0pinion uenying Plaintiff's Notion foi a
Pieliminaiy Injunction, the Couit pointeu out the numeious anu potentially fatal
weaknesses in Plaintiff's case.
Anu what was Plaintiff's iesponse in leaining that his motion hau been
uenieu.
*X J4C5<8T & BD S:<BVV4:968ST EC6 678 gCSU8O< 5CW:9U V4:96< 4C6 <8;85BW
YB]< 67B6 & JB9 JWB5:X] D] JB<8 64 678 J4C56 B< 678 WBY<C:6 V54J88S<"
8;++ >L2$M$& >F

Such statements shoulu show the pioof of what this Befenuant has been
saying all along, evei since the fiist of his S67 fiivolous ciiminal complaints weie
fileu against Befenuant, evei since Plaintiff misspoke about the uifficulty of
"blocking" Befenuant on "Twittei" to a Caiioll County, Naiylanu, Ciicuit Couit
}uuge, anu now that he has iun out of States' Attoineys offices to file his vexatious
complaints with, it shoulu be abunuantly cleai that this Plaintiff's intention heie is
not to seek ielief foi a copyiight infiingement.
This Plaintiff's motive seems to be exactly what Befenuant maintains it is. A
"wai of attiition." A uesiie to weai uown the Befenuant, to "iun him to giounu" until
he eithei thiows up his hanus anu gives up because his Paikinson's uisease-stiicken
bouy just can't hanule it any moie, oi until the Befenuant uies as the iesult of the
enhanceu acceleiation of Paikinson's that is causeu by such stiess. ;%&'()(* <=2
Plaintiff is an intelligent, leaineu man, accomplisheu in his fielu. Be is
ceitainly able to ieau the hanuwiiting on the wall. Bis choosing to ignoie it can only
mean he intenus to push his case to the bittei enu. Noie's the bettei if it happens to
be the Befenuant's "Bittei Enu" as well.
7
Since this Couit has alieauy ueteimineu in its Nemoianuum 0pinion uenying
Plaintiff's Notion foi a Pieliminaiy Injunction that Plaintiff is not likely to succeeu
on the meiits of his Amenueu Complaint, this Couit shoulu uismiss Plaintiff's
Amenueu Complaint anu allow the Befenuant to puisue his Counteiclaim with no
fuithei uelay by the Plaintiff. If it please the Couit, Befenuant iequests a heaiing
uate on his Notion to Bismiss at the eailiest oppoitunity.


BATEB: }0LY S, 2u14 Respectfully submitteu,


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


R85:X: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:X:JB68 4X #85;:J8

I ceitify that on the Siu uay of }uly, 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

1







-h,&b&' /

'78 V58;:4C< '85D< 4X #85;:J8 X45 C<8 4X DB685:BW
X54D 678 ^,4U8YB<7_ EW4UT 4Y98S E] @WB:96:XX
>:WW:BD ?479 ?4<8V7 ,4U8 &&&T W4JB68S B6
766VGii74U8YB<7"J4DT E8X458 E8:9U J7B9U8S B9S
DBS8 D458 <65:J6 49 ?C98 QLT QKFH

@58;:4C<W] W4JB68S B6 766VGii74U8YB<7"J4Di678I
X:98IV5:96i
1

2


S


4
1







-h,&b&' b

'78 <466+%& '85D< 4X #85;:J8 X45 C<8 4X DB685:BW
X54D 678 ^,4U8YB<7_ EW4UT 4Y98S E] @WB:96:XX
>:WW:BD ?479 ?4<8V7 ,4U8 &&&T W4JB68S B6
766VGii74U8YB<7"J4DT B< D4S:X:8S B9S ^CVSB68S_ 49
?C98 QLT QKFH

)7B9U8< B58 7:U7W:U768S 49 VBU8< Q B9S H 4X 678
-Z7:E:6

)C55896W] W4JB68S B6 766VGii74U8YB<7"J4Di678IX:98I
V5:96i
1


2

S

4

1







-h,&b&' )

/ S8XBDB645]T V46896:BWW] W:E8W4C< V4<6 896:6W8ST
^jb:WW#J7DBWX8WS6T #J4XXWBY_T Y5:6689 E] @WB:96:XX
>:WW:BD ?479 ?4<8V7 ,4U8 &&&T _ B< VCEW:<78S 49 7:<
^,4U8YB<7_ EW4U 49 ?CW] QkT QKFNT W4JB68S B6
766VGii74U8YB<7"J4DiQKFNiKliQkiE:WW<J7DBWX8WS6I
<J4XXWBYi

'78 S8XBDB645] B9S V46896:BWW] W:E8W4C< V456:49<
B58 7:U7W:U768S"
1
1








-h,&b&' %

/ S8XBDB645]T V46896:BWW] W:E8W4C< V4<6T Y5:6689 E]
@WB:96:XX >:WW:BD ?479 ?4<8V7 ,4U8 &&&T 896:6W8S
^jb:WW#J7DBWX8WS6 B9S @8S4V7:W:B_T B< VCEW:<78S 49
7:< ^,4U8YB<7_ EW4U 49 ?CW] NKT QKFNT W4JB68S B6
766VGii74U8YB<7"J4DiQKFNiKliNKiE:WW<J7DBWX8WS6I
B9SIV8S4V7:W:Bi

'78 S8XBDB645] B9S V46896:BWW] W:E8W4C< V456:49<
B58 7:U7W:U768S"
1
1








-h,&b&' -

'78 ,4U8YB<7"J4D EW4U 8965] 4X >:WW:BD ?479
?4<8V7 ,4U8 4X ?CW] QT QKFHT Y5:6689 CV49 W8B59:9U
67B6 7:< D46:49 X45 @58W:D:9B5] &9gC9J6:49 7BS E889
S89:8S E] 67:< J4C56"

#4D8 4X 678 58BS85 J4DD896< 8W:J:68S E] 7:< EW4U
V4<6 B58 :9JWCS8S"
1
2
S


4


S


3^+B:WS4Z_ :< B 685D C<8S 64 D8B9 <4D8498 7B<
XBW<8W] :S896:X:8S <4D8498 8W<8"=


6


1







-h,&b&' +

/ <J74WB5W] B56:JW8 X54D 678 2B6:49BW &9<6:6C68< 4X
,8BW67 58UB5S:9U 678 V46896:BW 8XX8J6< 4X <658<< 49
678 V54U58<<:49 4X @B5`:9<49O< S:<8B<8

766VGiiYYY"9JE:"9WD"9:7"U4;iVDJiB56:JW8<i@.)NQ
LMMlMiVSXi9:7D<NNKmLF"VSX

3&9 678 :96858<6 4X XCWW S:<JW4<C58T 678 %8X89SB96 YB<
8DVW4]8S :9 678 *XX:J8 4X )4DDC9:JB6:49< B9S
.8S:B (8WB6:49< B6 678 )W:9:JBW )89685 4X 678
2B6:49BW &9<6:6C68< 4X ,8BW67 X54D QKKM C96:W 78
586:58S SC8 64 7:< @B5`:9<49O< S:<8B<8 :9 QKFF"=
1

2

S

4

S

6

7


8

9


1u





11
/+'-( #P&@@&2A FK @/A-# *+ (-+-(-2)-#