1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
c/o Forwarding Agent at:
11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188
Gold River 95670-4484
CALIFORNIA, USA
31
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff in the above entitled case,
32
Citizen of California, Private Attorney General and Federal Witness,
33
to file and serve this, the AUTHOR’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT
34
AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY.
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
District Court of the United States
Eastern Judicial District of California
Paul Andrew Mitchell,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
35
No. CIV. S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS
AUTHOR’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY:
17 U.S.C. 512(h);
28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
HISTORICAL SETTING
36
Plaintiff kindly requests all interested parties to go no further
37
in this pleading, until they have thoroughly reviewed the legislative
38
history
39
(“ACPA”).
40
electronic copy of this legislative history available in the Supreme
41
Law Library, and also incorporated it as Exhibit L-6 in the Initial
42
COMPLAINT.
of
the
For
Anticounterfeiting
the
convenience
Consumer
of
all,
Protection
Plaintiff
Act
has
of
made
1996
an
See Internet URL:
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 1 of 22
1
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/statutes/anticounterfeiting.htm
2
Plaintiff understands and argues that the ACPA was originally
3
motivated
by
Congressional
4
expanding
role
5
interstate
6
merchandise.
7
copy of His book being hosted on the Internet, in December 1995 A.D.,
8
the Netscape Navigator software (“Navigator”) had already vaulted its
9
owner -- Netscape Communications Corp. -- into a preeminent position
as
traffic
the
in
recognition
engine
or
counterfeits
the
Internet’s
“enterprise”
of
trademarked
for
rapidly
facilitating
and
copyrighted
Indeed, when Plaintiff first discovered a counterfeit
10
among software vendors worldwide.
11
to this market, with unprecedented speed.
12
of
They beat the Microsoft Corporation
The people of the world had discovered the Internet;
they were
13
buying and using literally millions of commercial copies of Navigator;
14
and the inevitable result of this new technology was something on the
15
order of a quantum leap in the availability of electronic information
16
worldwide.
17
a technological revolution is an obvious understatement.
The Internet had become the talk of the town.
To call it
18
The key technological advance was a mechanism and corresponding
19
communications protocol, commonly called Hyper Text Transfer Protocol
20
(“http”), which effectively enabled a global “hyper-text” database to
21
be distributed among all computers that supported this protocol.
22
observing the arcane coding format for “links”, any document hosted on
23
any given computer disk in this network could be directly linked to
24
any other document on this network, without regard to political or
25
geographic boundaries, or distance from client to server.
By
26
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has done the entire world an admirable
27
service by authoring a brilliant opinion in the case of Universal City
28
Studios, Inc. v. Shawn Reimerdes et al. (see Exhibit L-5).
Although
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 2 of 22
1
Judge Kaplan is not a computer expert, he succeeded in thoroughly
2
documenting for lay people the key role that such “links” play in the
3
day-to-day operations of the Internet’s World Wide Web (“www”), the
4
name
5
Language (“HTML”).
given
to
the
worldwide
database
coded
in
Hyper
Text
Markup
Links coded in HTML are also called “hyperlinks.”
6
Arguably, the single most important feature of HTML is the Anchor
7
for Hyper Text References, or “HREF Anchor”, which is now commonly
8
called a “link”.
9
link to Exhibit L-5, as hosted at the Supreme Law Library:
The following illustrates the visible portion of a
10
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/caselaw/decss.opinion.pdf
11
In this format, the link effectively “points” to the Internet
12
“address” of an electronic copy of Judge Kaplan’s published opinion in
13
the DECSS case, stored in Adobe’s Portable Document Format (“pdf”).
14
To insulate Internet users from the need to see the laborious details
15
of links coded in this fashion, HTML HREF Anchors permit programmers
16
to bind graphics and any arbitrary text string to this address, or
17
Universal Resource Locator (“URL”) as it is now commonly called.
18
Thus, Internet publishers anywhere in the world can refer to
19
“Exhibit L-5” (the visible text) and bind this visible text to the URL
20
shown above, by means of an HREF Anchor in the underlying HTML source
21
code.
22
Explorer
23
source code by activating the View | Source option in their screen
24
menus.
25
in the HTML source code:
26
27
28
29
Internet
(“MSIE”)
browsers
permit
like
the
Navigator
user
to
see
and
Microsoft
this
normally
Internet
invisible
The following is a generic example of such a link, as stored
<A HREF=”URL”>Exhibit L-5</A>
where,
URL
=
the text of the Uniform Resource Locator,
typically starting with http://www.DOMAIN
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 3 of 22
1
If Judge Kaplan made any significant errors in his DECSS opinion
2
supra, he failed fully to realize that links do not move the user to a
3
new location on the Internet.
