Information: This board is currently read-only.

Lawsuit Update

GuyInIndiana
Advanced Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 3:11 am

June 24th, 2013, 2:19 am #1

http://thebigfooteryenquirer.wordpress. ... terclaims/
wrote:
Hovey v Poling – Update – Poling Answers and Counterclaims
by thebigfooteryenquirer

Last week Poling filed both an Answer and Counterclaim to Hovey's federal lawsuit seeking in excess of $75,000 against Poling for his publication of the "bigfoot back shot" picture - aka the Photograph. To boil it down:

Poling admits publishing the photo and then pretty much denies or has no knowledge of the rest of Hovey's assertions. One particular denial is that Hovey has no lawful right or interest in the Photograph, her registration is not valid and cannot be enforced. He, by counsel, also identifies eight affirmative defenses and uses some of Hovey's own postings to her blog and other words in support. These include:

1.Hovey has no right or interest in authorship or artistry of the Photograph and received no assignment of right, making her sworn claims of Copyright ownership as willfully false and fraudulent.
2.Hovey allowed use of the Photograph freely for non-profit and educational purposes, which is what Poling did.
3.The Photograph is of a costume, and is incorrectly characterized by Hovey as a live bigfoot.
4.Hovey fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
5.Hovey has failed to join necessary parties. (We read this as other's did the same with the Photograph but Hovey did not act, or the necessary parties are the ABS - copyright on the photo says one thing, her registration is for herself).
6.Hovey's claims are barred because of unclean hands as a result of her own misconduct and wrongdoing. (We think - hee, hee)
7.Hoveys actions or in-actions amount to a waiver of her claims.
8.Hovey violates the Ohio Revised Code prohibiting frivolous conduct in civil actions.
Poling then presents a Counterclaim as part of his answer, again using some of Hovey's published, audio and visually recorded words. His counterclaim alleges Hovey:

•Falsely and fraudulently claims copyright ownership. He references two exhibits of Hoveys words and deeds asserting she has widely and publicly admitted she has falsely claimed and registered her claim to copyright of the Photograph. She falsely and fraudulently swore a claim to the Federal Court that she is the lawful owner. Hovey has so lawful interest but has admittedly usurped this right form the owner and others who independently posses copies of the Photograph. Hovey allowed others to use the Photograph but singled out Poling for litigation. Her copyright and other claims are abject failures (great lawyereese there) and this was known by Hovey and counsel prior to their effecting service of the Complaint (we speculate this means Poling got a lawyer letter saying stop and making a monetary demand or we will sue and Poling told them to stuff it). Because of the false and fraudulent claim Poling seeks legal fees and costs of at least $25,000.
•Defamation Hovey has repeatedly and with malice called Poling a "lair" and a "thief" in her blog.
•Frivolous Conduct Hovey brought this action for the express purpose of harassing Poling with this frivolous action. Further the express purpose of this action to extort a settlement. Hovey's claims are not warranted and cannot be supported with a good faith argument of existing law, and it violates Ohio code which prohibits frivolous conduct. Poling again asks for $25,000 for his costs, expenses and attorneys' fees for defending Hovey's claim and for more that can be reasonably accounted for and shown to the Court.
The other new document are notes regarding a telephone and email conference of the parties. We can boil it down to Hovey desires more time for this mess to proceed and the chance to amend her claim, Poling wants it to move fast and at an administrative level of proceedings. Both parties expect discovery to be lengthy, mostly because so much of the stuff is on the internet.

Things will likely slow to a crawl now, unless Poling is successful in his answer.

Quote
Like
Share

Ty
Advanced Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 10:38 pm

June 24th, 2013, 2:34 am #2

Why oh why would anyone want to put themselves through all of that over a worthless, hoaxed Bigfoot picture ?


Quote
Like
Share

Just Curious
Advanced Member
Joined: October 14th, 2011, 4:48 am

June 24th, 2013, 5:47 am #3

And we wonder why judges take to drinkin' too much?! I'd love to be there the day this goes to court.

Ty, in answer to your question, I'd say two words: drama queen.

There's no basis for this suit regardless. Hovey has to prove she lost that money by Poling's actions (i.e., as a direct result of) and I don't see how she could.

