Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 19
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish, pro se
`
`~
`
`\
`cP.-"
`,~\\,'~
`
`\\~
`Un~ed"at •• o;",k. Court'0' the o;,lrict ofM''Y!."\",''i;,.,,'!:. \
`,<,
`.•q$'"
`~~" .~ ~~
`~~J
`~'1",> ~'?o
`\
`
`Plaintiff
`v.
`
`1:14-cv-03117-GLR
`
`The Mayor and City Council of
`
`Baltimore City; and
`
`Stephanie Rawlings Blake
`
`Defendants
`
`This is a Motion to reconsider,
`
`revise, reverse and stay so much of the
`
`court's_5L15L2015 informal memorandum, which was converted into an Order to
`
`the.docket clerk to suddenly close this case without prejudice.
`
`The.court
`
`is requested to reconsider,
`
`revise, reverse and stay the clearly
`
`unjust, sudden, unprecedented closing of this case without prejudice on
`is not making a frivolous election of patent
`infringement but
`5/8/2015. Plaintiff
`is claiming copyright infringement of the text and map of a portion of the land
`that was patented to lord Calvert. The court mistakenly closed this case
`
`because of a "frivolous"
`
`election that Plaintiff
`
`"holds a land patent."
`
`It failed to
`
`hold frivolous or mention in any way Plaintiff's true election to rely on a claim of
`
`copyright
`
`infringement
`
`as a basis for the diversity and statutory jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the plaintiff can make under the
`the Court. That is an approved election that
`holding in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S.217 (1954) and ~~17 U.S.C 101-810.
`
`2
`
`

`
`,
`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 19
`
`The Supreme Court held the following in 347 u.S. 217:
`
`Aswe have held the statuettes here involved copyrightable, we need not
`decide the question of their patentability. Though other courts have passed
`upon the issue as to whether allowance by the election of the author or
`patentee of one bars a grant of the other, we do not [footnote 37]. We do hold
`that the patentability of the statuettes,
`fitted as lamps or unfitted, does not bar
`copyright as works of art. Neither the copyright statute nor any other says that,
`because a thing is patentable,
`it may not be copyrighted. We should not so
`hold. [footnote 38],
`Plaintiff does not rely only on an election of an ancient
`
`land patent
`
`to lord
`
`Calvert for statutory jurisdiction of the court. He can and does rely on his election
`
`of the copyrighted text and map of patented land for the jurisdiction of the court
`
`under 17 U.S.c. ~101-810.
`
`Indeed, the Court may not punish plaintiff
`
`for his
`
`election of his copyright of the text and map describing his land that mayor may
`
`not be subject of a well-known land patent.
`
`Indeed, the court
`
`ignores plaintiff's
`
`mere mention of a possible claim for statutory jurisdiction of the court on the
`
`basis of his constitutional
`
`right to rely both on a copyright and a continuous chain
`
`of title on some small portion of the copyrighted text and map of his land covered
`
`by both his copyright and an 18th century land patent
`
`to lord Calvert.
`
`The court goes on to bar and punish.plaintiff
`
`for electing an asserting that
`
`he can validly hold a copyright on part of the text and map showing the land
`
`described by metes and bounds in a land patent because it is also shown in the
`
`warranty deed from Elizabeth Rich Flannery on April!,
`
`1957, which was cited by
`
`the Court.
`
`The Court clearly did not find as a fact, and did not hold as a matter of law
`
`that the merits of plaintiff's claim of copyright
`
`is infringement
`
`is invalid or
`
`frivolous because of a mere mention of a patent. Plaintiff's elected to claim
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 19
`
`copyright
`
`infringement and it is an abuse of discretion the claim that
`
`that
`
`is a
`
`claim of patent
`
`infringement.
`
`It is clearly contrary to the case law to say that
`
`plaintiff cannot claim statutory jurisdiction based on his election to sue for
`
`copyright
`
`infringement
`
`in his Amended Complaint. To that end, his Amended
`
`Complaint was specifically authorized by the Court and that enabled Plaintiff
`
`to
`
`make his election to sue for copyright
`
`infringement. The sudden closing of this
`
`case after Plaintiff's election to seek copyright
`
`infringement was apparently a
`
`reaction to Plaintiff's election. That was an abuse of discretion and without
`
`authority under the case law.
