Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MELISSA FILES LAWSUITS CLAIMING COPYRIGHTS WHERE NO COPYRIGHTS EXISTED, NOR EVEN PENDING COPYRIGHTS.
75 views
Skip to first unread message
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 4:41:29 AM10/15/19
to
MELISSA FILES LAWSUITS CLAIMING COPYRIGHTS WHERE NO COPYRIGHTS EXISTED, NOR EVEN PENDING COPYRIGHTS.
Here is one of the many reasons Melissa's lawsuits are foolish nonsense. A large amount of the files she is suing people over were works she had only PENDING COPYRIGHTS for, she did not have ACTUAL COPYRIGHTS concerning the files she filed lawsuits regarding. You CANNOT sue someone concerning copyrights for works you have NO copyrights for. If you try to do so, as Melissa has done, you will not have good standing with the court and your case regarding the works you filed suit over will be dismissed. Melissa has sued people for copyright infringement concerning hundreds of Doc's files when in fact she had NO COPYRIGHTS.
This is clearly stated by the United States Supreme Court in a case recently argued before the High Court;
PETITIONER
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation
RESPONDENT
Wall-Street com, LLC, et al.
ARGUED
Jan 8, 2019
DECIDED
Mar 4, 2019
Facts of the case;
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation is a news organization that produces online journalism and licenses articles to websites while retaining the copyright to the articles. Wall-Street.com obtained licenses to several articles produced by Fourth Estate, and under the license agreement, Wall-Street was required to remove all of the content produced by Fourth Estate from its website before cancelling its account. However, when Wall-Street cancelled its account, it continued to display the articles produced by Fourth Estate.
Fourth Estate filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement, although it filed an application to register its allegedly infringed copyrights and the copyright office had not yet registered its claims. The district court dismissed the action, finding “registration” under Section 411 of the Copyright Act required that the register of copyrights “register the claim,” and that step had not occurred. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Question;
Is “registration of [a] copyright claim” complete under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, fees, and materials to the copyright office, or only once the copyright office has acted on that application?
Conclusion;
UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR WALL-STREET COM
MAJORITY OPINION BY RUTH BADER GINSBURG
Registration of a copyright claim occurs after the copyright office has processed the application, not upon filing of the application.
Registration of a copyright claim “has been made” not when an application for registration is filed, but only after the copyright office has processed the application and registered the copyright. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Fourth Estate’s application to register its allegedly infringed copyrights was not yet complete for the purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) because the copyright office had not yet registered its claims. The Court looked to the language of the first two sentences of § 411(a) and found that under Fourth Estate’s proposed interpretation of the statute—that application alone would constitute registration—the second sentence would be made superfluous. Canons of statutory construction caution against such interpretations. The Court found that the more plausible interpretation—that registration occurs only when the copyright office finishes processing the application—is consistent with other provisions of the Copyright Act, as well.
RECENT COURT RULING in the case of Dolores Press, Inc. v. Patrick Robinson, et al.
Case 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA Document 83 Filed 10/03/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1522
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [issues the following decision on 10-03-2019];
"In Fourth Estate, the Court held that “registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.” Id. at 886-87. In each of the four operative complaints and/or subsequent filings, Plaintiffs refer to “pending copyright registration applications.” Under Fourth Estate, Plaintiffs do not have standing at this time to assert copyright infringement claims for works where the applications remain pending. Thus, amendment of the complaints is proper prior to Defendants providing responsive pleadings.
Plaintiffs shall file amended complaints complying with the Supreme Court’s holding in Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019), or alternatively shall dismiss their complaints, no later than October 11, 2019."
COURT DOCUMENTS
As you can see in Melissa's lawsuit documents (below), she is suing people for files she had NO COPYRIGHTS FOR (see image three below), she is also suing people for files she not only had NO COPYRIGHTS FOR, BUT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE PENDING COPYRIGHT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED (see image two below).
BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND?
Are you people supporting Melissa beginning to see why we are standing against Melissa, her lies and deceptive lawsuits? We hope you're waking up and beginning to ask who is Melissa Scott, and why is she attacking Christians who are only doing what Doc said they could do; freely share his teaching files.
See images here... https://tinyurl.com/y2wgjldu
Here is one of the many reasons Melissa's lawsuits are foolish nonsense. A large amount of the files she is suing people over were works she had only PENDING COPYRIGHTS for, she did not have ACTUAL COPYRIGHTS concerning the files she filed lawsuits regarding. You CANNOT sue someone concerning copyrights for works you have NO copyrights for. If you try to do so, as Melissa has done, you will not have good standing with the court and your case regarding the works you filed suit over will be dismissed. Melissa has sued people for copyright infringement concerning hundreds of Doc's files when in fact she had NO COPYRIGHTS.
This is clearly stated by the United States Supreme Court in a case recently argued before the High Court;
PETITIONER
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation
RESPONDENT
Wall-Street com, LLC, et al.
ARGUED
Jan 8, 2019
DECIDED
Mar 4, 2019
Facts of the case;
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation is a news organization that produces online journalism and licenses articles to websites while retaining the copyright to the articles. Wall-Street.com obtained licenses to several articles produced by Fourth Estate, and under the license agreement, Wall-Street was required to remove all of the content produced by Fourth Estate from its website before cancelling its account. However, when Wall-Street cancelled its account, it continued to display the articles produced by Fourth Estate.
Fourth Estate filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement, although it filed an application to register its allegedly infringed copyrights and the copyright office had not yet registered its claims. The district court dismissed the action, finding “registration” under Section 411 of the Copyright Act required that the register of copyrights “register the claim,” and that step had not occurred. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Question;
Is “registration of [a] copyright claim” complete under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, fees, and materials to the copyright office, or only once the copyright office has acted on that application?
Conclusion;
UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR WALL-STREET COM
MAJORITY OPINION BY RUTH BADER GINSBURG
Registration of a copyright claim occurs after the copyright office has processed the application, not upon filing of the application.
Registration of a copyright claim “has been made” not when an application for registration is filed, but only after the copyright office has processed the application and registered the copyright. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Fourth Estate’s application to register its allegedly infringed copyrights was not yet complete for the purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) because the copyright office had not yet registered its claims. The Court looked to the language of the first two sentences of § 411(a) and found that under Fourth Estate’s proposed interpretation of the statute—that application alone would constitute registration—the second sentence would be made superfluous. Canons of statutory construction caution against such interpretations. The Court found that the more plausible interpretation—that registration occurs only when the copyright office finishes processing the application—is consistent with other provisions of the Copyright Act, as well.
RECENT COURT RULING in the case of Dolores Press, Inc. v. Patrick Robinson, et al.
Case 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA Document 83 Filed 10/03/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1522
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [issues the following decision on 10-03-2019];
"In Fourth Estate, the Court held that “registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.” Id. at 886-87. In each of the four operative complaints and/or subsequent filings, Plaintiffs refer to “pending copyright registration applications.” Under Fourth Estate, Plaintiffs do not have standing at this time to assert copyright infringement claims for works where the applications remain pending. Thus, amendment of the complaints is proper prior to Defendants providing responsive pleadings.
Plaintiffs shall file amended complaints complying with the Supreme Court’s holding in Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019), or alternatively shall dismiss their complaints, no later than October 11, 2019."
COURT DOCUMENTS
As you can see in Melissa's lawsuit documents (below), she is suing people for files she had NO COPYRIGHTS FOR (see image three below), she is also suing people for files she not only had NO COPYRIGHTS FOR, BUT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE PENDING COPYRIGHT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED (see image two below).
BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND?
