*Due to illegal and unconstitutional restrictions imposed upon me by the Eleventh District Court of Montana, a case presently on appeal to the Montana Supreme Court (Cause No. DA 15-0313), I am forbidden to “utilize” the name of the defendant who is presently utilizing my trademark, or even my own mark (even though my previous posts name both, and both are public record). Therefore, in the following post, I will substitute her name with [X] and my trademark being used by her as [Y].
Today I was informed that the parties involved in the trademark dispute are “out for blood”, essentially that I am under real threat of harm, though the person telling me so was either unable or unwilling to provide specifics. However, considering the extraordinary and outrageous steps taken to date that are so far beyond the reasons of law and reason, I have no choice but to consider this a credible threat to my welfare. I already know that [X]’s current counsel (and my own former counsel) Scott Anderson has been trying to illicit a false prosecution against me through police, prosecutors and even the Montana Attorney General’s Office, but I have no idea whether this current warning is related to what has so far been overcome or not. Since this was an extremely vague threat, but was nevertheless intended to deliberately intimidate me, I have decided I need to clarify something for the masses:
I am doing nothing. I am waiting on the U.S. District Court and the Montana Supreme Court (See my most recent post on The Great Montana Conspiracy for more details). Any allegations being made by Mr. Anderson, [X] or [Y] LLC members is erroneous and meant to backdoor support for the deliberate theft of my trademark. In support of this, I am opening the content of a letter I sent to Dale McGarvey – the CEO of [Y] LLC and my own former counsel, as well – last month with the content I am forbidden to post appropriately redacted. It should be noted that neither Mr. McGarvey nor anyone else has ever responded to this letter. But it is quite clear what my position is and has always been, and their failure to respond demonstrates that they are fully aware that my words are the truth, because they have nothing to object to.
This being said, here is the letter sent to Dale McGarvey on May 28, 2015:
40 1st Avenue West #2
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479 / 871-3893
745 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Glick v. [X], et al.
May 28, 2015
Dear Mr. McGarvey,
Clearly by now I have read through the affidavit you provided to Scott Anderson for his response to my [Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel] complaint against him. And as the bulk of your affidavit dealt with issues relating to the ongoing dispute between your LLC and myself, I felt I should write to you directly to set the record straight on several issues.
First, this dispute was never about money. Whenever you claim it was, you are simply parroting [X]. Period. My entire reason for the original cease and desist notice on February 18, 2015 was to address [X] calling me and telling me she was claiming credit for the creation of “[Y]” name. I never wanted money before this notice nor after – all I wanted was due credit for my work on the movie and the creation of the title. I had a fair use agreement with [X] for this, and it was her violation of that agreement that prompted my cease and desist notice.
Second, you have never once tried to sit down and talk about this. You have never called me, written me letters nor had any third party contact me to work on resolving this conflict. You have taken [X]’s position completely without any effort whatsoever to verify what it was I ever wanted. We had many conversations personally where I repeated time and again that I did not want to be paid for my work on the movie, that all I wanted was the increased exposure for my brand recognition as an author, ie, being given recognition for my work on the project. All I wanted was to sit down and put the agreement in writing, since the verbal agreement with [X] was obviously ineffective to secure her good faith.
Instead, you rushed to the state to file a fraudulent trademark claim and let [X] begin making threats against me, openly slurring me to local and Internet sources (which cost me two of my long-standing Internet profiles) and repeatedly accusing me of increasingly impossible felonious acts – when, in fact, it has been [X] acting objectionably at every turn. I never stalked [X], broke into your office nor in any way took any malicious act against you or her. My entire response to your abuse of my trademark has been to send you a cease and desist notice, and then follow up in federal court when [X] began taking malicious actions against me.
The only demand for money I ever made initially in my cease and desist notice was if you decided to solve the conflict by ceasing the use my mark – which you clearly have not, nor intend to. In other words, if you decided to completely withdraw from my good faith fair use agreement, then – and only then – would you have to reimburse me for the use of my mark. But once [X] made her attacks on me, I had no choice but to make monetary claims when I brought the suit.
Being a trial lawyer with decades of experience, you know that claims in court are not absolute – they are high end demands, because you cannot expect to receive more than you ask for in court. And if you all had done the rational thing and called or in some way communicated with me – as opposed to [X]’s belligerent attacks – there would never have been a lawsuit in the first place.
You complain in your affidavit that I have negatively impacted the movie and its release. I would suggest you reexamine that conclusion. All I did was initially issue a cease and desist notice. Your camp decided to attack me for it – you threatened my reputation, my source of income and even my personal liberty. My actions were taken in defense of your aggressions. And though that largely comes from [X] – with the added late-hour assistance of Mr. Anderson – you nevertheless stood behind her and backed every single act she took. So you cannot blame me for the negative impact upon the movie – you are the real cause of the impact, because every bit of this could have been avoided but for your malicious conduct.