`
`The fact that Plaintiff merely claimed relevance of a land patent, does not
`
`bar his election to seek copyright
`
`infringement
`
`in his Amended Complaint on the
`
`same subject matter
`
`involved in his valid and infringed copyright as was claimed
`
`in an ancient patent
`
`to Lord Calvert.
`
`To that end, the court
`
`is now clearly directed to approve diversity and
`
`statutory jurisdiction under Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S.. 217 (1954) and 17 U.S.C
`
`99101-810 and also to determine the merits of Plaintiff's claim. The Court is
`
`required to hold that plaintiff can selectively use his copyright
`
`rather than a land
`
`patent on the same subject matter as a basis for jurisdiction of the court. The
`
`question of whether patent protection is frivolous is irrelevant
`
`to the
`
`determination
`
`of the Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff has a right to rely on his
`
`copyright
`
`for jurisdiction, as he does here, because that
`
`is not legally frivolous.
`
`The Court defeats Plaintiff's First Amendment
`
`right to fully hear his
`
`copyright claim in this case and on appeal.
`
`The Court's abuse of discretion and
`
`lack of authority for such action is clearly wrong for all to see since that
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 19
`
`necessarily defeats plaihtiff's remedy for redress from the Defendants'
`misconduct
`in infringing his valid copyright, as clearly stated in claims 1-29 of
`
`plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and paragraph 2 of his motion of 5/8/2015 to
`
`expedite issuance of his copyright. There the plaintiff recaps his amended
`complaint
`for "damages and equitable
`relief for willful derivative copyright
`
`infringement without
`
`limitations
`
`thereto,"
`
`for which the court clearly has
`
`diversity and statutory jurisdiction.
`
`By closing this case suddenly by an informal memorandum without
`
`prejudice,
`
`the court makes it necessary unjustly for plaintiff to refile this case or
`
`unjustly by the court. That is an
`to take an appeal on a record shortened
`obvious waste of resources by both this court and the Plaintiff and Defendants.
`The Court's mistakenly closes this case based on "Plaintiff's assertion that he (1)
`holds a land patent." That quote from the Court's memorandum of May 15,
`
`2015 is irrelevant as a matter of law and practice.
`
`It is moot even if true.
`
`for the
`the word "patent"
`The court mistakenly and unjustly substitutes
`word "copyright" to prevent plaintiff from obtaining relief that he deserves
`under the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
`His copyright
`is on
`the deposit
`that plaintiff made in the Copyright Office on 3/9/2015 along with
`his application for a copyright on the text of his deed from Elizabeth Rich
`Flannery on April 1, 1957. That text constitutes valid copyrightable
`subject
`matter of a copyrightable map of the metes and bounds of his property at 46 E.
`26th street, Baltimore, Maryland. That is subject matter
`for which the court has
`diversity and statutory jurisdiction to hold copyrightable without closing this
`
`cases unjustly according to the case of Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 217.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 19
`
`The Court's informal memorandum WciS without prior notice or any
`opportunity to allow plaintiff's voice to be fully heard as to his objection to the
`unjust closing of this case. The reason the Court uses to close this case, as the
`Court says, is because plaintiff merely makes "assertions that he (1) holds a
`'land patent,lII or rights therein on which his name does not appear. The court
`does not specify where in plaintiff's amended complaint or other filings he
`makes "assertions that he (1) holds a 'land patentlll but it is well-recognized that
`plaintiff's name does not and could not appear on the cited LordCalvert land
`patent because it was issued hundreds of years before he was born.
`
`Thus, the court is mistaken in its assertion that plaintiff could have made
`frivolous assertions that his name is on that "land patent" as a grantee,
`whereas he does assert over and over again that his name presumptively does
`appears on a copyright involving the same subject matter. So the court refuses
`to allow plaintiff to prove that his name does appear on a valid copyright on
`subject matter that could actually involve the same subject matter as claimed
`by Lord Calvert in an ancient land patent.
`
`The action of the court in unfairly and preemptively "closing" this case
`with an informal memorandum without notice or an opportunity to contest that
`action is grossly unjust.
`It is completely unexpected. That surprise is contrary
`to even elementary reason and justice.
`It exceeds the court's authority and is
`an abuse of discretion because the court's informal memorandum of May IS,
`2015 is simply wrong. It mistakenly asserts without any basis in fact, law or
`reference to plaintiff's filings that plaintiff could have made or did make
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 19
`
`made or did make "assertions
`
`that he (1) holds a 'land patent'"
`
`c:sa grantee
`
`hundreds of years before he was born.