Are you people supporting Melissa beginning to see why we are standing against Melissa, her lies and deceptive lawsuits? We hope you're waking up and beginning to ask who is Melissa Scott, and why is she attacking Christians who are only doing what Doc said they could do; freely share his teaching files.
See images here... https://tinyurl.com/y2wgjldu
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 4:47:02 AM10/15/19
to
wasntme
Oct 15, 2019, 8:14:35 AM10/15/19
to
geraldkrug
Oct 15, 2019, 4:03:49 PM10/15/19
to
IMPEACHMENT UPDATE -- “Trump’s impeachment barricade crumbles,” by Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio: “[O]n Tuesday, a senior State Department official, George Kent, appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about his knowledge of the episode despite an attempt by administration lawyers to block him, according to a source working on the impeachment inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for his testimony Tuesday morning, and Kent complied.
קטנה ציפור
Oct 15, 2019, 6:14:59 PM10/15/19
to
as you have posted, the fourth estate case was decided may 4th 2019.
all of the cases you mention were filed in 2014-2018 before that decision when pending applications were legally allowed.
i fail to understand your enthusiasm when you consider that if carlos would have simply answered the current complaints in a timely fashion, all of the pending application claims would have likely been tossed, instead he stalls, asks for clarification and the judge rules that leichter may file amended complaints. no big deal except 100% of what were pending applications are now completed and binding. tsk tsk
carlos really screwed you guys this time, don't believe me? go read the papers.
hey anthony did you see where you testified against yourself and will likely become enjoined due to your incessant gum flapping?
you already owe her around $230,000, how about you start writing some checks. lol
Message has been deleted
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 7:50:33 PM10/15/19
to
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, קטנה ציפור wrote:>
> carlos really screwed you guys this time, don't believe me? go read the papers.
>
LMAO LMAO!!!!!!!
> carlos really screwed you guys this time, don't believe me? go read the papers.
>
Nice try, Brad. More of your of bullshit. I like it when you drop in, it's fun to read your lies and stupidity and have a good laugh at you!! PLEASE POST MORE!!
You tell us "all of the cases you mention were filed in 2014-2018 before that decision when pending applications were legally allowed."
Yeah, what I posted was about pending lawsuits was "nonsense," right Brad?...that's why the Judge ORDERED Melissa BASED ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE FOURTH ESTATE CASE to list what she claims she has actual copyrights for or DISMISS her bullshit fake losing lawsuits. LOL, she sued me, for among other stupid illegal reasons, for at least 306 files she had NO COPYRIGHTS for, and not even any PENDING copyrights for. About another 100 or more had ONLY PENDING copyrights, also illegal to sue someone over.
The law being referred to was passed in 2017, not 2018, you idiot! Don't you pay attention to anything?
Yeah, her attorneys really know what they are doing, that's why they have been losing for five years.
I have noticed more and more red chairs appearing in her so called "services," ouch!!...that must be because more and more people are abandoning her.
You tell me "hey anthony did you see where you testified against yourself and will likely become enjoined due to your incessant gum flapping?"
No, Brad, I didn't see that, neither did you little man. Do you really believe after you posting YEARS OF PURE BULLSHIT that anyone gives a damn what your little mind comes up with and what you claim? Are you kidding? You're an over the hill sunk old loser who hasn't got a clue and has been a complete failure your entire life. How is the 6th eviction going, Brad? Sleeping in the street yet?
Don't you ever get sick of losing, being laughed at, or getting your ass kicked in court? You must enjoy it.
tic toc...cuffs...soon.
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 8:06:43 PM10/15/19
to
LOL, yes, it's all just "nonsense," right Brad?...that's why Melissa has been ORDERED TO COMPLY with the Supreme Court's decision from the Fourth Estate ruling of may 4th 2019.
AND I QUOTE The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [issues the following decision on 10-03-2019];
"Plaintiffs [Melissa] shall file amended complaints complying with the Supreme Court’s holding in Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019), or alternatively shall dismiss their complaints, no later than October 11, 2019."