4
allows a user to copy a document and transfer that copy from anywhere
5
on the Internet to the user’s personal computer.
On the contrary, an HTML link merely
6
In a literal sense, the transfer protocol automatically begins to
7
copy the document from the target URL, into the user’s local computer
8
memory, the moment the user clicks on the corresponding link.
9
This
essential
and
relevant
fact
can
be
demonstrated
by
10
activating the File | Save As option, which permits the user to save
11
an identical digital copy of the target URL onto the user’s local hard
12
disk.
13
copies of all Internet URL’s suspected of violating His exclusive
14
copyrights in “The Federal Zone.”
15
This is the sequence which Plaintiff utilized to save identical
The evidence in question, therefore, began as electronic files,
16
and
should
be
17
fundamental reasons why Plaintiff went to so much trouble to upload a
18
subset of relevant electronic evidence into the Supreme Law Library on
19
the Internet.
20
single best way to illustrate, and emulate, the technological ease
21
with
22
infringed by all Defendants.
which
viewed
as
electronic
files.
This
is
one
of
the
Making this evidence available on the Internet is the
Plaintiff’s
exclusive
copyrights
were
systematically
Seeing is believing (and so is doing).
23
Plaintiff is endeavoring to avoid unnecessary costs, for Himself
24
and for all Defendants, including but not limited to the cost of
25
professional
26
within these numerous electronic files.
Plaintiff argues that this
27
approach
means
has
time
required
resulted
in
to
search
providing
and
a
locate
of
text
occurrences
access
to
this
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 4 of 22
1
information
2
printed
3
(eyes) will never be as fast, or as accurate!
4
that
hard
is
copies
far
in
superior
lieu
of
to
the
access
electronic
made
copies.
possible
Optical
by
scans
In recognition of the need to make at least one copy of this
5
electronic
6
Plaintiff filed two (2) sets of hard copy Exhibits in the official
7
Clerk’s record of the instant case.
8
of hard copy Exhibits to the registered agent for service of legal
9
process on behalf of Defendant AOL Time Warner, Inc.
10
evidence
Clearly,
with
available
129
in
separate
printed,
or
“hard
copy,”
format,
Plaintiff also shipped a full set
Defendants
named
in
the
Initial
11
COMPLAINT and the first three (3) SUPPLEMENT’s, it became economically
12
prohibitive
13
incorporated Exhibits on all named Defendants.
14
15
for
Plaintiff
to
print
and
serve
hard
copies
The law does not compel the doing of impossibilities.
of
all
Lex non
cogit impossibilia (in Latin).
16
With this essential background in mind, it is easy to understand
17
how the advent of Netscape dramatically accelerated the availability
18
of digital information throughout the entire world.
19
information was properly coded in HTML, files hosted on the Internet
20
could be copied automatically to any user whose local computer was
21
properly configured with compatible browser software.
22
As long as the
As a general rule, however, many users failed to acknowledge or
23
to
appreciate
24
exploit these obviously powerful features of the Internet to steal and
25
host
26
works, and then to distribute them widely, in flagrant violation of
27
the authors’ exclusive copyrights in those works.
identical
this
simple
copies
fact:
and/or
pirates
modified
had
quickly
counterfeits
of
learned
to
copyrighted
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 5 of 22
1
An
open
season
was
launched
against
intellectual
property,
2
resulting in widespread alarm among writers and publishers who make
3
their living creating and distributing intellectual property.
4
in turn, stormed the Congress for immediate legislative relief.
5
They,
In recognition of the need for prompt legislative action -- to
6
stem
the
rising
7
Congress
8
comprehensive amendments to the Copyright Act in 1998.
9
is now called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”);
enacted
tide
the
of
ACPA
Internet-based
copyright
in
followed
1996,
and
violations
with
a
--
set
of
The latter set
it was
10
signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998 A.D.
