Law N Motion

In his FUMS #41 video Patrick Robinson gives another victory update. But is this an accurate report? It is correct that the court did rule on the motion for consolidation. This was a motion brought by Dolores/Scott and opposed by Robinson. Therefore, I cannot comprehend Robinson’s update. In the video, Robinson says a few things that are inaccurate: 1) The cases are being consolidated under his first case. 2) Robinson acts like this consolidation is a victory for his group. 3) The undisputed fact that “It is undisputed that Dr. Gene Scott permitted downloads and encouraged the sharing and distribution of his teachings.” The first point is false. The cases are being assigned under Dolores Press’ first filed case, as evidenced by the court’s order Granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Consolidation, document 164 filed on 08/13/2019 page 4 of 4, wherein the Judge ordered the cases be consolidated under: Dolores Press Inc. v Patrick Robinson, et al. 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA. Furthe...

Melissa Scott (Scott) has won another victory by default. Scott filed suit against Anthony Todd (Todd) in October 2018 for copyright infringement. Todd failed to respond, and Scott requested the clerk of the court to enter Todd’s default, and default was entered the next day. Scott has now filed the motion for Default Judgment. Scott is seeking judgment in the amount of $61,200,000 in statutory damages in addition to $1,229,600 in attorney’s fees. The procedures of a default judgment are straight forward: all allegations within the complaint are deemed factual. The ownership of copyrights by Scott are valid, each allegation of copyright infringement is factual and willful. With the allegations within the complaint deemed factual, the only remaining issues are damages. Scott is seeking the statutory damages of $150,000 per willful infringement. Based upon the complaint of 408 infringed works, Scott is asking the court to hold Todd liable for $61.2 million in damages. The...

Melissa Scott has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Timothy Briggs. According to the filings, Scott has decided to take Briggs’ default after settlement discussions failed. Scott is seeking the statutory damages for the infringements, which is $150,000 for each work. The complaint alleges 125 works were infringed, entitling Scott to $18,750,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs of $31,767.93. Because Briggs failed to file a timely Answer to Scott’s Complaint, he has not appeared in the action. At this stage, Briggs has forfeited his right to be heard in court. Therefore, Scott can ask for any damages and there is no opposition. This is a bad position to be in for Briggs. This is why you always want to appear in the action and be heard. At least you can make your arguments against the opposing party, even if you are unsuccessful. But now Briggs is liable, even if he had a valid defense against the infringement cause of action. It’s too late for any defenses, all Br...

For anyone keeping up, there has been little action in the cases. What has been going on are the different Motions to Consolidate Cases. If anyone remembers, I commented on Doc’s Dream, LLC. attempt to revive their case in their Motion to Consolidate Cases. This attempt was thwarted when the motion was denied because Doc’s Dream’s case was closed after the appeals court affirmed the district court’s order granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dolores Press has now filed their Motion to Consolidate Cases. Dolores Press is seeking to consolidate, as they identify them, Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson I), Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson II), Dolores Press, Inc. v Jones (Jones I), and the cross complaint in Doc’s Dream, LLC v Dolores Press, Inc. (DD Action). These are the cases that Dolores Press brought against Patrick Robinson, Bobbi Jones, and Doc’s Dream, LLC which the district court dismissed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the dismiss...

A new document was added to Pacer today. It is the order denying Plaintiff’s, Doc’s Dream LLC, motion to consolidate cases. You can view this if you have a pacer account, otherwise it will likely be made available at justia.com soon. This order proves what I had cited in this blog: the plaintiff and their lawyers were sorely mistaken at best, or they were trying to deceive the judge, at worst. If you aren’t aware of the case, I’ll quickly summarize: Plaintiff, Patrick Robinson, spiked the ball after receiving the appellate court’s order. In the order, the appellate made clear that it was reversing the district court’s decision to dismiss defendant’s, Dolores Press and Melissa Scott, counterclaim as well as their complaints of copyright infringement. Robinson, along with many cheerleaders in the alt fan Gene Scott forum, insisted that the appellate partially reversed their defeat and remanded their case for trial. I posted these details in this blog, see below. The parti...

Today I want to talk about the defeat suffered by Bobbi Jones et al. when the court granted Plaintiff, Melissa Scott’s, motion to dismiss the counter-claim. This is a significant defeat for Jones and her co-defendants. In her counterclaim, Jones attempted to initiate a declaratory action against Melissa Scott. The counterclaim alleged 3 controversies: 1) The alleged infringement was actually fair use 2) Plaintiff’s conduct violates defendant, Jones’ et al, First Amendment right to free speech 3) Dr. Scott’s works cannot be copyrighted because his words constitute the “the word of God” (This is a simplistic explanation of the controversies within defendant’s counterclaim). I couldn’t help but notice, the naked license and limited abandonment theories were not argued at all, in Jones’ counterclaim. I was certain that it would be there. But I guess my theory that these cases are woven together with Doc’s Dream, LLC. was incorrect. Either that or the parties are putting on a show for t...

After further research, I’ve noticed there are other cases of alleged copyright infringement filed by Melissa Scott; Melissa Scott v Bobbi Jones, Tina Perida, and Michael Evans. In this action Jones, et al has filed a counterclaim and Scott opposed by filing a motion to dismiss. Judge Real has decided that the motion is suitable for a decision on the papers, meaning he will not hear oral arguments. This could go either way, but after reading the moving papers and opposition, I believe Scott has the advantage. For one thing, Jones’ attorney is attempting to try it as a first amendment case. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 (1985) held, in part, that copyright law is a permissible speech restriction. This SCOTUS ruling, if on point, renders the argument of copyright infringement as an abuse of Jones’ first amendment rights, baseless and with little hope of prevailing. Remember that a district judge cannot overri...