`
`Plaintiff did not make such assertions because he does not have a right to
`
`give a patent notice to potential
`
`infringers that he is the grantee of record of the
`
`Plaintiff can cite no reference to a
`well-recognized Lord Calvert "land patent."
`land patent number. No such "patent number" exists or was granted to him
`personally with his name on it. It is true, on the other hand,
`that plaintiff can
`
`give a copyright notice as specified in 17 U.S.C. 99101-810, although such notice
`
`is now not required under the 1988 Bern convention implementation
`
`act.
`
`right to a valid
`the Plaintiff has a present
`that
`There is a presumption
`copyright and a valid copyright notice based upon the text of a deed to him as a
`
`grantee from Elizabeth Rich Flannery on April 1, 1957. That deed is mentioned
`on page 2 of the court's May 15, 2015 memorandum.
`The text of that deed is
`copyrightable
`as an Exhibit in Plaintiffs deed and the Court can so hold and find
`
`text of that deed is a
`that
`as a fact. The Court can hold and find as a fact that
`copyrightable map describing the metes and bounds of plaintiffs property at 46
`e. 26th street, Baltimore, Maryland. That text based map of his property has
`been acquired both by deed and adverse possession for over 20 years,
`i.e., by
`open, continuous, notorious, exclusive and adverse possession of his property
`at 46 e. 26th street, Baltimore, Maryland and that possession as a grantee is
`recognized by the Defendants,
`the City of Baltimore, and the state of Maryland.
`
`to him personally by a
`Thus, plaintiff does not have to rely on a grant
`colonial
`land patent grant
`to Lord Calvert without a patent number, but he has a
`right to cite that
`land patent as the precedent of his current valid copyright on
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 19
`
`the same subject matter. Plaintiff has 110 right to give a patent notice of a
`patent number
`for that colonial patent because no such number exists.
`Plaintiff has no right to give a land patent notice by patent number, because his
`property was derived in a continuous chain of land titles from a grant by the
`King of England before he was born and before patent numbers were assigned.
`
`Instead, his present copyright notice is derived from the copyrightable
`
`text based map of the property described by the text of a warranty deed
`describing a copyrightable map of his property as an Exhibit to his deed making
`his wife a co-tenant of his land at 46 E. 26th street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218.
`
`Plaintiff has a first amendment
`
`right to make a mere public reference in
`
`this public forum to a well-known land patent
`
`to Lord Calvert without
`
`right in this
`implicating himself any further. He also has a first amendment
`public forum to refer to his presumptively valid copyright and to give a formal
`statutory copyright notice of the grant of a copyright
`to him personally, which is
`is made public, or
`reflecting a grant by Q sovereign that
`"an official document
`at note 6 on page 5
`'patent.'''
`See the quote of those words by the defendants
`of their 11/21/14 document 10. There is a statutory presumption
`specified in 17
`U.S.C. ~~101-810 giving the court statutory jurisdiction,
`as well as diversity
`jurisdiction to use those words in finding the defendants
`guilty of the
`
`misconduct of copyright
`
`infringement.
`
`Obviously, the court has prematurely closed this case mistakenly and
`unjustly to prevent plaintiff's name from promptly appearing on a copyright and
`on a statutory copyright notice of liability for copyright
`infringement
`to the
`Defendants. The Court's purpose is obviously to short circuit Plaintiff's First
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 19
`
`Amendment rights, rights under Article I, Section 8, paragr3ph 8, and rights
`under 17 U,S.C.~~101-810. That is grossly unjust merely because plaintiff
`happened to ask the court to ask the copyright office to expedite the issuance of
`his presumptively valid copyright.