11
U.S. Copyright Office Summary of this Act is available at Internet
12
URL:
13
The
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/dmca/dmca.pdf
14
With this historical setting in mind, Plaintiff now demonstrates
15
how
to
search
16
complicity
17
copyrights in the subject book.
in
and
the
locate
evidence
widespread
of
Defendant
infringement
of
Carnegie
Plaintiff’s
Mellon’s
exclusive
18
19
20
SEARCHING FOR CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
IN THE DATABASE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
21
Plaintiff now endeavors to illustrate a search methodology that
22
is generic enough to locate occurrences of Carnegie Mellon University,
23
and Internet Domain CMU.EDU, in the database of evidence now available
24
in the Supreme Law Library.
25
what follows by applying this methodology to search and locate every
26
occurrence
27
database, e.g. other named Defendants and their co-conspirators.
of
any
other
Hopefully, readers here will generalize
text
string(s)
that
may
exist
in
this
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 6 of 22
1
Bear in mind, from the outset, that the availability of this
2
electronic evidence on the Internet means that this database can now
3
be searched by any of the 500+ commercial search engines that are
4
presently available to all Internet users, at no cost to them.
5
example, the popular Google search engine can be used to locate all
6
occurrences
7
Library, by specifying the following in Google’s input window:
8
9
of
the
text
string
“cmu.edu”
within
the
Supreme
For
Law
+supremelaw.org cmu.edu
Plaintiff here prefers a more systematic approach to searching
10
the electronic evidence in this database.
The Initial COMPLAINT and
11
first 3 SUPPLEMENT’s are Exhibits as well.
All Exhibits are expressly
12
incorporated by reference.
13
viewing these Exhibits with MSIE, or Navigator, should encounter the
14
following (or similar) references to Carnegie Mellon University and
15
CMU.EDU (or any other named Defendant):
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Quite obviously, any lawyer capable of
(1)
Carnegie-Mellon University is a named Defendant;
(2)
Plaintiff added Carnegie-Mellon to the list of universities
that received His NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE AND PROSECUTE
VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS;
(3)
Plaintiff wrote and mailed a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE to
Defendant Karl Kleinpaste, c/o Carnegie Mellon’s President;
(4)
Plaintiff wrote and mailed a MIRANDA WARNING
Kleinpaste, c/o Carnegie Mellon’s President;
(5)
Plaintiff wrote and mailed a DEMAND FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY
to the Designated Agent at Carnegie Mellon;
(6)
Plaintiff wrote and mailed a NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
AUTHORIZATION to the Designated Agent at Carnegie Mellon.
to
Karl
Plaintiff argues that item (6) above is pivotal, for purposes of
35
establishing whether or not probable cause exists to oppose any and
36
all efforts by Defendant Carnegie Mellon University to dismiss the
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 7 of 22
1
Initial COMPLAINT against it.
2
and mailed to Carnegie Mellon’s Designated Agent a NOTICE AND DEMAND
3
to deliver a certified copy of the Author’s written authorization (if
4
any),
5
electronic copy of the subject book at Internet URL:
permitting
6
Carnegie
On June 11, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff wrote
Mellon
University
to
promote
a
stolen
ftp://aphrodite.nectar.cs.cmu.edu/pub/govt-control/
7
Plaintiff first encountered evidence of this copyright violation
8
after completing the initial Internet search now summarized in the
9
TFZLINKS file.
See Exhibit D-1-A, entry #53.
Plaintiff had used the
10
Alta Vista search engine to prepare this summary.
11
had
12
underlined the phrase “my ftp area”.
13
His
14
evident by this much evidence, namely Defendant Karl Kleinpaste.
omitted
the
copyright
underlying
enforcement
hyperlink
efforts
that
However, Alta Vista
normally
would
have
Subsequently, Plaintiff focused
on
the
principal
violator
made
15
Much later, during another pass through all electronic evidence,
16
Plaintiff re-encountered His copy of the specific file to which entry
17
#53 refers supra.
18
Plaintiff confirmed that the link in question did, indeed, point to
19
the ftp server at Internet Domain CMU.EDU, as shown above.
20
searching the HTML source code where “my ftp area” is found:
21
In that file, using the View | Source menu option,
Try it, by
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/jprc.com/philo.htm
22
Remember, after his thorough dissertation on hyperlinks, Judge
23
Kaplan
ruled
24
evidence of a copyright infringement, pure and simple.
25
Karl Kleinpaste’s link to his “ftp area” at CMU.EDU is evidence that a
26
copy of the subject book was hosted at Internet Domain CMU.EDU during
27
some
period
that
of
a
time,
hyperlink
as
yet
to
stolen
undisclosed.
intellectual
Plaintiff
property
is
Therefore,
now
repeats
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 8 of 22
1
verbatim what Defendant Karl Kleinpaste openly admitted in a document
2
he published on the Internet, to wit:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Under my ftp area, you will find a number of excellent starter
resources.
