Friday, December 09, 2005

My Email to Joshua Morrison

Here is the email I sent to Santa Monica College's attorney, Joshua Morrison. Since I listed the massive copyright infringement in my previous post, I now continue this saga of copyright infringement. Accordingly, SMC was never able to provide proof of copyright ownership for the work they allegedly stole from me. Despite this fact, the pirated website was taken down by SMC and then magically reappeared on or about October 16, 2005. It is currently offline, hopefully indefinitely.

-- Des Manttari,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2005: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

----------------MY EMAIL TO JOSHUA MORRISON---------------

August 26, 2005


Joshua E. Morrison, Esq.
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
A Professional Corporation
17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200
Cerritos, CA 90703-8597

Phone: (562) 653-3200

RE: Request for Proof of Copyright, Request to Cease and Desist Harassment, and;
Request for Compliance with the California Public Records Act

Dear Mr. Morrison,

It was a pleasure speaking with you at length on the phone on or about August 23, 2005. At this time, I would like to briefly touch upon the copyright issues, the requests for public records, as well as the ongoing harassment and retaliation by your client, Santa Monica Community College District (hereinafter, “SMCCD”).

Regarding the copyright issues in question, I do not concede to your client’s right to assert copyright infringement against me and/or Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP. If your client is alleging ownership of any material in question, then please provide me with proof of copyright ownership for each and every single item it alleges infringement. Additionally, please provide me forthwith with proof of copyright ownership for each and every single item which I have alleged that SMCCD has infringed upon as set forth in my previous emails to various SMCCD employees as well as the certified letter to Jim Keeshen, received August 17, 2005. I think this is the first step in this matter. Secondly, if your client has any written and valid assignment and/or transfer of rights from me to SMCCD, please send that to me forthwith. Additionally, you mentioned in your August 19, 2005 letter to me that there may be a “work for hire” doctrine asserted by your client. I will ask you to please provide me with any proof of a written and valid work-for-hire agreement between me and SMCCD.

As to the 20 separate document requests directed to Julie Yarrish as well as the 23 separate requests directed to Pat Green, I fully intend to pursue my rights under the California Public Records Act as well as any other applicable laws which may apply including, but not limited to, SMCCD’s own policy on inspection and duplication of public records. Accordingly, by copy of this letter, I confirm in writing to you, as the legal representative of SMCCD, my intention to pursue my request for documents.

To reiterate, the original 23 distinct requests to Pat Green on behalf of SMCCD were submitted in writing on or about July 15, 2005. Now we are in August 25, 2005, approximately 41 days from the date of the original written request and 56 days from the initial verbal request to inspect documents to Pat Green and Judy Fritz. So far, we have made every effort humanly possible to cooperate with your client SMCCD and its agents and employees to inspect public records in their control and possession and they have gone out of their way to prevent myself and four other members of the public from inspecting a single document! And we have been given no justification whatsoever.

In fact, your clients have gone out of their way to make our lives miserable by fabricating false allegations against us in writing and orally and to misuse the SMCCD police department much like the Nazi Gestapo in terrorizing us to give up our rights to inspect these records. As if the threat of physical violence and false incarceration isn’t enough, your client has now sought to thrust a barrage of malicious, demonstrably false, vaguely written, ambiguous, and untimely allegations against myself and others (filled with hearsay and speculation) who wish to view public records.

The fictitious and defamatory letter generated allegedly by Mr. Keeshen, as well as being forced to attend another “meeting” with the SMC Campus Disciplinarian, does not paint your clients in a favorable light nor is it effective in its blackmail tactics to dissuade me from abandoning my rights to view the public records which I am entitled, pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, to inspect. I see all these tactics as retaliatory, malicious and willful attempts to both harm and discredit me.