`
`Plaintiff did not ask the court to expedite issuance of a patent whose
`scope was long ago determined by the Kingof England when he issued a land
`patent
`to lord calvert. Patents are not infringed until the scope of the claims
`are finalized. The scope of copyrights on the other hand is fixed by the deposit
`when the application for a copyright is filed. Thus, there is a clear presumption
`under 17 U.S.C~101-810 not contradicted by anything said by Plaintiff, the
`Court or the Defendants, that Plaintiff will promptly have a copyright whose
`scope is determined by his deposit, which is "an official document reflecting a
`is made public, or 'patent.''' That is the scenario
`grant by Q sovereign that
`agreed to by all parties in this case, as clearly pointed out in defendants' note 6
`on page 5 of their 11/21/2014 filing in Document 10,
`
`The scope and validity of Plaintiff's copyright can be decided by this court,
`but by closing this case the court has arbitrarily refused to do so. That is why it
`is both grossly unjust and mistaken as a matter of law and practice for the Court
`to direct the Court's Docket Clerkto close this case with a sudden, untimely,
`informal memorandum based upon the fact that plaintiff can make "assertions
`that he (1) holds a copyright." At the same time it is logical that he also holds a
`right as a successor in a continuous chain of title to assert that this Court has no
`statutory or diversity jurisdiction to bar the Plaintiff from claiming he has a
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 9 of 19
`
`valid copyright on subject matter
`
`from which Elizabeth Rich Flannery derived
`
`her rights under an ancient patent
`
`to Lord Calvert.
`
`Plaintiff does not make "assertions
`
`that he holds the 'land patent' granted
`
`to Lord Calvert 100's of years before Plaintiff was born. Plaintiff does not have
`his name on that patent as the grantee. He merely asserts the possibility of a
`theoretical
`right as a successor
`in interest.
`The implications
`taken from that
`fact by the court are grossly unjust
`in its informal "Memorandum"
`of May 15,
`2015, because it bars plaintiff from promptly publishing his voice in this public
`
`under Article I, Section 8,
`forum and all others under the First Amendment,
`paragraph 8 of the U.S. Constitution,
`and under 17 U.S.C. ~U01c810,
`to give the
`Defendants
`the following copyright notice: @ Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish, 2015,
`based upon Plaintiff's deposit of public record in the U.S Copyright Office by
`
`receipt No. 1-10YSNO on 3/9/2015.
`
`At least one year is the time it now takes currently to issue a copyright.
`
`Instead, by asking the Copyright Office to expedite the process, Plaintiff's
`copyright will be granted to him personally with his name on it in days rather
`than in a year. Thus, plaintiff has a right to put his copyright notice on his deed
`to give the Defendants notice that he can hold them liable for copyright
`infringement
`for their infringing misconduct, which they admit
`in note 4 on page
`
`2 of their 11/21/2014
`
`filing in document 10.
`
`Expediting plaintiff's right to a copyright grant promptly gives him the
`
`a prompt copyright notice within a few days or
`right to give the defendants
`weeks.
`It gives this court and expedited right to advance this case to issue
`based upon the issuance of his copyright on the text and map describing the
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 10 of 19
`
`metes and bounds of his property as described in the text of a "full warranty
`
`deed from Elizabeth "Rich Flannery on April 1, 1957: (am. Compl. '111.ECFno. 3).
`That insures that Plaintiff's first amendment
`rights will not be unjustly and
`
`illegally barred by an abuse of discretion by this Court.
`
`The pertinent
`
`facts, either undisputed or, where disputed taken most
`
`favorably to defendants
`
`and the Court, are as follows:
`
`Plaintiff's copyright of his original text
`
`in his deed is based upon his open,
`
`adverse and exclusive occupancy and use of his land at
`continuous, notorious,
`46 E. 26th Street
`in Baltimore City, in a continuous
`chain of title from a warranty
`
`deed from Elizabeth Rich Flannery on April 1, 1957. That is the claim recognized
`by the Court itself. The map of the property is defined by the text of that
`warranty deed from Elizabeth Rich Flannery repeated as an Exhibit in the
`copyrighted text of a deed from Plaintiff to his wife.
`It describes a survey of the
`metes and bounds of his adversely possessed land, which was recognized and
`recorded in that warranty deed with full covenant by Baltimore City in 1957.