When you hit someone, you cannot blame them for hitting you back. Every step I have taken has been in self-defense. I filed the cease and desist because [X] called me and verbally assaulted and threatened me in a phone call where she tried to lay claim to the creation of the mark. I filed the lawsuit when I was inundated with threats and actual harm from [X]. And I filed the ODC complaint against Mr. Anderson only after he violated our attorney-client relationship by using content of his representation against me. Each and every act has been in response to attacks from your side. At what point can you genuinely blame me for taking actions to defend myself and my intellectual property?
And might I also remind you that Nigel Cini – against my wishes, mind you – tried diligently to get both [X] and John Sinrud to sit down with me to work this out before the lawsuit would be filed. I did not ask him to – but he did it all the same. And all Mr. Cini got for his efforts was to be verbally assaulted by [X] and deceived by Mr. Sinrud.
Nothing I did would have been necessary if any of you had simply sat down and negotiated a written form of the fair use agreement instead of giving [X] carte blanche freedom to commit her ongoing and persistent attacks on me. This issue has escalated not because of me – but because of your own side of this conflict.
I should also point out – you are actually prohibited by the same Rules of Professional Conduct to act on behalf of [X] or [Y], LLC against me as Mr. Anderson is. Though you have not officially stepped forward as counsel for either, your letter to the U.S. District Court suggests this is your intent. I note to you that I have not filed any ODC complaint against you – and I hope I will not have to (I certainly could for the false oath to the Secretary of State). But you are prohibited from acting against me, and should it become necessary for me to do so, I will be forced to do so.
In spite of all of this, I want to make something perfectly clear: I still do not want money for the use of my mark. I only want name recognition for my contributions and the actual creation of the name, “[Y]”. This is all I ever wanted. It’s what I spent a year and a half working for. I cannot say the same any longer for the actual harm that has been inflicted upon me by [X] and Mr. Anderson since the trademark dispute arose, but I am – as I have always been – willing to treat the actual trademark dispute as a separate issue. You are the only thing stopping that.
This matter could draw out for years. I think it is pretty clear that Judge Lynch intends to obstruct anything I file in the U.S. District Court, and that he will force this issue into the court of appeals. And if my previous experience with that court is any indication, it will be at least two years stuck in that court before this issue would be sent back to the U.S. District Court for proper disposition. And in this time, the cloud hanging over the movie will only become thicker and more difficult to overcome. My point is, this could remain a contested issue for years – or we could work to actually resolve it equitably within a matter of days. But it is entirely up to you which path we take.
You could resolve this and remove any cloud hanging over the movie by sitting down and negotiating a written fair use agreement. We could work on settling the damage claim that [X] and Mr. Anderson are responsible for separately or at the same time, but the dispute over the mark does not need to remain. I have no desire to obstruct the movie – but I will not let my intellectual property be outright stolen, either. I am sure you would feel the same if someone took credit for any number of accomplishments you have made [in] your career.
I should point out that the longer this drags on, the more liberty [X] and Mr. Anderson are being given to cause me harm, and this will only increase the potential for liability – conceivably beyond the point where I can continue to hold to the desire to not seek money for the use of my mark. If, for instance, I find myself in jail because of some contrived issue created by [X] or Mr. Anderson, I would no longer be as amicable towards an easy resolution because I would no longer be able to work as an author. Or, looking at it from a different perspective, it is very likely there is going to come a time when my own reputation is so harmed – say from suddenly finding myself banned from Amazon like I was from Goodreads and Facebook because of [X]’s spurious complaints – that I will have no choice but to seek recompense for your continued duplicitous use of my mark, since my primary means of deriving a future as a self-published author will forever be gone. I have not reached that point yet, but there is no telling when I will be forced to consider that my own welfare has been placed too much at risk to not seek a fair compensation for my mark’s use. Therefore, settling this sooner rather than later is plainly in your best interest.
In summary, let me say I have never been opposed to a non-monetary settlement over the use of my mark – the claim that I am after money comes completely from [X], not me. In spite of your parroting [X], I have never sought money over the use of the name, “[Y]” – I just want due credit for my work. Real and irreversible damages have accrued since I issued the cease and desist notice which are not so easily set aside, but there is no reason why the mark itself need remain in contest. We could sit down and have the claim set aside completely and move forward cooperatively within days – or we could spend years battling over this in court.
I leave the matter in your hands. If you wish to contact me, I remain open to discussing this with you at any time. However, as I have said, I would recommend solving this before more harm can be done to me by [X] or Mr. Anderson.
Trademark Holder of “[Y]”