Notably, The Federal Zone is there in its
electronically distributable form, as well as some extensive
materials on the nature of implied contracts and a few other
random bits and pieces. (I haven’t read them all yet myself, by
the way. I can’t vouch for their stature personally. However, I
use TFZ extensively.)
16
Plaintiff
(NOTE: I have made grievous errors in leaving CMU to join Lycos:
My archive area was lost and has yet to be reconstituted
anywhere. Fortunately, the single most important piece of those
archives was TFZ, which you can find here. [sic]
respectfully
requests
this
Court
to
take
formal
17
judicial notice of the following admissions already made in these two
18
paragraphs:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
(1)
the phrase “my ftp area” is a hyperlink to a URL at one
time located on computers owned and operated by Defendant
Carnegie Mellon University;
(2)
The Federal Zone (“TFZ”) at one time could be found there,
in its electronically distributable form;
(3)
Kleinpaste admits that he used “TFZ” extensively;
(4)
Kleinpaste admits that he made “grievous errors in leaving
CMU”;
(5)
One of those errors was that his archive area was lost, and
has yet to be reconstituted anywhere;
(6)
Then, Kleinpaste refers to TFZ
important piece of those archives”;
(7)
Finally, Kleinpaste identifies that “single most important
piece” by adding a hyperlink to the stolen and modified
counterfeit version hosted by Internet Domain DEOXY.ORG;
(8)
At that time, DEOXY.ORG was hosted by computers owned and
operated by Defendant AOL Time Warner, Inc.
as
“the
single
most
It is worthwhile to mention here that printing hard copies of
45
files like philo.htm results in concealing the underlying HTML code.
46
This is another reason why electronic files are superior for evidence.
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 9 of 22
1
Plaintiff then acquired verifiable evidence that Internet Domain
2
CMU.EDU
3
Carnegie
4
Network Solutions, Inc. WHOIS database of Internet domains and their
5
responsible
6
Contacts).
7
hosted
Mellon
by
computers
University.
contacts
(i.e.
This
owned
and
operated
evidence
was
Administrative,
by
Defendant
obtained
Technical,
from
and
the
Billing
See Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/cmu.edu/NSI - WHOIS Search Results
8
9
was
Further
evidence
of
complicity
by
Defendant
Carnegie
Mellon
University can be seen in Plaintiff’s NOTICE OF DEFAULT, mailed to
10
CMU’s
Designated
11
Claims on July 16, 2001 A.D.
12
Agent
for
Notification
of
Copyright
Infringement
See Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/cmu.edu/default.htm
13
Nobody at Carnegie Mellon University ever requested, or obtained,
14
Plaintiff’s permission to host or to promote a stolen and modified
15
version of the subject book on computers owned and operated by CMU.
16
Plaintiff’s NOTICE OF DEFAULT was accepted by CMU without protest or
17
rebuttal, when they fell silent after receiving it.
18
Plaintiff’s
NOTICE
AND
DEMAND
FOR
SUBSCRIBER
IDENTITY
is
19
noteworthy, in this context, for having demanded discovery of the
20
current
21
service of legal process upon the principal(s) responsible for “Karl
22
Kleinpaste”, for the ftp address at CMU.EDU shown above, and for the
23
file formerly located at the URL for philo.htm above.
24
mailing
address
(or
the
last
known
mailing
address)
for
Plaintiff argues that simple textual substitution is all that is
25
required to justify the following finding:
the Initial COMPLAINT
26
properly alleges that Defendant Carnegie Mellon University failed to
27
respond expeditiously to Plaintiff’s numerous written messages.
28
17 U.S.C. 512(c).
See
Those messages alleged a multiplicity of copyright
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 10 of 22
1
infringements and Lanham Act violations.
2
alleged using the exact language of the pertinent statutes.
3
4
5
Violations of both Acts are
COUNTS ONE and TWO expressly re-allege these latter allegations
and incorporate them by reference.
Likewise, simple textual substitution is all that is required to
6
justify the following finding:
7
that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant Carnegie Mellon
8
University the actual damages that Plaintiff has sustained and will
9
sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by agents of
10
Carnegie Mellon University, as a result of their joint and/or several
11
acts of copyright infringement, as properly alleged above.