This is gonna make a great episode for "As the Bigfoot World Turns" though!

Quote
Like
Share

jron
Advanced Member
Joined: December 5th, 2011, 5:48 pm

June 24th, 2013, 12:46 pm #4

Drama queen yes...... but the thing is. The only one who can sve her in this is basically the originator of the photo themselves, which is in itself a defeat.

She has maintained from the beginning she was doing all of this to protect the witness's right to privacy. To prove her claimsnot, she has to blow that privacy out of the water.

Otherwise it does look like she lied to the Government, specifically the Copyright Office. That's not likely a trivial matter.

If she loses to poling again, like she did with Youtube previously the interesting ripple effect will be how stained she becomes among the community at large and her circle of freinds in particular. Can't sweep this one under the rug.
Quote
Like
Share

keilder
Advanced Member
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 4:35 am

June 24th, 2013, 1:15 pm #5

Don't know the law all that well, Poling does I believe (an ex police officer, unsure exactly what he was, and a fairly smart guy)...What I know 100% however, if she looses she'll have to pony up $25 big ones.

That's got to hurt in this economy. :biggrin2:

I side with Ty on this however, all this over a stupid photo...What madness.

But Ahab has always got to catch his/her whale and damn the crew.

Quote
Like
Share

jron
Advanced Member
Joined: December 5th, 2011, 5:48 pm

June 24th, 2013, 2:31 pm #6

Good points by all:

1) yes, the photo is a fake, in my opinion, and proves nothing. So all this fuss over nothing is just dumb. But consider the source.

2) It's hard to see a way she wins this.

The fact the Watermark on the photo doesn't match what googles in the Copyright database is damaging.

The fact she has already lost in regards to Fair use in the original decision by You Tube isn't going to help.

The interesting part to me is the Ohio law regarding Frivlous acts in Civil Actions. If she actually claimed to be the originator then she's caught in a lie and it's her own words that do the damning.

Even if she survives all that, she had to out a witness whom she claim to defending their privacy. She gets caught in a lie either way. She lied to the Court (ie, the Feds), or she lied to the entire Community. Self inflicted catch-22.
Quote
Like
Share

keilder
Advanced Member
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 4:35 am

June 24th, 2013, 3:44 pm #7

I think the best thing to do is wait the 3-9 months or longer, sit back and await the verdict Poling won (which if I was a betting man I'd put money on) then smile.

The rest you can chew, and chew, and chew over until your mouth bleeds, it's just more crud for forums and it ain't going anywhere. (Fun I admit, but a legal issue like this IMHO is best left alone)

We all know the ins and outs (and I think want the same outcome finally for the benefit of people we like) some more than others, some less...but a simple internet search like the below will reveal many things, I won't even link the Rock Ash debactle. AND the Wayback-Machine is your friend.

sex-lies-and-pseudoscience

Patience is a virtual, have fun in the meantime, or as Paul in his ultimate wisdom said. Spend time and spin wheels with friends. ;)

and I'm being incredibly nice, as what I wanted to say may get me in deep water and burn the eye lids off all the lovely ladies here.
Quote
Like
Share

GuyInIndiana
Advanced Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 3:11 am

June 24th, 2013, 6:47 pm #8

jron wrote:If she loses to poling again, like she did with Youtube previously the interesting ripple effect will be how stained she becomes among the community at large and her circle of freinds in particular. Can't sweep this one under the rug.
I don't know if I've ever viewed her as anything other than 'stained'.

JMRHO (just my reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaally honest opinion)
Quote
Like
Share

Pat
Advanced Member
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 7:19 pm

June 25th, 2013, 1:29 pm #9

Yeah .... but .... she gets her name and infamy-loving-self all over the bigfooting interweb just like she wants. Everybody's talking about her. She's a "star".

It doesn't matter if there's a negative spin on her stardom, doncha know? Just so's everyone's talking about her on ALL the forums and in every corner of bigfootdom ... or dumb.
Quote
Like
Share

Redwolf
Advanced Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 7:04 pm

June 25th, 2013, 3:08 pm #10

:lolabove:

True Pat. Every time her names starts to ebb out of the BF world, she finds a way to keep herself in the news.
Quote
Like
Share