Drop Wilhelms

LETTER #1

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: <prokeys at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:26:42 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Frederick Wilhelms III

Attorney At Law

4831 Briarwood Drive

Nashville, TN 37211-4313

(615)333-0434/(615)333-9551 fax

Email: Fred@FredWilhelms.com

April 9, 2008

Mr. Steven Leigh

Via Email

Re: NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

You really mean "NOTICE OF ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE", don't you (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

Dear Mr. Leigh,

Please be advised I represent Mr. Kevin Kiley.

Please be advised I'm thrilled. Do you "represent" him with or without a license?

(No need to answer. The state of Tennessee provided the answer.)

Out of curiosity, could you limp into any courtroom in this country, as an attorney, and not be led out in handcuffs for practicing law without a license?

I'm just curious, since you advertise yourself all over the internet as a "well known Nashville attorney".

We already know THAT'S not a fact - at least in Tennessee.

I think my curiosity is justified. It probably impresses a lot of people to think you ARE "a well known Nashville attorney".

So what's the REAL story, WILHELMS? When you're not exaggerating, what ARE you?

Mr. Kiley has brought to my attention the webpage entitled “Surviving The Soul Survivors” on your website. The address of the webpage is

http://sl-prokeys.com/survive/survivor.htm

Hey, thanks for telling me! I'd never find that page without your help, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS!

In reviewing the contents of the webpage, I note that you have included the text of two emails from Mr. Kiley to you. Mr. Kiley advises me that you did not ask for permission to post the emails on your webpage.

That's really terrible, isn't it? I didn't "ask for permission". It's time to READ USC Title 17 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

Under current U.S. copyright law, Mr. Kiley retains all right to control distribution and dissemination of his writings, including but not limited to emails. You have clearly violated these rights by republishing the emails on your webpage.

WRONG, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. Go read the link above - it's a verbatim reprint of United States LAW, DIRECT from the United States Copyright Office. Do you need assistance with the word "LIMITATIONS"?

Try to intimidate somebody else with your (unlicensed) "attorney" threats.

Demand is hereby made that you immediately take down the webpage in question and remove all the copyrighted material for which you have not received permission from my client to republish.

Demand is hereby denied, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

A failure to comply with this demand will be taken as willful,

You can "take it" anyway you want, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

If that innuendo went over your head, read it again.

and I will advise my client regarding his future responses without any further notice to you.

Advise away, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

In the event that futher (it's spelled "further") legal recourse is necessary to protect Mr. Kiley's copyrights,

In the "event" that there's an "event", you should sell tickets to the "event", (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

You could even hire your "client" for entertainment at the "event".

Rent the Liberty Bowl in Memphis, and call it the "Protect Mr. Kiley's Copyrights Event".

You'll make millions! Your "client" can play his harmonica! He can SING! People will go wild!

an additional allegation will be made of your willful intent to invade my client’s rights of privacy

Your "client" has no privacy. He chose to invade it himself with his own website, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

Maybe you can't find it all by yourself, so I'll help you. CLICK HERE. (You're welcome, WILHELMS.)

Your "client" chose to publish his address and phone number all over his website - and you claim I'M invading his "rights of privacy", (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

by publishing his entire email address as part of the emails.

Your "client" publishes his entire current email address about 50 times every day, all over the internet.

He writes breathtaking, heart pounding, thrilling messages to public groups like a nitro funny car - on overdrive.

If it weren't for message groups, I guess he would have exploded years ago.

He's got a LOT to say, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. He's a lot like YOU! The words just keep dumping out.

Needless to say,

If it's needless, then why bother saying it, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

in this day and age of easy identity theft, your willingness to ignore my client’s interest in his privacy by not deleting the address in multiple cases,

Are you dreaming? Don't harass ME because your "client" constantly makes a public spectacle of himself, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

will not only amplify and underscore the seriousness of the infringement charges,

What "infringement charges", (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

Go "amplify" your thinking aid. Might as well underscore it, too.

but will equally reinforce the assertion that these actions in contradiction were intentional or made with willful indifference to my client's rights.

You're just not getting the picture. Your "client's" "rights" have nothing to do with me, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

Your immediate compliance with this request is anticipated.

How long can you hold your breath, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

Sincerely,

Frederick Wilhelms III

Cc. K. Kiley

(signature shortened)

This is WILHELMS' "confidentiality notice".

That "legal" "notice" sounds very impressive, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS, but it's got some problems. The most important is that when YOU threaten ME, you can bet your (unlicensed) "attorney" LIFE that I'M going to DISTRIBUTE and COPY your threats to MY attorney - who is NOT "the intended recipient". If you THINK you can "STRICTLY PROHIBIT" me from doing exactly that, have at it, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

And if you THINK I won't take FURTHER steps, including every legal agency in Tennessee, and the rest of the United States, as I see fit, you're hallucinating.