12
the Initial COMPLAINT properly alleges
Defendant Carnegie Mellon University never requested Plaintiff’s
13
permission
to
modify
the
subject
book,
and
then
to
make
modified
14
derivatives (read “counterfeits”) available for free on the World Wide
15
Web of the Internet.
16
Defendant Carnegie Mellon University never obtained Plaintiff’s
17
permission to modify the subject book, and then to make counterfeits
18
available for free on the World Wide Web of the Internet.
19
Using
said
modified,
degenerate
derivatives,
the
coordinated
20
actions of Carnegie Mellon’s agents jointly and severally saturated
21
the market for the subject book, to Plaintiff’s obvious detriment, by
22
effectively
23
economic demand for authentic editions of the subject book.
24
diluting
to
zero
(or
effectively
near
zero)
the
real
Plaintiff argues that simple textual substitution is all that is
25
required also to justify the following finding:
the Initial COMPLAINT
26
properly alleges that, by modifying the electronic text of the subject
27
book with: arbitrary changes, arbitrary deletions, the addition of
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 11 of 22
1
HTML, and the addition of other extraneous text not found anywhere in
2
the original text of the electronic editions, agents of Defendant
3
Carnegie
4
counterfeits
5
falsely designated the origin(s), falsely represented the fact, and
6
falsely described Plaintiff as the sole Author, of said counterfeits.
Mellon
University
that
created
violated
the
and
maintained
unauthorized
fidelity
requirement
and
thereby
7
In so doing, the conduct of Defendant Carnegie Mellon’s agents
8
was likely to mislead others, to cause confusion and mistake, and to
9
deceive others, both on and off the Internet, as to Defendant Carnegie
10
Mellon’s
11
Plaintiff, if any.
12
affiliation(s),
connection(s),
association(s)
with
Likewise, the conduct of Defendant Carnegie Mellon’s agents was
13
likely
14
deceive
15
sponsorship,
16
commercial activities, if any.
17
and
By
to
mislead
others,
both
and
placing
on
to
and
off
approval
and
cause
of
using
said
the
Internet,
Plaintiff’s
mistake,
as
to
goods,
counterfeits
and
Internet,
receipt of repeated NOTICES AND DEMANDS from Plaintiff, agents of
21
Defendant Carnegie Mellon University thereby falsely designated the
22
origin(s) of said counterfeits, falsely represented the fact of said
23
counterfeits,
24
responsible
25
availability of said counterfeits, on the Internet’s World Wide Web.
for
authorizing
the
Plaintiff
publication
as
and
same,
by
20
described
to
origin,
services,
the
to
failing to remove said counterfeits and links expeditiously, after
falsely
hyperlinks
on
the
and
19
and
active
and
installing
27
maintaining
confusion
18
26
and
others,
the
and/or
sole
by
Author
maintaining
the
Therefore, Plaintiff properly alleges that each discrete act by
agents
of
Defendant
Carnegie
Mellon
University
thus:
falsely
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 12 of 22
1
designating the origin(s) of said counterfeits, misleading others by
2
falsely representing the fact of said counterfeits, misleading others
3
by
4
counterfeits, and copying or linking to same via the Internet or any
5
other medium, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of section
6
43(a) of the Lanham Act (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)).
falsely
7
describing
Plaintiff
as
the
Plaintiff’s NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
in
detail,
why
it
is
sole
Author
of
said
SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY to CMU
8
explained,
that
Plaintiff
is
justified
in
9
claiming a right to discover predicate acts to a RICO enterprise and
10
conspiracy, dating back 10 years prior to August 1, 2001 (the date on
11
which the Initial COMPLAINT was filed).
12
itemizes the complete list of RICO predicate acts.
13
infringement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2319, is listed there as a
14
RICO predicate act.
15
1996.
The statute at 18 U.S.C. 1961
Criminal copyright
It was added to that list by the ACPA, enacted in
16
Plaintiff has reserved all rights, including but not limited to
17
the right to request leave to amend the Initial COMPLAINT by adding
18
COUNT SIX: Civil RICO, or to file Civil RICO claim(s) in the Superior
19
Court
20
jurisdiction
21
(authorizing triple damages for RICO violations).
of
California.
over
Civil
The
RICO
State
of
actions.
California
See
18
has
concurrent
U.S.C.