`
`text and map is not defeated or barred by also
`A copyright claim to that
`claiming derivative rights under a well-known, unexpired, ancient, Colonial land
`patent
`from the King of England. Such rights are known as derivative rights
`based upon a continuous uninterrupted
`chain of title. Plaintiff and Elizabeth
`Rich Flannery both can sequentially enjoy the same derivative rights since they
`are not defeated or barred by a copyright of the text of a map describing a
`portion of land patented to Lord Calvert by the King of England in Colonial
`
`times.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 11 of 19
`
`The copyrighted text of Plaintiff's copyrighted deed was publically
`
`in the Baltimore City land
`recognized and publically recorded by Plaintiff
`records under the First Amendment, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 8 and 17
`
`and making a
`U.S.C. ~~101-810 because Defendants were openly trespassing,
`public nuisance on Plaintiff's land at 46 E. 26th Street, Baltimore, Maryland. They
`openly pillaged valuable ancient
`trees on Plaintiff's land by cutting them down
`
`after negligently causing a landslide for which they are liable, as claimed by
`Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Their negligence was also the proximate
`cause of their copyright
`infringement of the text of Plaintiff's deed and the map
`
`described and shown by his copyrighted deed
`
`infringement by Defendants were the
`That negligence and copyright
`proximate cause of pain and suffering of Plaintiff by the Defendants. They are
`the proximate cause of Plaintiff's pain and suffering from a heart attack on April
`1, 2015 costing over $100,000. Defendants' negligence was the proximate cause
`
`infringement of Plaintiff's copyrighted deed by causing a
`of their copyright
`landslide that deprived Plaintiff of required lateral earthen support
`for his
`property on 26th Street. An $18 million retaining wall erected to stabilize the
`required lateral earthen support
`in the future is without adequate buttresses
`as to make it so dangerously unstable that Plaintiff's property is made
`uninhabitable
`for him by closing off 26th Street from fire, police, and ambulance
`service he requires now and in the future because of his heart attack. The
`negligence and copyright
`infringement of the Defendants has already caused
`Plaintiff pain and suffering from a heart attack. Defendants
`also placed the
`giant encroaching foot of a crane on Plaintiff's land to construct
`the retaining
`wall. The Defendants being well aware of the copyrighted text of Plaintiff's
`
`so
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 12 of 19
`
`de~d, nevertheless,
`
`in their note 4 of their 11/21/14 Document 10, essentially
`
`admitted their infringing "encroachment"
`
`of the recorded text and map
`
`copyrighted by Plaintiff.
`
`To that end, Defendants
`
`cited their agents' "erection of a metal fence that
`
`the construction area where the retaining wall is occurring." To that
`surrounds
`end, the technology of the internet permits rapid and efficient conversion of the
`text of plaintiff's original copyrighted deed published on 12/9/2014 to obtain a
`response from the Defendants only three months before the Defendants'
`
`receipt of a copy of Plaintiff's copyright application on 3/9/2015. The
`Defendants, however, waived their right to make a defense to Plaintiff's Second
`Amended Complaint
`in which Plaintiff claimed that
`they were willfully infringing
`
`the copyrighted text of Plaintiff's deed under the First Amendment, Article I,
`
`Section 8, paragraph 8 and 17 U.S.C. ~UOl-810.
`
`Defendants were well aware of plaintiff's right to obtain a copyright of
`
`the original text of his deed. The continuity of that deed is shown by Plaintiff's
`open, continuous, notorious, adverse and exclusive adverse possessor of land
`derived according to the text of his full covenant warranty deed from Elizabeth
`Rich Flannery on April 1, 1957,who was a successor
`in interest
`in the continuous
`chain of title from the text of the unexpired colonial
`land patent
`to Lord Calvert.
`The text of Plaintiff's deed is in a continuous
`chain of title from Elizabeth Rich
`Flannery according to the property records of Baltimore city. Her deed is in a
`continuous, unbroken chain of title to the map and text of Plaintiff's deed filed
`only on October I, 2014 and published by the Plaintiff to the Defendants on
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 13 of 19
`
`December 9, 2014, so c:sto inform Defendants of the text describing the metes
`
`and bounds of his copyrighted map.
`
`Accordingly, that copyrighted text and map are taken from an original
`
`descriptions of plaintiff's real and intellectual property rights in his land at 46 E.
`26th street, Baltimore city as recorded in the land records of Baltimore city, for
`example, at map 02, ward 12, section 03, lot 050, block 3840, liber 16599 page
`348 and Iiber 78, pages 32 and 33 of the same land records, which was provided
`as an exhibit
`to his copyrighted deed recorded at Iiber 16599, page 348 dated
`
`October I, 2014.
`
`.