Your "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE" is a deliberate attempt to interfere with MY Constitutional right to legal counsel. Take your "NOTICE" and REWRITE it, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

(signature shortened)

LETTER #2

MY email first, then (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS' response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Leigh

To: Fred

Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:11 PM

Subject: Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Are you serious?

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:33:22 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Mr. Leigh,

I am quite serious.

Fred Wilhelms

(signature shortened)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

LETTER #3

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:13:10 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Dear Mr. Leigh,

You are responsible for getting your own legal advice. I am Mr. Kiley's attorney, not yours.

You say I'm responsible for getting my own legal advice, then you write 10 yards of absurd threats - enough babbling to put someone to sleep .... for a week?

17 USC 102 (a) attaches copyright protection to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." An email is such a medium of expression. This statute establishes that your reposting of Mr. Kiley's email is infringement in his copyright interests in the emails in question.

17 USC 106 (1) gives Mr. Kiley exclusive rights to control reproduction and public distribution of his own creations. You have transgressed on those rights by putting his emails on your website without permission. This statute gives Mr. Kiley the right to demand that you remove the emails from your website, as you have taken on yourself the right to reproduce and publically distribute his works, in contradiction of the law.

Furthermore, it has never been necessary to register a work and obtain what you refer to as a "certificate" to establish copyright. Registration is required to bring suit to enforce the copyright. As Mr. Kiley simply wishes you to remove the copyrighted emails from your website, the question of litigation is presently irrelevant as long as you comply with the demand. His right to demand your compliance does not need a registration. Your request for such "certificates" is groundless at this time.

Please be aware that Mr. Kiley can register the works at any time, which will allow him to bring suit against you to end the infringement. I can assure you that if that step is necessary, you will be provided evidence of the registration. In anticipation of your next futile objection, the fact that Mr. Kiley would register the works after you posted them is no defense, because the copyright attached to the works as soon as he wrote them. Perfecting his right to sue you for infringement is the only reason needed for registration. I assure you that if refuse to take down the emails, and you force my client to register, he will be seeking more than simply removal of his emails, but will also seek statutory damages (which are awarded when the work is registered). Such damages are, at the minimum, $750 per infringement, and up to $150,000 per infringement. Mr. Kiley will also be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs, and I assure you he will seek that compensation.

There are no "USCO regulations" that pertain to the rights that you are violating. It is a matter of statute.

For your edification, there are many cogent and coherent explanations of copyright law on the Internet. One that deals well with issues regarding re-use of materials by websites can be found here:

http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/articles/copyrigh.htm

Mr. Betts is not a lawyer, but he has gotten, and gives, good solid advice on the subject. He makes it clear that you require permission to republish emails to avoid copyright problems. We know you didn't ask for or get that permission from Mr. Kiley.

For a more technical discussion of the relevant law, I direct you to Ned Snow's article for the Kansas Law Review:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=981729

You do have to be a subscriber to SSRN to access the entire article, but I assure you that you will find it educational and enlightening as to the copyright treatment of email and private correspondence. Ironically, because of copyright constraints, I am not at liberty to share the entire article with you. I can tell you, however, that the article makes it crystal clear you have engaged in infringement, and continue to do so.

As to the email address issue, the simple fact is that you posted the entire address with a complete disregard to Mr. Kiley's rights of privacy. As noted in my earlier correspondence, your actions go to show the willfulness of your actions, whether the address was active or not. It's a subsidiary matter, but since it goes to intent, I think it might have an impact on the statutory damages awarded, if we have to go that far. In very much the same way, your refusal to remove the emails, even temporarily, when you received the notice of infringement, demonstrates the same willfull nature of your acts.

In the P2pnet article you noted, there were no copyright infringement issues because Mr. Huey's initial remarks were posted to a blog, and my response was on the same blog. The copyright law is clear that my quotes of his post, within the context of the same blog, are covered in copyright law by a "limited implied license" regarding use of the original material in an ongoing public dialog. You were not engaged in a public dialog with Mr. Kiley. You took private emails and posted them without permission. There is no "implied license," limited or otherwise, that covers your acts.

Please review the statutes and commentary I have provided, and, at your earliest convenience, advise me of your intentions regarding removing Mr. Kiley's emails. If I do not hear from you by the close of business on Friday, April 11, 2008, I will presume you are going to continue your willful infringement on my client's rights. You have the right to pursue that conduct, but the right comes with substantial consequences. I will advise Mr. Kiley on his options based on your response, or lack of same.

