Dear John. Frank , Gorge, Joe ,
Whoever do you think you are? I worked out my article with my own words and thoughts. Go look the links are up on my Website Gosh, there are other people (writes) that also had the very same min set as myself. I looked up verses and gee I thought those godly people think as I do. No problem!
“Ask not what your country can do for you,rather ask what you can do for your country.” That quote was a regurgitating of another great Democratic President with a few words touched up by Kennedy’s political writers. Few words where actually changed when John Kennedy spoke them. Not one mentioned to Kennedy’s usage of them till many years later after JFK an Assassination. I hardy call quoting the Bible versed the same category. Your posts on Sadly No are not literary masterpieces or original. What you people do is mean spirited uncalled for as well as mere rip off of a written blog of Air America type mentality. My work stand on it’s own and has been proof read by other writes.
Are you taking your Bible lessons seriously? No,I did not think so.what I write is my thoughts politically. Take it or leave it! A lawyer is looking at your posting on my behalf. Your Web sever just might go down after being contacted. At this point it is how much I wish to cause you problems in a court of law. I’m not going to tolerate much more. I want Phone numbers of the owners of Sadly No. You boys or men, people have taken on the wrong little girl.
Love,
Marie

Oh my god, she’s telling on you!

I’m not going to tolerate much more.

How much more?

I… oy. It’s just… wow.

BTW, the following links were recently added to the bottom of the column.

Unfortunately, we neglected to save a copy of the original column. Or rather, what I mean to say is that we were very careful to scrupulously archive a copy of the original column. Those cites aren’t on it.

Sigh.

Link text follows; links available here: http://www.peoplepolitical.org/html/marie.html

Further Reading Spiritual Nature – Mind – Body- Soul

Daniel Pipes Islam

Ooh, let her sue, let her sue!

Discovery will be ever so much fun.

It certainly would, if such a thing were ever going to happen.

For one thing, there’s a big ol’ Pandora’s box of copyright violation and intellectual property theft here. It’s like threatening to sue someone for catching you stealing.

“Your honor, if not for their blatant personal attack on my reputation, I would never have been caught shoplifting that jewelry.”

The mind reels.

Hah, you fools, don’t you know her work has been “proof read by other writes [sic]”? But it’s ok, she’s still got the e-hots for you; here’s a big clue: “Your Web sever just might go down after being contacted.” heh. heh heh. She said “go down” [/Beevis] (oh. maybe it’s your server she has the hots for… um…)

This pitiful bog has had it; she has it in the bage now that “a” lawyer is looking at “your posting.” Bwaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaa!

My work stand on it’s own and has been proof read by other writes.

Wowzers. That’s a claim I never thought I’d hear coming from Marie Jon’. Astonishing.

Damnit, jean, you’re a faster typer than I am!

“what I write is my thoughts politically.”

Are you sure that Pastor Swank has nothing to do with this? Is Marie Jon’ his love child? Or was he her English teacher?

Who’s Gorge?

Man, this show’s getting complicated. Where’s the remote? Oh, right. I’m not watching TV.

…my bad *blush*

I really like hot, stupid women.

Hi kids! What did I miss?

Gosh, MJ usually is so scrupulous in her source documentation. It’s a shame the source links aren’t included in that same article when it was posted to other websites such as:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7353

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8594

http://users.adelphia.net/~thofab/marie.htm

Tis a mystery how such a thing could happen.

This is kinda like when The Ultimate Warrior’s “Director of Communications” threatened to sue one of the posters on Something Awful. (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2790) And was, of course, promptly laughed at by all of the Something Awful community. Which is, I suppose about as bad as being so low that the readers of Sadly, No! can laugh at you.

Marie good writes.
Love I marie.
You bless.

I call bullshit. No way was that post legit. I just simply can’t believe that was really her.

Seems like her from the IP.

Your posts on Sadly No are not literary masterpieces or original.

This is what really steams my bun. Did you see how I used the word ‘sapiency’ before? That wasn’t even a word until then.

Ooooh!

Yeah, I’m with Vladi G.
I mean, why wouldn’t she email that to you? At least so that she wouldn’t be humiliating herself publicly?

Or is she convinced that she can only use the sadlyno addresses if she’s sending you naked Ben Shapiro pics?

Ms. Sidhe, I have to say that nothing about Marie makes the least bit of sense to me. Just when you think you’ve had an insight, a whole new geyser of peculiar whooshes up.

They’re apparently having a group prayer for all of us over at whatever house of worship she frequents. So if you get the shudders or feel the weight of your sins tomorrow…

And who the hell are John, Frank, Gorge, and Joe? Hell, I’m still not 100% sure who Jeff is.

Seems pretty obvious to me that — if the IP address confirms it was MJ’ — this is a prime example of drunk commenting, analogous to drunk dialing, or whatever it is that today’s young ladies call it when they get liquored up and start calling their exes on the cellphone. (I’m sure there is a hip name for it — after all, I have read about it on several blogs — but I’m not hip enough to actually recall the term.)