Accordingly, I grant no additional time to produce the original written requests for public records, dated July 15, 2005. As to your contentions in your August 19, 2005 letter to me that “the District provided documents responsive to your request,” I contend that they have not as set forth in my August 9, 2005 email. As I explained to Pat Green, the August 9, 2005 email to her is neither a new request or an augmented request, but an informal good faith effort to compel compliance as well as to clarify my July 15, 2005 written request. As to “related documents,” I have made myself extremely clear in both my August 9, 2005 email as well as my August 18, 2005 letter, but for the sake of resolving this matter, I will explain again. For the requests I have made, there must be a file which contains each of these contracts and grants which I have requested to inspect. In fact, when I came to pay Pat Green, via postal domestic money order, she pointed to two rather large cardboard boxes and stated that these were the files she pulled for my request. However, I have not been able to inspect them. So, these two boxes which she showed me may be a good start. So, to clarify in writing, I would like to inspect the file in its entirety for which each document I have requested is situated. As to your request for clarification, I have provided explicit and detailed descriptive information as to each request. For your clients to feign confusion is a blatant delaying tactic and will not be dealt with lightly.

As to your assertions that I have been allowed to view the files of SMCCD, those were only the copies of documents provided to me after I paid for them. Nowhere does the California Public Record Act state that a prerequisite to inspecting records of the public is to pay for their copies. Under the provisions of the act, any member of the public can inspect files during normal business hours without paying a fee. To strengthen my position of your client’s failure to comply, I have received no documents whatsoever to many of my requests. Again, for quick example (and this is by far non-inclusive), I have still not been provided copies of, or been allowed to inspect the originals of, the following two documents:

Contract with Animatics (as described in the Board of Trustees minutes, Consent Agenda, Recommendation No. 12, dated April 3, 2000) and all related documents re: economic development virtual multimedia /entertainment center grant. [Written Request No. 6]

Contract with Animatics (as described in the Board of Trustees minutes, Consent Agenda, Recommendation No. 4 (4-D), dated July 9, 2001) and all related documents re: Title VI-A (6-A) grant for prototype of foreign language lab materials. [Written Request No. 7]

Now, Pat Green likes to stall inspection and production of these public records by utilizing simple semantic tricks, stating that an “agreement” is a “contract.” As I stated before in writing, regardless of the verbiage, I have received neither a contract, a personal agreement, a professional agreement, or even a page from the Board of Trustee minutes from which this request was based. As I have stated again and again in writing, I have received nothing at all nor have I been allowed to look at anything at all in regards to this request. However, given the fact that I was provided with the following document: Amendment to Agreement (Contract) with Animatics (as described in the Board of Trustees minutes, Consent Agenda, Recommendation No. 4 (4-B), dated Sept. 10, 2001) and all related documents re: Title VI-A (6-A) grant for "the development of animated modules in seven languages by Dec. 30, 2001." [Written Request No. 8], I am at a loss how Ms. Green or any of her assistants or co-workers would be unable to locate the agreement/contract upon which this amendment was based. It is clear that Ms. Green’s and your client, SMCCD’s inability to produce these documents for public inspection is their unwillingness to comply with the law.

As far as your example at footnote 2 in your August 19, 2005 letter to me that “the District’s contract with eCollege has been provided to you” [emphasis in original], please note that I had asked for the current contract/agreement/master service license (again, I am trying to describe it in any of its possible titles) between eCollege, Inc. and SMCCD. By providing me with a document from Real Education which is historical in nature does not satisfy compliance with my request. Again, I am curious why one simple little document, which I have been requesting orally since on or about June 30, 2005 and in writing since July 15, 2005, is being so deliberately concealed from my inspection.

As to my August 15, 2005 request, I have no problem granting you an extension until September 8, 2005 to provide copies at your specified cost to me. However, I do object to not being allowed to inspect any public records you have located thus far until this time. However, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be no more “back and forth” about access to public records. Therefore, in the spirit of negotiation, I accept your idea that we should assign one custodian of records to work with me for all my public record requests now and in the future.

Again, please accept this as a formal request to allow me or any designee to both inspect and copy any and all public records belonging to Santa Monica Community College without any further delay, intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or threat of violence on your part or the part of the SMC police department.

Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance of any kind. Thank you for your prompt attention regarding this matter.

Very Truly Yours,


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL:

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home