1964(c)
22
Carnegie Mellon University can be held liable for Civil RICO
23
damages, under the theory of vicarious liability, for the criminal
24
copyright infringements of any of its trustees, officers, employees,
25
faculty,
26
supra).
students,
staff
and
clients
(collectively
its
“agents”
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 13 of 22
1
For all practical purposes, it makes no difference that Plaintiff
2
has
named
Carnegie
3
applying
4
SUBPOENA authority was introduced for the first time by the DMCA.
5
is relevant and, without question, material to the subject matter at
6
hand (copyright infringement).
for
the
Mellon
SUBPOENAS
University
as
authorized
by
a
17
civil
Defendant
U.S.C.
before
512(h).
That
It
7
Plaintiff is entirely justified in arguing that a SUBPOENA is the
8
appropriate procedural mechanism to compel formal discovery of the
9
subscriber identity(s) and Activity Log records necessary to establish
10
the who, what, where, and when of each and every single Internet
11
request for the copyright infringements itemized above -- dating back
12
ten (10) years -- and to substitute additional named defendants for
13
available
John
Doe’s,
14
empirical
and
admissible
15
subscribers.
using
discovered
evidence
of
Activity
the
Log
records
identities
of
as
those
16
In preparation for issuing a SUBPOENA upon Defendant Carnegie
17
Mellon University, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(h), on October 22, 2001
18
A.D., Plaintiff mailed and faxed to CMU a second NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
19
SUBSCRIBER
20
additional information now suspected of being in the custody of CMU:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
IDENTITY
which
also
demands
discovery
of
the
following
full details of all Activity Log records
for all Internet users and clients
who requested File Transfer Protocol services
from the following Internet server(s)
at any time during the past ten (10) years:
“ftp://aphrodite.nectar.cs.cmu.edu/pub/govt-control/”
laser-printed on 8.5” x 11” hard copy
with Code Book documentation
required to decipher
each and every data field
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 14 of 22
1
In
this
context,
therefore,
Plaintiff
reiterates
the
formal
2
DEMAND of Carnegie Mellon University that He made in His NOTICE OF
3
INTENT TO SUE AND PROSECUTE VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS on August 16,
4
1999 A.D.
Specifically, Plaintiff wrote the following in that NOTICE:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Formal demand is hereby made of you immediately and permanently
to refrain from destroying any material evidence, and also to
cease and desist any and all conduct which could be construed as
an attempt by any member of your institution to conceal and/or
destroy evidence of other copyright infringements, electronic or
otherwise, past, present, or future.
12
To
the
extent
that
Defendant
Carnegie
Mellon
University
has
13
failed to honor this demand, in whole or in part, Plaintiff argues
14
that their failure to do so constitutes further evidence of copyright
15
infringement,
16
other predicate acts in a Civil RICO conspiracy dating back at least
17
to October 1997, when Plaintiff first discovered the philo.htm file,
18
as written by Defendant Karl Kleinpaste.
19
20
Does
obstruction
Carnegie
of
Mellon
justice,
tampering
University
harbor
with
evidence,
criminal
and
copyright
violators, as an unwritten custom, practice, or policy?
21
This Court will kindly also take formal judicial notice of the
22
fact
23
(“JPRC”), until recently had offices only a few blocks from Carnegie
24
Mellon University.
25
that JPRC was dissolved, on or about the time that Defendant commenced
26
to serve a MIRANDA WARNING and a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE upon Mr.
27
Scott Fahlman, the WHOIS contact for Internet Domain JPRC.COM:
28
29
that
Defendant
Justsystem
Pittsburgh
Research
Center,
Inc.
During the past 6 months, Plaintiff was informed
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/jprc.com/NSI - WHOIS Search Results.htm
Scott Fahlman is
listed as the
Administrative, Technical and
30
Billing Contact for Internet Domain JPRC.COM.
Scott Fahlman’s email
31
address is therein shown as sef@CS.CMU.EDU -- quite obviously the
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 15 of 22
1
email server hosting Internet Domain CMU.EDU in the Department of
2
Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University.
3
Plaintiff’s recent search for all references to “Karl Kleinpaste”
4
in files currently hosted by Internet Domain CMU.EDU revealed that
5
Karl Kleinpaste has now moved his files back to Carnegie Mellon’s
6
computers.
7
that
8
unaware that Karl Kleinpaste has done so.
9
light
all
of
It is difficult if not impossible for Plaintiff to believe
officials
the
fact
at
Carnegie
that
Mellon
Plaintiff
University
are
completely
This is particularly so in
published
His
VERIFIED
CRIMINAL
10
COMPLAINT against Karl Kleinpaste in the Supreme Law Library, after
11
serving that COMPLAINT on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)
12
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on or about August 27, 1999 A.D.