Anyway, I can picture young Miss (not Ms., never Ms.) Jon’, deep in her cups — a fine vintage from the Toiling in the Vineyards Vineyards, no doubt — and pounding away on her keyboard a cutting swipe at John, Paul, Gorge and Ringo, or whichever apostles are currently running the bog of her dreams and nightmares. And then I can picture her the next morning, stumbling around in her PP thong, wondering aloud “Did I really write them?” Sadly for her, unlike drunk dialing — where the perpetrator merely remembers with chagrin the act of calling, and not so much the conversation — drunk commenting is completely out there for all the world to see.

I almost (almost) feel sorry for Marie Jon. Sure, she’s a functional semi-retarded alcoholic and her spellcheck is inop. However, she has GOD on her side and a lawyer or two too. To continue to berate her, considering her obsessive/compulsive nature, seems like “shooting fish in a barrel”. It’s too easy. Sure it’s funny and all but I see her slipping into a hysterical paranoid state and I don’t think that’s good for anyone at this bog (boys OR men). Know what I mean?

Okay, I admit, it is completely believable that that’s really Marie Jon’. I just wanted to suggest that she was polite enough not to send threats to the VBen-In-His-Spiderman-Mask addresses.
Certainly it’s not at all difficult to believe that she would humiliate herself in public with a letter threatening to make your sever go down. (And, you know, I’m generally regarded as a slut and a pervert, and I’ve no idea what that’s a euphemism for, and further, I don’t *want* to know.)

As far as “John. Frank , Gorge, Joe” (that’s some punctuating, btw.) is it possible this is her version of “Tom, Dick, and Harry” that she thinks we won’t make crude jokes about?

My “Gorge” is rising.

OK, that wasn’t crude. Um, give me time….

Work with “Frank”, Marq. Or “John”.

Y’all need to lay off Marie, or else you’ll have to answer to wha? and I.

The Da Vinci Code Decision

Dan Brown won a round, but the case is far from over.

The headlines were wrong that the judge has cleared The Da Vinci Code of copyright infringement issues or that the issue has been settled.

Contrary to the headlines, Judge Daniels did not “acquit” Brown, but quite to the contrary, acknowledged that there were many similarities in the setting, plot and characters, in other words the key ideas making up my books. However, in one of those interesting quirks of law, he found that Brown’s expression of the ideas was different and, therefore, that in the legal meaning of the word he had not plagiarized. We believe the evidence the Judge improperly excluded from consideration proves that my expression was infringed upon, not merely my ideas.

There has been no trial on the issues. What occurred exploits a quirk in American copyright infringement law whereby all facts and expert witness testimony can be excluded from consideration. This quirk is the “lay reader” test which says that the judgement relies on the gut-level response of an average reader as to whether similarity exists or not.

Ironically, the controversy with Da Vinci Code began with average “lay” readers ? strangers who sent me unsolicited emails saying they felt I had been plagiarized. While this is a self-selected population, those who feel I have been plagiarized run approximately 10-to-1 in my favor. This indicates there is a substantial legal question to be addressed.

But NONE of those true, average “lay” readers ? many of whom were identified in our legal briefs –counted. Only one reader counted in this case: Judge George Daniels who obviously fell into that 1-in-10 category. Because of that, I did not get a trial. Justice demands that a jury hear the evidence.

The summary judgment process has an admirable goal: to keep frivolous lawsuits from clogging up the courts. However, as my legal team amply demonstrated with expert testimony and hundreds of solid examples of fact and similarity, this legal action is well-founded on fact, raises substantial unresolved issues and deserves a trial.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been clear on the following issues:

(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is “no genuine issue of material fact.”

(2) The Court should, “resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” I am the “non-moving party.”

(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. “Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues.”

(More details about this as well as the case citation can be accessed at: http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/2005/05/2nd-circuit-appeals-court-decision.html

Thus, I believe Judge Daniels erred in his decision. In addition, item (3), above, makes it clear that the Judge’s decision should not be considered a decision on the merits of whether copyright infringement has taken place.

Furthermore, I have never claimed to have copyrighted a notion, a fact, a plot, a bit of history, an idea or any other nonsense.

This quote from the judge’s decision is totally false:

“Perdue alleged that Brown copied the basic premise of Daughter of
God, including notions that history is controlled by victors, not
losers, and the importance of the Roman Emperor Constantine in
requiring a transition from a female- to a male-dominated religion.”

Just totally incorrect. Take a look for yourself at the original legal papers (including the expert witness reports) filed with the court, at: http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/ and you’ll see that “expression” is what was infringed and what this suit is about.

Now, this may come too late to do any good, but I’m pretty sure that whole “winners write the history books” line came from Napolean, or perhaps Julius Caesar, or someone else who knows ’bout these things from back in ‘a day. Of course, if it’s true that there’s nothing new under the sun, then we all may be in danger of copywrite infringement. And that goes double for the sun. 🙂