Above, WILHELMS states,

"Such damages are, at the minimum, $750 per infringement, and up to $150,000 per infringement."

What do you figure, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS? About $58 billion for commenting, criticizing, and rebutting Kevin's 2 emails?

Another $65 billion for "damages" and "substantial consequences"? What is this - Hurricane Katrina?

WILHELMS also states,

"Mr. Kiley will also be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs, and I assure you he will seek that compensation."

Maybe he'll find a LICENSED attorney. I better plan on another $292 billion for "attorney's fees and costs".

Then WILHELMS tosses this out:

"http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/articles/copyrigh.htm Mr. Betts is not a lawyer, but he has gotten, and gives, good solid advice on the subject. He makes it clear that you require permission to republish emails to avoid copyright problems. We know you didn't ask for or get that permission from Mr. Kiley."

Why would (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS give me a link to a strange article written by someone who sells minerals?

Does this "article" supersede United States Code? Does "Mr. Betts" dictate, judge, or rule on Federal Copyright Law? SINCE WHEN?

WILHELMS, just look at all that text I made into tiny print. (I gotta save space!) And to think - your first words were an order telling me to get my OWN legal advice.

Fred Wilhelms

(signature shortened)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

LETTER #4

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Copyright Infringement
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:25:15 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

I have taken notice that my client's emails have been removed from your website.

No they haven't.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Fred Wilhelms

(signature shortened)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

LETTER #5

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Re: Copyright Infringement
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:02:54 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Just for fun, we're going to find out, since he's authorized me to go ahead and register the emails.

Now THAT'S just amazing. You wrote this on April 10, 2008.

On October 6, 2008, January 15, 2009, and September 9, 2009, a search of the US Copyright Office records show an astonishing fact:

Searches for "KILEY" returned NOTHING for Kevin's TX (text) registrations! Isn't that amazing?

Go look for yourself, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. Can you find the USCO website by yourself?

Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)

Request: Left Anchored Name = kiley

Results: Displaying 1 through 25 of 99 entries.

Resort results by:

#	Name (NALL) <	Full Title	Copyright Number	Date
[ 1 ]	Kiley, Christopher Michael	Examination of summertime transport processes during INTEX-A using meteorological analyses and synthetic MOPITT carbon monoxide retrievals.	TX0006534178	2007
[ 2 ]	Kiley, Daniel	One page plays : vol. 1.	TXu001363058	2007
[ 3 ]	Kiley, Daniel P.	Development of a simulation model to analyze clinical outcomes of the dental health aide program in Alaska.	TX0006619838	2007
[ 4 ]	Kiley, Kitty	Here Come the Starbees.	TX0006824113	2007
[ 5 ]	Kiley, Deborah Scaling, 1958-	No victims, only survivors.	TXu001283209	2006
[ 6 ]	Kiley, Mike	Clamp art works : South Side illustration book / translation, Yuki N. Johnson and Alexis Kirsch ; English adaptation, Troy Lewter ; editors, Nicole Monastirsky, editor-in-chief, Mike Kiley.	TXu001225959	2005
[ 7 ]	Kiley-Brabeck, Karen	Social skills of children with 22q11 Deletion Syndrome : a social cognitive neuroscience approach.	TX0005852084	2004
[ 8 ]	Kiley, David	Driven : inside BMW, the most admired car company in the world / David Kiley.	TX0005961815	2004
[ 9 ]	Kiley, Michael M.	Canyon.	TXu001171774	2004
[ 10 ]	Kiley, Therese J.	Teaching, leading, and learning in preK-8 settings : strategies for success / Rita A. Jensen, Therese J. Kiley.	TX0006109593	2004
[ 11 ]	Kiley, Ellen P.	Gamma world player's handbook / authors, Bruce Baugh introd. & history, Ian Eller characters, Lizard, creatures & campaigns ... [et al.] ; editor, Ellen P. Kiley ; graphic design Matt Milberger.	TX0006029679	2003
[ 12 ]	Kiley-Brabeck, Karen	Learning to serve : promoting civil society through service learning / edited by Maureen E. Kenny, Lou Anna K. Simon, Karen Kiley-Brabeck, Richard M. Lerner.	TX0005471966	2001
[ 13 ]	Kiley, David	Getting the bugs out : the rise, fall, and comeback of Volkswagen in America / David Kiley.	TX0005471348	2001
[ 14 ]	Kiley, Dan	Complete works of America's master landscape architect / Dan Kiley and Jane Amidon.	TX0004963309	1999
[ 15 ]	Kiley, Dan	Dan Kiley : the complete works of America's master landscape arhcitect / Dan Kiley and Jane Amidon.	TX0005246696	1999
[ 16 ]	Kiley, John Cantwell, 1925-	Is the Pope Catholic? : a novel autobiography / John Cantwell Kiley.	TX0005211959	1999
[ 17 ]	Kiley, Therese J.	Teaching, leading, and learning : becoming caring professionals / Rita A. Jensen, Therese J. Kiley.	TX0005143533	1999
[ 18 ]	Kiley, Eve, 1933-	Potpourri of poetry / by Eve Kiley.	TX0004743238	1998
[ 19 ]	Kiley, Ma	Ma Kiley : the life of a railroad telegrapher / Thomas C. Jepsen.	TX0004860593	1998
[ 20 ]	Kiley, Michael T.	Essays on price stickiness, inflation, and output.	TX0004673032	1998
[ 21 ]	Kiley, Eve	Reflections : anthology of verses / Eve Kiley.	TX0004382002	1996
[ 22 ]	Kiley, Kana	Tongue twister prize / by Kana Kiley ; illustrated by Lindy Burnett.	TX0004470598	1996
[ 23 ]	Kiley, Kana	Tongue twister prize / by Kana Kiley ; illustrated by Lindy Burnett.	TX0004511198	1996
[ 24 ]	Kiley, Richard H., 1924-	Bubbly goes to Africa.	TXu000735756	1996
[ 25 ]	Kiley, Cathy A. Morgan, 1943-	If I should die before I wake.	TXu000694213	1995