13
Plaintiff’s NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE and MIRANDA WARNING were
14
addressed
and
15
President
at
16
Pittsburgh
15213,
17
assuming that somebody in that office read those 2 documents.
18
Exhibits G-14 and H-14, already incorporated by reference.
19
mailed
to
Carnegie
Mr.
Karl
Mellon
Kleinpaste,
University,
PENNSYLVANIA,
USA.
c/o
Office
5000
Plaintiff
Forbes
is
of
the
Avenue,
justified
in
See
After enumerating all Exhibits, on May 31, 2001 A.D. Plaintiff
20
wrote
21
Clairvoyance
22
Defendant
23
disclosure of the correct identity and current mailing address (or
24
last known mailing address) for the principals responsible for Karl
25
Kleinpaste, certain of his Internet files, and his known business
26
associates.
27
28
and
mailed
two
(2)
Corporation,
Justsystem
more
the
DEMANDS
FOR
consolidated
Corporation
(Japan).
SUBSCRIBER
American
Both
IDENTITY
to
subsidiary
of
DEMANDS
require
For details, see Internet URL’s:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/clairvoyancecorp.com/subid.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/clairvoyancecorp.com/subid2.htm
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 16 of 22
1
For the record, Plaintiff reminds this Court that Exhibits D-46
2
and D-47 have likewise been incorporated by reference.
3
are
4
respectively.
entitled
“Documented
Retaliations”
and
“RICO
These Exhibits
Predicate
Acts,”
They are found at Internet URL’s:
5
6
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/retaliations.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/predicate.acts.htm
7
The Court is encouraged to study these files, and each and every
8
link to supporting files of evidence itemized at those URL’s.
9
There is much more evidence than what has been summarized above,
10
where the entire emphasis has been on evidence implicating Defendant
11
Carnegie Mellon University.
12
The Internet has become so powerful, at the present time it is
13
quite capable of generating over one million copies of the subject
14
book per second of clock time.
15
Plaintiff has expended enormous efforts to locate and document
16
the known violators, who have exploited and abused the power of the
17
Internet for more than SEVEN YEARS!
18
19
It
is
time
for
this
Court
to
exercise
its
lawful
judicial
authority in a manner that is equal to the task at hand.
20
Plaintiff can no longer afford to engage these thieves in a wild
21
goose chase, only to find still more copies popping up out of nowhere,
22
day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after
23
year, ad nauseam.
24
The game stops here, and now.
25
Thank you for your professional consideration.
26
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 17 of 22
1
SUMMARY
2
Plaintiff
argues
that
the
verified
documentary
evidence
3
enumerated above is more than sufficient to establish probable cause
4
to
5
infringements, Lanham Act violations, Civil RICO conspiracy, vicarious
6
RICO liability, itemized predicate acts, and some if not all of the
7
other federal offenses alleged in Plaintiff’s Initial COMPLAINT.
implicate
Defendant
Carnegie
Mellon
University
in
copyright
8
Respondeat superior.
9
Although that Initial COMPLAINT does not allege any Civil RICO
10
COUNTS, as such, Plaintiff has expressly and properly reserved all
11
Rights, including but not limited to the Right to request formal leave
12
of this Court to amend the Initial COMPLAINT, at least once, with
13
COUNT SIX: Civil RICO, and specifically to name Defendant Carnegie
14
Mellon University (among others both named, and as yet unnamed) with
15
conspiracy
16
liability for Civil RICO damages.
17
For
to
engage
purposes
pattern
activity,
and
order
this
specifically
21
U.S.C. 512(h).
light
the
SUBPOENAS
time
to
Plaintiff
20
of
appropriate
Court,
Initial COMPLAINT would occur after formal discovery is completed,
enforcement
most
in
19
after
the
racketeering
See ACPA, for legislative intent.
maintaining
that
of
concludes
In
arguing
a
18
22
by
of
in
amend
authorized
the
by
17
See 28 U.S.C. 2072(a) (FRCP only applies in USDC).
of
granting
the
case
which
has
must be strictly construed, this District Court of the United States
25
will
26
jurisdiction in that statute to the United States district court [sic]
27
(a legislative tribunal), specifically 17 U.S.C. 512(h)(1).
judicial
notice
of
federal
the
district
that
24
formal
to
held
statutes
take
jurisdiction
consistently
23
please
original
law
grant
of
courts
original
28
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 18 of 22
1
INCORPORATION OF PLEADING
2
Plaintiff hereby formally incorporates by reference the AUTHOR’S
3
FIRST
CERTIFICATION
OF
DOCUMENTS
IN
RE
DEFENDANT
CARNEGIE
MELLON
4
UNIVERSITY, previously executed and served on October 25, 2001 A.D.,
5
as if the same were set forth fully herein.