`
`technology the defendants were
`Utilizing the text and the latest computer
`well aware that
`they had a duty to provide lateral earthen support
`to plaintiff's
`
`copyrighted property in Baltimore both before and after the collapse of a whole
`block of 26th street between St. Paul and Charles streets on or about April 30,
`2014 that swallowed ten cars and a Cornish stone fence at the top of a trench
`forming a "ha ha" in which CSXtracks run. Plaintiff claims that Defendants
`negligently caused the collapse of the street and stone fence with prior
`knowledge of the danger
`that
`the collapse would take place by the parking of
`cars along the Cornish stone wall, like the thousands of stone fences that are
`called Cornish fences in England, Scotland and Wales. Thereupon, Defendants
`willfully and negligently failed to perform their duty of fixing the defects in the
`infrastructure
`supporting the stone wall on 26th Street, and likewise failed to
`give prior notice to Plaintiff and others of the danger of its collapse.
`
`Their negligence was the proximate cause of that collapse of the stone
`wall, the copyright
`infringement of Plaintiff's copyright, and the subsequent
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 14 of 19
`
`damage, pain and suffering, and monetary ;:osts to the Plaintiff. That
`
`for plaintiff's
`negligence caused the loss of the cars and lateral earthen support
`property at 46 E. 26th Street. Defendants'
`failure to perform their duties to
`provide the required repair of damage to the infrastructure was the proximate
`
`the cars, the Cornish stone wall and the
`cause of the collapse of the street,
`required radial earthen support
`for plaintiff's property on 26th street.
`
`Indeed, plaintiff claims that
`
`the negligence of the defendants was willful,
`
`and known prior to the collapse on 26th Street or about April 30, 2014. The
`proximate cause of the collapse was Defendants'
`failure to fulfill their duties to
`the plaintiff and others.
`It was the proximate cause of the collapse of the street,
`the collapse of the stone wall, the collapse of the cars on to the CSXtracks and
`
`the collapse of the radial earthen support of plaintiff's
`
`land described in the
`
`original
`
`text and map copyrighted by Plaintiff.
`
`license. Plaintiff has a
`Defendants did not agree to pay for a copyright
`traditional
`and statutory right under 17 U.S.c. ~106 commercially to license his
`copyrighted text of his property on 26th street. Defendants knowingly and
`willfully infringed that
`intellectual property.
`They usurped plaintiff's prima
`facie right to commercially license his copyright. To that end they adjusted the
`copyrighted text of plaintiff's metes and bounds. That was perhaps an
`innovative change but it was not transformative.
`It was still a copyright
`infringement of a portion of the text describing plaintiff's land.
`
`Instead of using the full extent of the copyrighted text of the metes and
`bounds of plaintiff's land, defendants willfully infringed a portion ofthe
`copyrighted text and distributed that portion to themselves
`in a derivative copy
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 15 of 19
`
`in commercial use.
`describing that small portion of the original copyrighted text
`They added no "new aesthetics" or insights to the text of plaintiff's copyrighted
`
`text or map. The text
`
`thereof corresponds
`
`to the text of the metes and bounds
`
`described in his survey. Defendants pillaged and plundered plaintiff's property
`by chopping down plaintiff's valuable, ancient shade trees. Then they also built
`a fence on plaintiff's property completely to block plaintiff's access to 26th street
`
`at any fair use. The purpose and character of Defendants'
`without any attempt
`use and distribution of Plaintiff's copyrighted text copied the core of the
`
`intended copyright protection to themselves.
`
`That was not fair under 17 U.S.C
`
`including copyright misuse,
`affirmative defenses,
`~107. Defendants'
`abandonment,
`unclean hands, and estoppel are rejectable as a matter of law.
`Defendants don't deny that or commercial use by plaintiff. UMG Recording,
`Inc. U.S. distr. Ct., SDNY2000, Lexis 5761,
`
`V. Mp3.com,
`
`Inc.
`
`Plaintiff is at a loss to understand Defendants'
`
`reliance on rule 103(6)(c),
`
`first of all (1), because it is undisputed that Plaintiff has reasonably and
`respectfully supplied a clean copy of his second amended pleading as instructed
`by the Court. Plaintiff was given no option to supply (2) a copy of the amended
`pleading with lined through stricken language, enclosed brackets and new
`material underlined or set forth in boldfaced type." LR. 103(6)(c) (no emphasis
`
`added).