Resort results by:

In addition to your other "peculiarities", it appears you're not HONEST, either, WILHELMS.

"Just for fun", when were you planning on "going ahead and registering" the emails? Maybe in 2085?

All this sure sounds like a lot of fun, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. Can you fill out a TX form all by yourself, or do you need help? I'll do it for you, but it's going to COST YOU A BUNDLE!

And because the words you're concerned with were a quote, there's no real problem for Mr,. Kiley.

You're the one with the problem. I'm not concerned with "words" and "quotes", (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. I'm concerned with obeying the LAW. The USCO website (plus 2 attorneys and 2 webhost legal supervisors) have assured me that I AM OBEYING THE LAW.

Nobody at the Copyright Office reads the stuff that's submitted.

Really? That's FASCINATING! Just think - 12 different people could claim copyright to the same song, and they'd ALL own it - cause nobody "reads the stuff that's submitted"! Ever heard the word "plagiarism", (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS? Or does that one have too many syllables for you?

Since it appears to be my task to teach you Copyright law,

About 6 hours ago (LETTER #3) you told me to get my OWN legal advice, didn't you? Now it's YOUR task? Please don't "TASK", WILHELMS. You don't have a clue what you're babbling about.

you are not in compliance with Section 107,

YES I AM, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. I already TOLD you - READ USC Title 17 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

and it is going to cost you a bundle in legal fees to find that out.

Then I better go borrow a few TRILLION to get through THIS one, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS.

How much IS "a bundle", or are you referring to something located in your lower rear body orifice?

If that innuendo went over your head, read it again.

Google "fair use is just a defense,"

YOU Google it, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. I'll accept the LAW, as publicly provided by the United States Copyright Office website, as LAW - not internet babbling.

(signature shortened)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

LETTER #6

MY email first, then (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS' response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Leigh

To: Fred

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:47 AM

Subject: Question

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission, and any documents, files or previous messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Fred@FredWilhelms.com or by telephone at (615) 333-0434, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

Does the above legally prohibit me from forwarding your email(s) to anyone?

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:24:25 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Absolutely.

(signature shortened)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

LETTER #7

From: "Fred" <fred@fredwilhelms.com>
To: "Steve Leigh" <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:21 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138

Get your own legal advice.

I did.

I've already heard from the local Board of Professional Responsibility and straightened them out.

No, I think they straightened you out, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS. There's a case file open on YOU, not me.

If you want to continue your harrassment (it's spelled "harassment") campaign, feel free, but remember there will be consequences.

What "harassment"? What "consequences"? ARE YOU THREATENING ME, (unlicensed) "attorney" WILHELMS?

If you ever threaten me again, I'll turn your world inside out. Formal complaints will go to every legal agency with a PHONE NUMBER. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility is just the BEGINNING of my list, WILHELMS. If you can't understand that, look up "LOCAL", "STATE", and "FEDERAL". I promise - I will contact all of them.

You want another visit or two from Nashville Metro? I'll arrange it. Want the FBI stopping by? I'll arrange that, too. TRY ME, and see.

(signature shortened)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: (shortened)

received from the State of Tennessee - click and read it