Brad, I ask again; don't you get tired of making a public ass of yourself?
Little Bradley, stick to shoveling horse shit out of horse stables (as Doc had you doing), "lawyering" just isn't your thing. Bradley, dude, give it up, you're an embarrassment to humanity.
AND I QUOTE The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [issues the following decision on 10-03-2019];
"Plaintiffs [Melissa] shall file amended complaints complying with the Supreme Court’s holding in Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019), or alternatively shall dismiss their complaints, no later than October 11, 2019."
Brad, I ask again; don't you get tired of making a public ass of yourself?
Little Bradley, stick to shoveling horse shit out of horse stables (as Doc had you doing), "lawyering" just isn't your thing. Bradley, dude, give it up, you're an embarrassment to humanity.
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 9:17:12 PM10/15/19
to
LOL, Brad, haven't you got it yet? We all know your game posting twisted propaganda and nonsense trying to scare people. Sorry, little man, not working.
Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are taking about, Bradtwerp. The Supreme Court made it VERY clear...NO PENDING COPYRIGHTS WILL HAVE STANDING IN COURT RELATIVE TO SUING ANYONE. You cannot sue a person when at the date(s) you allege copyright infringement you had ONLY pending copyrights. That is as clear as it can be.
Sorry to inform you, Bradtwerp, what Carlos did was a MAJOR BLOW...yeah, BOOM...to Melissa, and you and her know it. THAT IS WHY you are on here trying to do damage control. Melissa has been exposed AGAIN. LOL, this time exposed for suing people for copyright infringement when SHE HAD NO COPYRIGHTS for the files in question..
Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are taking about, Bradtwerp. The Supreme Court made it VERY clear...NO PENDING COPYRIGHTS WILL HAVE STANDING IN COURT RELATIVE TO SUING ANYONE. You cannot sue a person when at the date(s) you allege copyright infringement you had ONLY pending copyrights. That is as clear as it can be.
Sorry to inform you, Bradtwerp, what Carlos did was a MAJOR BLOW...yeah, BOOM...to Melissa, and you and her know it. THAT IS WHY you are on here trying to do damage control. Melissa has been exposed AGAIN. LOL, this time exposed for suing people for copyright infringement when SHE HAD NO COPYRIGHTS for the files in question..
wasntme
Oct 15, 2019, 9:30:54 PM10/15/19
to
קטנה ציפור
Oct 15, 2019, 10:12:17 PM10/15/19
to
No One Special
Oct 15, 2019, 10:24:07 PM10/15/19
to
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-7, קטנה ציפור wrote:
>
RE: "> wow! you are one sick puppy. nothing left to say here, you clearly are deluded. cya next month when leichter bends carlos over. bye bye"
Yes, bradtwerp, we have been hearing your fantasies for five years posting your crap trying to make M look good, bla bla bla, very boring...and still M has lost case after case. I love the Supreme Court, don't you, bradtwerp? Oh, sorry, I guess you wouldn't be very happy with them lately, they just gave M a very big headache. OUCH!!
>
RE: "> wow! you are one sick puppy. nothing left to say here, you clearly are deluded. cya next month when leichter bends carlos over. bye bye"
Yes, bradtwerp, we have been hearing your fantasies for five years posting your crap trying to make M look good, bla bla bla, very boring...and still M has lost case after case. I love the Supreme Court, don't you, bradtwerp? Oh, sorry, I guess you wouldn't be very happy with them lately, they just gave M a very big headache. OUCH!!
wasntme
Oct 15, 2019, 10:28:03 PM10/15/19
to
geraldkrug
Oct 16, 2019, 4:48:15 PM10/16/19
to
No one is above the law and New York will not turn a blind eye to criminality, no matter who seeks to protect them," Cuomo said in a statement. "The closure of this egregious loophole gives prosecutors the ability to stand up against any abuse of power, and helps ensure that no politically motivated, self-serving action is sanctioned under law."
0 new messages