6
A key document in said pleading is the Plaintiff’s NOTICE OF
7
FAILURE TO DESIGNATE AGENT FOR NOTIFICATION OF CLAIMS OF CRIMINAL
8
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which He transmitted via first class U.S. Mail
9
to
the
Office
of
the
President
at
Defendant
Carnegie
Mellon
10
University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh 15213, PENNSYLVANIA, USA,
11
on August 16, 1999 A.D.
12
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/cmu.edu/notice.htm
13
14
See Internet URL:
Plaintiff wishes specifically to request careful judicial notice
of the following key paragraph in said NOTICE:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The evidence available to us indicates that one Karl Kleinpaste
has, at various times in the past, utilized the Internet file
servers at Carnegie Mellon University to disseminate a stolen and
modified, derivative copy of “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code
of Internal Revenue,” electronic edition, and to provide users of
the World Wide Web (“WWW”) with explicit instructions for
obtaining additional stolen and modified copies of same.
23
The
evidence
available
to
Plaintiff
indicates
that
Defendant
24
Carnegie Mellon University did, for the first time on September 12,
25
1999
26
Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement,
27
registration number #106231706.
28
29
30
A.D.,
register
with
the
U.S.
Copyright
Office
an
Interim
See Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/cmu.edu/designated.agent.pdf
See the DMCA supra, for statutory details.
Evidently, between
October 28, 1998 A.D., and September 12, 1999 A.D., Defendant Carnegie
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 19 of 22
1
Mellon University had failed to designate an agent for notification of
2
copyright infringement claims, as required by the DMCA.
3
On October 16, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff accessed this latter URL to
4
determine if there had been any changes in CMU’s Designated Agent,
5
after September 12, 1999 A.D.
6
unchanged, to wit:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The following information had remained
Mark Poepping
Computing Services, Cyert 102
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh 15213
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
tel:
fax:
(412) 268-2638
(412) 268-4987
email: host-master@andrew.cmu.edu
18
19
20
VERIFICATION
I,
Paul
Andrew
Mitchell,
Sui
Juris,
Plaintiff
in
the
above
21
entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the
22
laws of the United States of America, without the “United States”
23
(federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is
24
true and correct, according to the best of My current information,
25
knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
26
27
Dated:
October 29, 2001 A.D.
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
___________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
28
29
30
31
Printed:
32
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 20 of 22
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of
3
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the
4
“United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of
5
age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I
6
personally served the following document(s):
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
14
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed
15
to the following:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
AUTHOR’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY:
17 U.S.C. 512(h);
28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
Clerk of Court
Mark Poepping, Designated Agent
District Court of the United States Carnegie Mellon University
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Computing Services, Cyert 102
Sacramento 95814-2322
5000 Forbes Avenue
CALIFORNIA, USA
Pittsburgh 15213
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Courtesy copies to:
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley
(failed to exhibit oaths)
1001 Marshall Street
Redwood City 94063
CALIFORNIA, USA
DeForest & Koscelnik
(failed to exhibit oath)
3000 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh 15219
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP Pillsbury Winthrop LLP
(failed to exhibit oaths)
(failed to exhibit oaths)
P.O. Box 1319
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento 95814-1319
Sacramento 95814-4419
CALIFORNIA, USA
CALIFORNIA, USA
Steinhart & Falconer, LLP
(oaths have been requested)
333 Market Street, 32nd Floor
San Francisco 94105-2150
CALIFORNIA, USA
James Barksdale
c/o Spark Public Relations
115 Constitution Ave., Ste. 3
Menlo Park 94025
CALIFORNIA, USA
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 21 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Marc Andreessen, CEO
Loudcloud, Inc.
599 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale 94085
CALIFORNIA, USA
Dated:
Perkins Coie LLP
Attention: David Saenz
101 Jefferson Drive
Menlo Park 94025-1114
CALIFORNIA, USA
October 29, 2001 A.D.
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff In Propria Persona
Author’s Fourth Supplement to Complaint Against Carnegie Mellon University:
Page 22 of 22