`
`As clearly instructed by the Court, the second Amended Pleading was to
`be a completely new pleading,
`including a claim of willful copyright
`infringement
`that
`replaced the original amended pleading rather than
`selectively saving certain portions and adding new portions. Accordingly, the
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 16 of 19
`
`original first amended Complaint was entirely removed and redone because the
`
`it was completely
`court partially dismissed the first amended Complaint so that
`removed so that Plaintiff could elect a claim for copyright
`infringement
`for
`consideration without prejudice to replacing the earlier complaint with a clean
`copy of a second amended Complaint claiming copyright
`infringement,
`and also
`avoiding the requirement
`of paragraph (2) of L.R.. 103(6)(c). That was
`
`successfully accomplished
`
`by Plaintiff according to the instructions of the Court.
`
`Still further, paragraph 4 of defendants' April 3, 2015 motion cites the
`inapposite
`reference of Veeheskel v. Bank of America corp., 2010 U.S.c. Dist.
`In that cited case it was held that
`texis 1180, 6-7 (d. Md. Jan. 7, 2010).
`"plaintiff effectively attempted
`to amend their complaint, which was incorrectly
`(emphasis added). Plaintiffs Amended
`labeled a third party complaint"
`Complaint containing a claim for copyright
`infringement was incorrectly labeled
`
`as well, but by the Court in this case.
`
`The purpose of a new clean copy of plaintiffs Complaint was to
`It was to
`"substitute"
`a new Complaint with a claim for copyright
`infringement.
`substitute
`for an earlier dismissed amended Complaint without prejudice
`because plaintiff filed pro se. The purpose in the cited case, on the other hand,
`was to "supplement"
`the original Complaint with exhibits of Plaintiffs' fillings in
`Montgomery County Circuit Court, which did not appear
`to be relevant
`to
`Plaintiffs' suit against
`the bank of America.
`It was concluded that
`the cited
`"Bank of America is not a correct party to this lawsuit and will dismiss counts i-v
`and vii:' There is no argument
`in this case that
`the Defendants are not proper
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 17 of 19
`
`parties, or that
`
`the new "substituted"
`
`claims were filed to add irrelevant or
`
`frivolous exhibits.
`
`The Defendants
`
`argument
`
`is also stale,
`
`irrelevant and moot
`
`in paragraph
`
`relates only to the specific
`5 of their April 3, 2015 filing. Their argument
`Complaint
`that was dismissed without prejudice to filing a new clean copy of a
`substituted Complaint, which is what Plaintiff did. The specific earlier
`Complaint
`is no longer relevant
`to Defendants
`arguments under L.R. 103(6)(c),
`
`for lack
`is not deficient
`complaint
`Plaintiff's substituted
`Rule 8(a) or otherwise.
`of a new clean copy, "a short and plain statement
`of the grounds for the court's
`
`of each of his [Plaintiff's] claims
`jurisdiction, or a short and plain statement
`supported
`by the factual basis for his allegations,"
`as required by rule 8(a).
`
`In view of the above,
`
`the Plaintiff's assertions are not frivolous,
`
`they are
`
`by legally sufficient
`supported
`factual allegations and do not rely on mere
`"labels and conclusions" and/or
`formulaic recitation of the elements
`as cited in
`Bell Atl. Corp II. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Therefore this case should not
`be dismissed or closed without asking the Copyright Office to expedite the
`granting of a copyright
`to Plaintiff and providing a full examination on the
`merits of Plaintiff's amended Complaint and his claims for negligence,
`trespass,
`public nuisance, violation of his free speech rights under the First Amendment,
`article I, Section 8, paragraph 8, or for copyright
`infringement under 17 U.S.c.
`
`~UOl-810.
`
`End: Medical bill for heart attack
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 18 of 19
`
`Date: 5/26/2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`eovW-b( &.I11'rlfc ~
`
`Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
`
`1101 New Hampshire Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`(202) 429-9705
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03117-GLR Document 24 Filed 05/29/15 Page 19 of 19
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I certify that on May 26, 2015, I caused a copy of the foregoing motions and
`
`orders to be served by U,S. postal mail on:
`
`Baltimore City c/o mayor and City Council as a legal entity; and
`
`Ms. Stephanie Rawlings Blake as an individual
`
`residing in Baltimore City
`
`Baltimore city
`
`100 Holiday St. #250
`
`Baltimore, MD 21202-3419
`
`Date: 5/26/2015
`
`Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
`
`20