Outpost of Freedom blog

John Lamb’s Theft of Another Person’s Video

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2018

John Lamb filed in a Montana Court seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief (all documents will be referred in this document, by pdf page number), pgs.  1-3. It appears that he is doing his own legal work since he really, in his filing, “screwed the pooch”.

On pg. 4, he lists “Redoubt News, aka Shari Dovale” and “Guerilla media [sic] Networks [sic], SBN News, aka Pete Santilli”:

1)  In seeking Injunctive relief, “including, but not limited to, from uploading, editing, distorting or monetizing plaintiffs copyrighted exclusive interview on or about 2/10/2018″

2)  In his brief in support of application, “took without rights, videos that Plaintiff holds copyright to, uploaded Plaintiffs exclusive interview to their own YouTube, and Facebook channels, with edited, and distorted version of Plaintiffs copyrighted video as their own”.

3)  Then he requests the Court to order restrain them, “from using or attempting to use my videos on YouTube or Facebook until further order of this court”.

So, we can see that the Plaintiff (John Lamb) has assume ownership of something that he never owned, he simply gave consent to Redoubt News to video the interview, and expressed no limitations at the time of the interview when that consent a given.  There has never been such a claim, nor is such a statement made in the filing.

Also, in his complaint, in the Brief in Support of Application, he states:

a.  Defendant’s on-going continued violations of my copyrighted infringement, will cause irreparable harm and damage to the Plaintiff.

b.  Plaintiff believes that unless immediately enjoined, Defendants will continue to attempt to upload Plaintiffs copyrighted video as their own on YouTube and Facebook.

So, he does not indicate what “irreparable harm and damage” he will suffer.  However, in “1”, above, he has stated that he was concerned that the Defendants would be “monetizing”.  That is the only suggestive statement as to “harm or damage“.  However, his public statements suggest that Randy Weaver did not want the interview monetized.  That element is absent from the Complaint, but is, apparently, an exclusive right of the Plaintiff, absent any statement to the contrary.

And, finally, he requests, “[t]hat a hearing be scheduled on Plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction”.  Absent proper Service to the defendants, that would imply an “ex parte” hearing.  The Court would have no means of notifying the Defendants.

I suppose, however, that he wants the hearing to be held without the Defendants present or represented, or he expects the Court to find addresses for them as he has provided nothing more than names, without even a state in which the could be found

You can tell that he has put as much thought into this as he has, through third parties on the Internet, a gross deficiency and a plethora of contradictory statements.

To top that off, he didn’t need the restraining order, right away, as he also attached proof (pgs 5-6) that had granted, under DMCA (see page 10) a 14 business day prohibition against Dovale, Santilli, et al, from posting the controversial video that he claims to be his own.

However, another exhibit (pg 7), from “YouTube Copyright”, it refers to (fair warning) “Section512(f) of the DMCA (see page 10).  This Section:

“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [17 U.S.C. § 512] that material or activity is infringing … shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing….”

Well, it subjects John to penalties, should he not be able to prove that he owns Redoubt’s video, or, that conditions of use were imposed upon Redoubt’s video.  This may cost Lamb a few buck more than his filing fees.

Two days after Lamb filed that above with the Court, the Judge ruled, in his Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order” (pgs 8-9).

The Judge cites Montana Code Annotated, 27-19-315.

When restraining order may be granted without notice.  A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or the party’s attorney only if:

(1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that a delay would cause immediate and irreparable injury to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney could be heard in opposition; and

(2) the applicant or the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the applicant’s claim that notice should not be required.

Well since Lamb had already demonstrated that Facebook and YouTube had removed the “copyrighted video”, one was obviously not an urgent matter, which discounts
“(1)”.  And, since he had not proved service, “(2)” was not satisfied.  So, the Judge concluded:

[T]he allegations included in the Application do not provide sufficiently specific facts to support a determination that a delay in granting the relief requested would cause immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiff before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.  Therefore, the Court will require Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the Application for Injunctive Relief Including Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 4, M.R.Civ.P and allow Defendants an opportunity to respond prior to setting a hearing on the request for preliminary injunction.

Since Lamb presumed that he could satisfy the requirements of Facebook and YouTube by simply filing, he has nothing to show for it.  In fact, in an effort to circumvent justice (fairness), he has delayed his injunctive relief and set the stage for a hearing.  That hearing will be quite interesting, since he does not own what he has tried to claim copyright to.

John then filed Two Certificates of Service, one to Dovale and one to Santilli (Pgs 11-14), using the address of Lambs Construction, 1627 W. Main Street Suite 101, Bozeman.  They were executed on February 21, 2018 and filed with the Court at 4:04 PM; however, the first Post Office recognition of them was on February 22 at 11:32 PM.  This makes one wonder if John lied on the Certificates of Service or the Post Office took over a day to register Certified Mail.

However, there is greater significance to this whole thing that John, perhaps overlooked.  And, it may cost him dearly.  That is the Digital Media Copyright Act (DMCA), codified at 17 US Code § 512(f), as explained above, which provides that:

“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [17 U.S.C. § 512] that material or activity is infringing … shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing….”

So, that is where we stand, at this writing.  As the next steps occur, the will reported in a subsequent article.